Wow. I always thought of mathematics this way, but I didn't understand it. Just... Wow. I had no words to speak it. I remember my struggles with group theory, when I had all the proofs, but it didn't make sense for me. Or elegant proofs which doesn't explain anything at all.
It seems somehow to boil down to a question of "why". Something is moral if it answers the question "why is it true". But to answer a why-question we need to rely on a causal model, and every person have his/her own causal model, so an answer may be different for different people. Though it may be the same for the most of people, because they share the same causal model or the relevant part of it. So a moral mathematician needs to know the accepted causal model and to fit moral explanations into it.
The only question remain: what is a causal model of mathematics. I mean, if we find all possible causal models for mathematics, then how we describe the set containing them all and only them.
It seems somehow to boil down to a question of "why". Something is moral if it answers the question "why is it true". But to answer a why-question we need to rely on a causal model, and every person have his/her own causal model, so an answer may be different for different people. Though it may be the same for the most of people, because they share the same causal model or the relevant part of it. So a moral mathematician needs to know the accepted causal model and to fit moral explanations into it.
The only question remain: what is a causal model of mathematics. I mean, if we find all possible causal models for mathematics, then how we describe the set containing them all and only them.