The world is ostensibly consequentialistic and moral concern ostensibly sentiocentric.
However, I stuggle to justify even *consequentialism* and *sentiocentrism* as the obvious properties of any proposed moral system - they both just seem so obvious that it could not be any other way, tho Im not sure that is an argument?!
Help please?!
(if you include very long posts, please give a tldr sketch of your thesis just to give a taste)

tl,dr: moral realism is false and all morality is arbitrary at some point, so stop worrying.