“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[Redac]

I already have.

No you haven't. I asked if morals are basically just personal opinion. You said yes. I asked my question, and you responded by asking what basis I have. That's not an answer.

Furthermore, you have the same basis for your morals.

Sweet assertion, my dude.

No, its not like grammar.

Gr8 rebuttal. I r8 it 8/8.

Well, you are wrong which you would understand if you knew more about the subject. People far smarter then you or I have written about moral philosophy for a very long time.

One poster has espoused something quite close to emotivism, so I'm not entirely off base in my questioning here.

Seriously, if all you're going to do is condescend and act like I'm a complete moron whose thoughts are 2dumb4u then I'll refrain from trying to engage with you any further on this subject. I certainly wouldn't want to offend the towering intellect that is VirOptimus with my small-brained inquiries.

 

[quatona]

Agreements on what, exactly?

Agreements on values, agreements on the way how to go about pursuing them. Agreements on how to deal with disagreements. You know, the complicated stuff that we deal with every day. The stuff that caused us to come up with morals and ethics.

Disagreeing with certain ideas or conclusions does not mean I don't understand them.

Yes, in your case it does, as demonstrated by the following fake quote with which you summarize the multiple efforts of a couple of people in answering your various questions, in explaining and expanding.
If that´s how you roll, talking with you isn´t worth my time.

Yeah, nothing says doing actual work like "it's all just, like, your opinion man."

I guess the discussion would be a different one, if you or someone else could actually produce such an "external, objective morality" and what it recommends. Then we could scrutinize it, check its relevance, check if it is helping human flourishing, well-being etc.
But all you do here is arguing for the need for such - which doesn´t help solving any problems.
In the meantime you will excuse us - we have to deal with the demonstrable, inconvenient reality of there being a whole lot of subjective opinions.

 

[VirOptimus]

No you haven't. I asked if morals are basically just personal opinion. You said yes. I asked my question, and you responded by asking what basis I have. That's not an answer.


Sweet assertion, my dude.



Gr8 rebuttal. I r8 it 8/8.



One poster has espoused something quite close to emotivism, so I'm not entirely off base in my questioning here.

Seriously, if all you're going to do is condescend and act like I'm a complete moron whose thoughts are 2dumb4u then I'll refrain from trying to engage with you any further on this subject. I certainly wouldn't want to offend the towering intellect that is VirOptimus with my small-brained inquiries.

Sorry I couldnt dumb it down more!

 

[gaara4158]

Did something cut off here? Best serves the purpose of... what?


All right, so you've stated here that moral obligation, the "ought" as it were, is based upon what best serves my own self-interest. But you've also stated here that my self-interest is separate from my own opinions on what that self-interest is. This makes sense in a way -- after all, if "my self-interest" is entirely dependent upon my own opinion of what that self-interest is, then I can literally never be wrong, and questions of morality become moot.

Of course, this conflicts with the quasi-emotivism you and others have been espousing, which states that declarations of right and wrong ultimately boil down to individual emotional responses to specific actions, which is purely subjective and pre-rational. One says that an act is "wrong" because it goes against one's own self-interest; the other says that "wrong" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't like this."

Appealing to self-interest also presents a number of odd moral questions. For example, self-sacrifice would be morally ambiguous at best and despicably immoral at worst.


This suggests that an act like theft (or something far worse) is only immoral insofar as it violates my own self-interest, and it only violates that self-interest insofar as I may face punitive action from those around me. The act itself would be utterly without moral character.


That's in part because you don't have any moral basis upon which to make those arguments.


This is not consistent with what you've been saying. Above you stated that obligation to act or not act came from what best served my own self-interest. Here it's about what's most conducive to human flourishing.


So "wrong" isn't what's against my own self-interest? Now it's what's conducive to human suffering? Why is suffering in itself an immoral thing?

There's a leap you're making here that my personal self-interest, and indeed the self-interest of every individual, is synonymous with "what's most conducive to human flourishing" but also varies from person to person so widely that "human flourishing" becomes essentially meaningless. This has not been established or justified at all.


True, but it's the motivator you're appealing to the most here. Even the self-interest bit above seems to suggest that some action would only be against my self-interest because it would bring about retribution from other people acting in their self-interest.


Perhaps not, but again, this is stating that something is wrong because it will bring about punitive action from other people. It doesn't really gel with wrongness being about how conducive to human suffering


No, certainly not an anarchist. I'm asking for a moral justification for it from your perspective, though.

You are confusing the questions “why be moral” and “what is moral.” Morality is based on human flourishing, and self-interest is a reason to be moral. When you ask for moral justification for a given action, I’ll tell you in terms of the consequences for society at large, which in turn affects you as you are a part of society. This is both a moral justification and a proper motivator. I don’t know what else you need.

 

[Redac]

Sorry I couldnt dumb it down more!

You didn't really try tbh my man.

 

[gaara4158]

Not quite. My qualm with emotivism is, as I stated, that it reduces all moral statements to pure emotion. It doesn't simply claim that emotion is involved; it claims that moral proclamations can be reduced to "yay" or "boo", and everything else after that is after-the-fact rationalization of what amounts to an emotional response. In other words, the moral claim "murder is wrong" = "I don't like murder" = "boo murder!" "Murder is wrong" isn't true or false, it's just the emotional reaction of the person making that statement.

One of the interesting consequences of this line of thinking is that acts in themselves would not have any kind of moral value. Killing someone is only "wrong" because most people personally don't care for it; the act itself if amoral would have to be seen as amoral.

And? It seems you’re concerned that without some objective standard for morality, there’s no way to properly encourage pro social behavior and discourage antisocial behavior. We’ve already covered that. “That’s wrong” is an emotional shorthand for saying “that’s not going to end well for you or society as a whole.” Where is the problem?

 

[Redac]

You are confusing the questions “why be moral” and “what is moral.”

Perhaps. I'm jumping back and forth a bit. I think these two things are related, but my initial question was about "what is moral" so I'll try to stick to that.

Morality is based on human flourishing, and self-interest is a reason to be moral. When you ask for moral justification for a given action, I’ll tell you in terms of the consequences for society at large, which in turn affects you as you are a part of society. This is both a moral justification and a proper motivator. I don’t know what else you need.

All right, let me try to lay out my thought process here, and you tell me where I've erred.

If what is moral is "that which is conducive to human flourishing" then that's fine. Self-interest as a motivator for such behavior is also reasonable enough; there are potential pitfalls, but then those exist with just about anything. That all seems fine.

My issue is that, unless there is some external standard of what constitutes "human flourishing," then you run into a problem. It doesn't have to be some "morality" that exists in the aether, but it would have to be something. Two people can agree on what the consequences of a given thing will be on the world, but if they disagree on whether those consequences are actually conducive to human flourishing, how could a third party determine which person is correct? If a person opines that "X is conducive to human flourishing" (or in other words, that person states that X is right), and a second says otherwise, you would need to be able to look at those two statements and assess that one of those two is incorrect in their position, would you not?

So if a third party looks at this disagreement, they might be able to look at the consequences of X to make that determination (which is what I believe you may be saying). They could look at X and reason that X is clearly not conducive to flourishing, and that therefore someone who says "X is right is incorrect" in saying so. That begs a different question, though: how do you know X is not conducive to human flourishing? The only way you could really do that is to have some definition or standard of what human flourishing is, so you could say that someone could be incorrect in their opinion of what is or isn't conducive to human flourishing.

That's what I mean when I talk about an external moral standard. I don't mean a rulebook floating around in the land of pure ideals.

If I'm misrepresenting you somewhere then tell me.

 

[gaara4158]

Perhaps. I'm jumping back and forth a bit. I think these two things are related, but my initial question was about "what is moral" so I'll try to stick to that.


All right, let me try to lay out my thought process here, and you tell me where I've erred.

If what is moral is "that which is conducive to human flourishing" then that's fine. Self-interest as a motivator for such behavior is also reasonable enough; there are potential pitfalls, but then those exist with just about anything. That all seems fine.

My issue is that, unless there is some external standard of what constitutes "human flourishing," then you run into a problem. It doesn't have to be some "morality" that exists in the aether, but it would have to be something. Two people can agree on what the consequences of a given thing will be on the world, but if they disagree on whether those consequences are actually conducive to human flourishing, how could a third party determine which person is correct? If a person opines that "X is conducive to human flourishing" (or in other words, that person states that X is right), and a second says otherwise, you would need to be able to look at those two statements and assess that one of those two is incorrect in their position, would you not?

So if a third party looks at this disagreement, they might be able to look at the consequences of X to make that determination (which is what I believe you may be saying). They could look at X and reason that X is clearly not conducive to flourishing, and that therefore someone who says "X is right is incorrect" in saying so. That begs a different question, though: how do you know X is not conducive to human flourishing? The only way you could really do that is to have some definition or standard of what human flourishing is, so you could say that someone could be incorrect in their opinion of what is or isn't conducive to human flourishing.

That's what I mean when I talk about an external moral standard. I don't mean a rulebook floating around in the land of pure ideals.

If I'm misrepresenting you somewhere then tell me.

I think you’ve summed up my position pretty well, so I appreciate that. As to your question, the closest thing we have to an external standard is whatever standard all parties involved in the conversation agree upon. I realize this won’t be satisfying to you as it lends itself to competing schools of thought, groupthink, shifting paradigms and unsolved moral dilemmas, but isn’t that the exact state of affairs we find ourselves in? If there does exist some external moral standard, it’s not doing anything for us.

 

[Abraxos]

Like I said, human flourishing is the goal of morality. People’s opinions differ in who is considered human and the degree to which the goal of flourishing is extended to other species. Everyone has their own opinion, and that’s just reality. There is no universally agreed-upon solution to these differences of opinion, and the nazis are a demonstration of this fact. You can’t simulatneously claim that we all hold to a universal standard of morality and also acknowledge that the Nazis held a very different standard that allowed them to commit what we recognize as atrocities but they viewed as a public service.

Not exactly. Hitler knew his hatred for Jews and wanting to get rid of them was evil. He could not get his SS to kill Jews without first dehumanising them. He called them "subhuman creatures" in order to get the SS to actually kill them, because it's such a strong sentiment that you "ought not kill innocent human beings," and that is where the differentiation from mere opinion departs from objective reality; meaning, no matter how much we may influence our opinions upon society, there has always been a standard or reference point by which we measure our moral progress by being better off or worse off in human flourishing - which in and of itself interestingly, is an inherent metric for objective morality.

It may seem to be contradictory to claim objective morality while also acknowledging that Nazi Germany held a different standard of morality, but that is only a difference in sociology and morality. Morality is basically "true, right, and wrong." Sociology is how we practice the interpretations of morality. People may change their moral practices but that doesn't necessarily mean right and wrong had ever changed.

I can explain why Hitler’s ideas were against human flourishing regardless of whom is considered human or sub-human, but I’d rather not as I bang my head against the wall whenever Godwin’s law is invoked. Can we talk about morality without bringing up the Nazis?

I prefer to reason without restrictions to where ever it may lead, and comparatively, examples from past historical events or figures are always good to illustrate that point on the subject of morality. My intent was not an attempt at reductio ad Hitlerum, but if Nazi Aryanism is an "overused" example, I'd be happy to apply any of the other infamous non-religious dictatorships of the recent past, and why this atheistic perspective of subjective and relative morals had historically always led to misery and suffering.

 

[gaara4158]

It may seem to be contradictory to claim objective morality while also acknowledging that Nazi Germany held a different standard of morality, but that is only a difference in sociology and morality. Morality is basically "true, right, and wrong." Sociology is how we practice the interpretations of morality. People may change their moral practices but that doesn't necessarily mean right and wrong had ever changed.

Then we’re talking about two different things when we talk about objective morality. There is a specific hypothetical, optimal sequence of events for humankind that would follow from everyone acting according to the highest moral principles at all times. In this sense, there is an objective “right” and “wrong” in terms of which actions are conducive to that trajectory and which are not. The problem is, “optimal human flourishing” isn’t something that can be objectively measured. It’s going to be a matter of opinion, no matter what. It could be your opinion, my opinion, or everyone’s opinion in agreement. That doesn’t make it objective. And because we cannot derive what an objectively optimal end-state for humanity would be, nor do we know which actions would necessarily lead to which end states, we cannot talk about morality as though we have objective standards. The best we can do is discuss which end states we mutually desire and which actions and principles we can uphold that would reasonably be expected to take us there. It’s what we’ve been doing ever since we learned to live in groups.

 

[Abraxos]

Then we’re talking about two different things when we talk about objective morality. There is a specific hypothetical, optimal sequence of events for humankind that would follow from everyone acting according to the highest moral principles at all times. In this sense, there is an objective “right” and “wrong” in terms of which actions are conducive to that trajectory and which are not. The problem is, “optimal human flourishing” isn’t something that can be objectively measured. It’s going to be a matter of opinion, no matter what. It could be your opinion, my opinion, or everyone’s opinion in agreement. That doesn’t make it objective. And because we cannot derive what an objectively optimal end-state for humanity would be, nor do we know which actions would necessarily lead to which end states, we cannot talk about morality as though we have objective standards. The best we can do is discuss which end states we mutually desire and which actions and principles we can uphold that would reasonably be expected to take us there. It’s what we’ve been doing ever since we learned to live in groups.

This hypothetical is inoperative. It's quite a broad comprehension to apply specificity of an optimal sequence of events for humankind; so of course there is no way to measure it's results. In an evolutionary sense on a small sample size society, who happen to select naturally through many trail and errors, this could be viable, yet, it doesn't really matter because we are back to talking about social constructs rather than objective reality.

There are some things that we could say are inherently objectively right for human flourishing - such as:
- Taking care of your babies
- nurturing your children,
- and protecting the weak (children, elders, women).

I would think these are generally objectively right (meaning we both know these are inherently right) in order for the fullest optimisation for human flourishing. Anything opposite to these three standard examples would be counterproductive for human flourishing. That wouldn't be mere opinion, but simple deductive logic.

 

[Holoman]

This hypothetical is inoperative. It's quite a broad comprehension to apply specificity of an optimal sequence of events for humankind; so of course there is no way to measure it's results. In an evolutionary sense on a small sample size society, who happen to select naturally through many trail and errors, this could be viable, yet, it doesn't really matter because we are back to talking about social constructs rather than objective reality.

There are some things that we could say are inherently objectively right for human flourishing - such as:
- Taking care of your babies
- nurturing your children,
- and protecting the weak (children, elders, women).

I would think these are generally objectively right (meaning we both know these are inherently right) in order for the fullest optimisation for human flourishing. Anything opposite to these three standard examples would be counterproductive for human flourishing. That wouldn't be mere opinion, but simple deductive logic.

It is not deductive logic at all. There is no logical reasoning that will get you from protecting the weak to maximising human flourishing, as "human flourishing" is completely immeasurable. Even if we granted that good was synonymous with "human flourishing," (which it isn't) then there is no room for intrinsic individual human rights in this system. The individual is sacrificed for the greater good. Moreover, if it could be shown that by for example killing everyone in the world with HIV, or some other disease, maximised human flourishing, not only would it be good to kill them, you would be morally obligated to do it. That is why utilitarianism, and its parent consequentialism, are quite widely recognised as abhorrent ethical theories.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So what's left? Gods plan?

 

[VirOptimus]

So what's left? Gods plan?

No, just us. Nothing more.

 

[gaara4158]

There are some things that we could say are inherently objectively right for human flourishing - such as:
- Taking care of your babies
- nurturing your children,
- and protecting the weak (children, elders, women).

I would think these are generally objectively right (meaning we both know these are inherently right) in order for the fullest optimisation for human flourishing. Anything opposite to these three standard examples would be counterproductive for human flourishing. That wouldn't be mere opinion, but simple deductive logic.

This is basically Sam Harris’s argument for an objective morality, and it’s useful for creating very defensible moral standards. I just hesitate to call it truly “objective” because while the core three examples you produced are undeniably required for human flourishing, it fails to clear up moral grey areas in the way you’d expect from an objective morality. That’s not to say we can’t make any moral proclamations if we can’t make *all* moral proclamations, but there are some aspects of how “human” and “flourishing” are defined that, being ultimately arbitrary, truly are just a matter of opinion.

If we did have perfect definitions for these words, I’d be more comfortable saying we have an objective moral standard. But we don’t, so we can’t. We just have to settle for basing our moral arguments on values we agree on but can’t call objective. That’s as good as it gets.

 

[Abraxos]

It is not deductive logic at all. There is no logical reasoning that will get you from protecting the weak to maximising human flourishing, as "human flourishing" is completely immeasurable. Even if we granted that good was synonymous with "human flourishing," (which it isn't) then there is no room for intrinsic individual human rights in this system. The individual is sacrificed for the greater good. Moreover, if it could be shown that by for example killing everyone in the world with HIV, or some other disease, maximised human flourishing, not only would it be good to kill them, you would be morally obligated to do it. That is why utilitarianism, and its parent consequentialism, are quite widely recognised as abhorrent ethical theories.

Utilitarianism and consequentialism are based on an authoritative principle on how to address a certain situation if it occurred. It's basically a theory on the survival of the majority's well-being, which uses "happiness" as it's well-being metric for human flourishing only because it's a universally accepted value. Under this view however, there is the treatment of others who in a sense become dehumanised for the sake of the majority who would benefit more.
When we add human to flourishing, by definition it applies to everyone, not to some or the most. It only becomes subjective when we begin to dehumanise others in some shape or form. Though your examples are established through the view of utilitarianism and consequentialism, they are ultimately determined through the lens of an authority dictating the fate of others - playing God so to speak.

I'm simply stating that "human flourishing" is a metric we know is objectively right, and I argue about the implications of it being mere opinion. There is a difference between knowing something to be right and carrying out actions to implement it on all humanity. Personally, only God can truly bring all to flourish as He said from the beginning and had promised at the restoration of all things.

 

[Abraxos]

This is basically Sam Harris’s argument for an objective morality, and it’s useful for creating very defensible moral standards. I just hesitate to call it truly “objective” because while the core three examples you produced are undeniably required for human flourishing, it fails to clear up moral grey areas in the way you’d expect from an objective morality. That’s not to say we can’t make any moral proclamations if we can’t make *all* moral proclamations, but there are some aspects of how “human” and “flourishing” are defined that, being ultimately arbitrary, truly are just a matter of opinion.

If we did have perfect definitions for these words, I’d be more comfortable saying we have an objective moral standard. But we don’t, so we can’t. We just have to settle for basing our moral arguments on values we agree on but can’t call objective. That’s as good as it gets.

I don't see any reason to hesitate on altrustic behaviour or to burden oneself with theoretical premises. As @Holoman pointed out with ultiltarianism, it's based on the view that people have no intrinsic value to begin with, and the only important thing to focus on is the greatest amount of "happiness" for the most people.
You want humanity to increase and reproduce and multiply, then it's logically reasonable that you would want to protect your children and to carry on your legacy by learning from your elders. Yet there is another much more important dynamic on why we display altruistic behaviour towards those that need protecting rather than looking at this logically.
Human flourishing is clear as the blue sky, it's objectively right. How we plan to make it happen while putting it into action, is perhaps impossible for mankind.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't see any reason to hesitate on altrustic behaviour or to burden oneself with theoretical premises. As @Holoman pointed out with ultiltarianism, it's based on the view that people have no intrinsic value to begin with, and the only important thing to focus on is the greatest amount of "happiness" for the most people.
You want humanity to increase and reproduce and multiply, then it's logically reasonable that you would want to protect your children and to carry on your legacy by learning from your elders. Yet there is another much more important dynamic on why we display altruistic behaviour towards those that need protecting rather than looking at this logically.
Human flourishing is clear as the blue sky, it's objectively right. How we plan to make it happen while putting it into action, is perhaps impossible for mankind.

Human flourishing is right by definition. Calling it objective is trivial. It seems intuitively obvious to you that human flourishing is right because that’s how the word is used. It has nothing to do with some external standard of right and wrong we’re somehow tapping into. As you said, how to achieve human flourishing is the problem, and if we don’t have objective guidelines for that, we don’t have objective morality. We have a goal of maximal flourishing and minimal suffering. Where any given action lands on the spectrum between the two is not knowable objectively. If it were, we’d have objective moral guidelines. But it’s not, so we don’t. And that’s okay.

 

[Abraxos]

Human flourishing is right by definition. Calling it objective is trivial. It seems intuitively obvious to you that human flourishing is right because that’s how the word is used. It has nothing to do with some external standard of right and wrong we’re somehow tapping into. As you said, how to achieve human flourishing is the problem, and if we don’t have objective guidelines for that, we don’t have objective morality. We have a goal of maximal flourishing and minimal suffering. Where any given action lands on the spectrum between the two is not knowable objectively. If it were, we’d have objective moral guidelines. But it’s not, so we don’t. And that’s okay.

The issue I'm having is that I do not see how "human flourishing" can be subjective, even by definition.

Take the Bible for example, you believe that the God of the Bible is evil (a common generality with self-proclaimed atheists) because God allowed rape and murder and slavery - yet you are importing a moral law to criticise what you feel the Bible says; and it is that same rationale where we recognise this reference point by which we differentiate between good and evil. We know rape and murder and slavery is evil, but in order to call them evil there must be a moral law by which these are held up to.

The claim is there is no objective morality, and if that were the case, then why is "human flourishing" right to begin with? If there is no objective morality, then why is rape evil? Or murder is evil? Or slavery is evil? They are mere opinions if there is no objective morality.

 

[quatona]

why is "human flourishing" right to begin with?

It´s not "right", it´s universally accepted among humans who think about human affairs - to the point of being axiomatic.

Just try to think of someone who is explicit about making "human misery" the purpose of their morality.

Even those theists whose morality isn´t utilitarian or humanistic implicitly appeal to the standard of "human flourishing" when they say things like "But without God (without objective morality) inflicting [insert calamity of choice (preferably a Godwin)] would be permissible." (as though preventing these calamities were the unquestionable purpose of morality).

IOW if your morality (be it subjective or allegedly objective or whatever) isn´t about human flourishing, nobody will care for it anyway.