qutona thanks for the patience Ill try to be succinct.
Thank you!
I see that you basically approach morality and ethics in the same way and don´t involve those double standards that I meant to ask about in this thread. So, as far as my question is concerned, you have answered it. Thank you.
On the other hand, while I appreciate the consistency in your model(s), I disagree with them altogether (which shouldn´t come as a surprise to you.
)
And since you have put so much effort in elaborating on them, I will respond even though my actual question is satisfactorily answered.
experiencing subjects are objctiely real. I think if you ask what is moral for them, then you have to understand their interests ascreatures which experience a valenced life and life-world.
Agreed. I´d also concede that (ideally) if we know the interest (and also know pretty much everything about the universe - which we don´t, but we can put that problem aside for purposes of this conversation) we can detemine the best way to pursue this interest.
First problem, however:
A person does not have only one interest, they have many different - and partly conflicting - ones, and they don´t have a clear priority chart
(40% X, 35% Y...). On top, there are a lot of parameters involved that escape quantification by their very nature.
Second problem:
Morality(as the term is commonly understood)is not only about judging which is the best way from interest to fulfilled interest. Au contraire, morality is rather concerned with judging which interests are justifiable and which are not. Thus - this again comparably banal - objectivity of "How to get best from A to B" is not really morality´s topic.
If you ask the question of a group then group interests will be calculted.
Ok.
But with this, the above mentioned problems even cumulate, and some additional ones arise. We have even more conflicting interests (not only those various ones within each person, but also those various ones that the group has, and also those interests that clash between individuals of the group. Seeing that each person can be considered member of countless groups, interests grow exponentially. Not to mention the moral question whether not individuals and groups should consider the interests of other individuals and groups they don´t belong to.
Thus, even when conceding that - in a hypothetical ideal case - the way from A to B (interest of an individual to its fulfilment; interest of a system to its fulfilment) can objectively be determined, we have neither even touched that what morality actually is concerned with (except maybe in radical hedonism) nor have we determined any means how an individual is to weigh the almost infinite amount of various interests within himself and outside himself.
Theres no "moral truth" in vaccuum, it exists in reationship to subjects. But that does not make things mere opinion, because interests (like nutritious food consumption) can be scientifically extablised to some degree, and are far from arbitrary as with any rule bound system. Isthat ok? Do youthink there are objective standards in nutritional science?
Yes, there are objective standards in nutrition for the way from A to B. But even when it comes to nutrition: How do we objectively determine A (justifiable vs. non-justifiable interests)? A person who wants to starve certainly needs a different diet than a person to whom eating is his first and foremost interest.
Plus: the problem with conflicting A´s within the person (conflicting in the way that they objectively suggest irreconcilable B´s) exists here also.
What, however, renders the comparison nutrition/morality apples and oranges altogether: Nutrition concerns only the respective person, while morality, as you yourself state above, is about relationships.
As for art I think that art is in the eye of the beholder, but A that is due to the objective wiring of the eye ad brain, and B it exists in relation to objective properties of the "aesthtic object". For example as a rule a vandalised Picasso will be involved in a diferent aeshetic experience than a unspoilt one.
If memory serves, you and I have discussed that already quite some time ago. If you don´t mind, I´ll let this one unaddressed for the time being.