Your moral compass

[robvalue]

Morality is subjective. I'd say almost everyone has a compass, it's just some are unpopular/unusual.

People who don't have one at all would presumably be psycopaths, who don't consider any action to be bad or good, even subjectively. Their compass has no opinion, just "do whatever".

So basically psychopaths are the only people with correct views of morality? LOL

I actually believe that's true, that nothing is inherently right or wrong. But I think that I also have my own idea of what right and wrong is that I believe in and stand for. I do think that ultimately all morals are just subjective to whoever is coming up with them. Do you think something is right? What even measures that, and what is everyone's different type of measurement? It's arbitrary as fuck, which is why there's no actual morality.

I like Sam Harris's view though, that you can develop morality through science. I think he's right too, you can observe empirically what is best for others through science.

I'm saying there is no correct view. Psycopaths just have a different view. I suppose you could say it's the nearest to an objective view.

Of course, I have things I believe are right and wrong. Absolutely, and I will stand up for them. But I'd never presume to simple announced I am right. I will explain why I think my values are important. Either I convince people or I don't.

I don't agree with Sam at all. You can develop the best way to certain goals through science, yes. Of course you can. But "what's best for others" is still highly subjective. We need to quantify that before applying science, and who gets to do that? At best it's some sort of agreed middle ground. If it's just what Sam says it is, then that's as subjective as anything else. As times and cultures change, what is "best for people" changes too. Because objectively, there is no such thing. We must choose the metrics first. Excluding anything we don't like is just the No True Scotsman. I see Sam doing nothing more than inserting pre-packaged philosophy and value judgements. Science can't tell us what is best for us, it only provides data. There is no objective way of measuring how far away we are from the "worst possible case for everyone" or whatever he calls it. He's not talking about morality. He's talking about developing methodically along certain presupposed metrics. The morality stage he has entirely missed out.

Of course we can decide between us what is a good idea, and work towards it. Morality is far more complex than this. Morality is only really tested when there is a conflict between outcomes, and limited resources. And at this point, value judgements come into play. Always. The discussion never seems to get this far, it's always dealing with extremely obvious things like "living longer is probbaly better" and "not shooting each other is good".

I'm not having a go at you here, just discussing ideas As one major objection to trying to "sciencify" morality, how do animals factor in? How important is their wellbeing, and indeed their lives, compared to ours? Again, there's no correct answer.