Long post is long!!
That is the thing. If there was an objective morality and I knew what that objective morality was then I could make reasoned arguments to show what is right and not right.
If others knew what the objective morality was then they would be able to set out those arguments.
But as I don't know any such arguments and have never heard any then, even if there was an objective morality then I don't know what it is and apparently neither does anyone else, so the only motivation for my actions is still that which I want.
And also, no-one has given me any reason to think that there should be any such thing as an objective morality, or what sort of thing it should be.
Yep.
Again when it comes down to "Well why care about suffering" I don't have an answer. I get this is a point of disagreement but I sort of feel that "suffering is bad and we shouldn't want it in ourself or others" is a reasonable place to just... start the discussion.
Sure. The problem of this thread in particular is that we started early with ‘let’s define what’s moral and make sure we can defend those definitions so we can all agree and move forward’ instead of ‘let’s define some axioms, chew over what works for us, and see what kind of functional framework of morality we can get going.’
For example, apparently it’s already well known that negative utilitarianism has serious drawbacks, since first of all you have to tape on the obvious corollaries, because the most surefire way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate the capacity for suffering. So an early step in the debate you want to have (as opposed to the one we’re having) would be to propose, then withdraw or elaborate on, ‘minimize suffering,’ and move on to ‘maximize well-being,’ and then start chewing on what well-being means.
We can't achieve moral answers while in the same breath denying the concept of moral answers exist.
Sure we can, if we don’t freak out over the idea that they’re provisional, as opposed to True.
A problem with ethical subjectivism (as it's being related in this thread) is that it requires us to say that if A held X at point t, A was correct to do so, and if A then held ~X at t+1, A was again correct to do so, despite the fact that one view is the negation of the other. This tends to make subjectivism difficult to distinguish from nihilism.
I think you’re injecting the ‘correct’ into that set of ideas there. Those were A’s old moral judgements, now he has new ones; A, today, thinks he was wrong when he considers his past position. He obviously did not consider it wrong back when he held it. The whole point of ethical subjectivism is that there isn’t any ‘correct’ to be, besides what we give it, and we give it such an astonishing breadth of things that absolute consensus is impossible.
Someone who answers "Why did Rome fall?" with "Because it existed. You see, it was necessary for Rome to exist before it could fall" is just full of ****. That's not what we're asking when we ask "Why did Rome fall?" We are looking for specific causes, not any old necessary condition.
Similarly, someone who answers "What is the basis with morality?" with "Empathy is the basis of morality. You see, without empathy, morality could not exist" is full of ****. When we ask for a basis for morality, we are not asking for any old necessary condition. We are specifically looking for a logical and philosophical foundation.
Really? For me empathy is a pretty serious underpinning of morality. I see morality as a combination/uneasy truce of ‘how are we going to get all these people to get along reasonably well? I want to live, eat and have stuff, and so do all these people and there are some conflicts of interest’ and ‘can we do that and also try to help and respect everybody? It makes me feel bad to think of people suffering, even if I’m ok.’
Morals are always a product of information and values. Science is a source of information and nothing more. I'm in favor of promoting science as it offers our best source of accurate information.
I think we SHOULD or OUGHT to value increasing overall well being and personal freedom. Well being doesn't mean necessarily a reduction in suffering or an increase in happiness and personal freedom doesn't mean you can do what you please. And there is no question at times these values can be conflicting. So it's not always easy to solve that dilemma.
But of course, this is a reflection of my values.
Morality must be a function of utility in order to be sustainable: high ideals don't last long against reality.
I like these thoughts.
In looking for some basic principles to aim for as a goal of morality, a few people here have skirted and I’d like to emphasize, in addition to the positive goals of health and whatever comprises well being: a chance at self-determination, opportunity, mobility, if it is wanted.
In morality 101 what do they say? A moral society is what? One that rewards effort fairly? One that treats its members equitably? One that provides welfare for the needy? One that provides its members some kind of buffer from the effects of crime, war, natural disaster? One that protects its common resources from exploitation? One that protects its members from exploitation?
