General Discussions > Religion / Philosophy Talk

Determining What's Moral

(1/9) > >>

SVoid:
So, here's what I'm thinking:

1. Morality is about the well-being/mental state of conscious creatures
2. Science can show the link between actions and well-being
3. This information (is) can show how we should behave (ought)

Proviso to #2: Sometimes we may not be able to figure this out, meaning there may be two or three possible alternatives that are scientifically indistinguishably.

Proviso to #3: There may be several possible ways to organize things that lead to equivalent human flourishing. Off the top of my head, there may be a way to have a perfectly happy society with firearms everywhere, but also a perfectly happy society with no firearms at all. (Or, maybe I'm wrong about both!)

Does this sound reasonable?

Edit 1:
Someone said that I can't prove objectively, factually that morality is concern for conscious creatures. However, that is historically how the word is actually used. Every moral code has tried to reach the state of human flourishing.

It was also claimed that if there is a moral disagreement you can't say they are factually wrong. But I argue you can. If you study the effects you can determine if you society is encouraging human flourishing or not. I.e., preventing people who want to learn and can learn from learning leads to stagnation at best. Take power away from people leads to depression and a devaluation of their current life. I believe that tyranny is wrong. Someone might say that tyranny is good but we have actual facts we can look at.

Anyone who claims that something is moral is making the statement that it leads to human flourishing. Just as anyone who claims that something is nutritious is making the statement that it leads to better health.

Calinthalus:
This is much like The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.  I suggest it, but there are many who disagree...most of them haven't read it.

SVoid:

--- Quote from: Calinthalus on May 16, 2012, 07:01:51 AM ---This is much like The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.  I suggest it, but there are many who disagree...most of them haven't read it.

--- End quote ---

Well, let us see what they have to say.

ting-bu-dong:

--- Quote from: SVoid on May 16, 2012, 07:10:39 AM ---Well, let us see what they have to say.

--- End quote ---

Massimo Pigliucci is a good place to start.

Basically, the issue is that (1.) is not true. Morality is about classifying behaviours as 'good' or 'bad'. I happen to agree that behaviours which lead to the wellbeing of people land in the 'good' bucket, but that's not a factual statement, it's a value judgment. Other moral systems value tradition, adherence to virtues or the benefit of the tribe, the religion, the nation or some other entity other than the individual. We may disagree with that, but that doesn't make other moral systems factually incorrect.

superdave:
My problem with Harris' arguments wasn't that they are wrong, it was that they had very little practical significance.  He admits that he can't give an example of a morally ambiguous situation that can be solved using his concepts.  And that is because once you move past trivial examples of things that are obviously immoral, determining the outcome that best encourages human flourishing, or even measuring human flourishing, becomes impossible.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page