Have I solved moral philosophy?

[martins name]

Post-modern philosophy rightly points out that morals cannot be logically derived. From the ultimate perspective, happiness is not better that suffering and love is not better than hate. 
Yet we want to assert love.  I've never seen the two being reconciled, instead they are held as a paradox. 
I've figured out how to resolve the paradox and create a moral philosophy that can asset love while being logically consistent. 
This is done by driving ethics from will/inspiration instead of logic, by saying: yes, love is not in any objective way better than hate. But I'm going to alogicaly assert that I'm going to act from love because I'm inspired to do so.  

I think a lot of philosophers do this but don't articulate that they do it.

This makes it appearent to me that you can only convince people to change for the better by inspiring them rather than  appealing to logic.

Side note: you don't have to assert love,  you could just as well assert hate. But at the same time I'm inspired to do everything in my power to get you to assert love.

Is this as huge of a revelation as it seems to me? Has this already been discovered by someone else? Would love to hear from someone who is more  experienced with philosophy than me.  Would especially love to hear your take on this @Leo Gura

[JosephKnecht]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

This is done by driving ethics from will/inspiration instead of logic, by saying: yes, love is not in any objective way better than hate. But I'm going to alogicaly assert that I'm going to act from love because I'm inspired to do so.  

What would be the source of inspiration? 

All your philosophizing has to be eventually grounded in logic, otherwise, it sounds like madness. So maybe its time to let go of philosophy. 

[martins name]

@JosephKnecht inspiration just arises spontaneously. To understand what I'm saying you have to understand the post-modern assertion that morals can't be grounded in logic. See Leo's video on postmodernism for that.