On Moral Authorities

[Ignorant]

No point, that's not the foundation of my moral system.  Whats expressed above would be hedonism in one form or another.  The pursuit of pleasure.

If you equate happiness with pleasure, then you'd be right. In other words, if the ______________ was "pursuing and obtaining as much pleasure as possible", then it would be hedonism. Does happiness mere pleasure? I don't think so. Clearly, you don't think a life seeking nothing but pleasure is the happiest of human lives. The point is that how you understand human happiness and how to bring it about determines also what you think is moral.

I think that once we appeal to individual judgment as a moral authority we have ceased to refer to moral authority in a meaningful sense, maybe in a practical sense...as in, as close to a moral authority as anything gets.  In this, again, we see the notion that power, the ability to exert moral judgement on others, makes one a moral authority which could only -be- true in the more meaningful sense of a moral authority if might made right....which isn't something I'd agree with in any case.  

I couldn't agree more. Would you agree that, if there is no such thing as an "object" (in the subjective vs. objective sense) we could reliably call "human nature", then there is no rational means for human to approach a judgment about the morality of a human being?

Though I have to say...that on the balance of what we see in the world with all these competing moral systems, I'd say that all of the above looks to be the case, at least as practically employed by human beings and insomuch as we have a lessened bar for moral authority expressed therein.  In short....whats expressed above seems to -be- how we "do morality" - but I'd chalk that up to us being less-than-rational creatures who consistently fail even by their own moral standards to adhere to moral standards, lol.

Well I'd mostly agree with that. I painted with a very big brush. Most competing moral systems fundamentally disagree in their philosophical anthropology (i.e. in their definition of humanity/human happiness), and therefore understandably in their moral norms and values. With a very broad brush, there are two camps: nominalist/voluntarist/Nietzsche, and realist/aristotelian/natural-law. 

Either:

Human nature itself is the ultimate object about which subjects make moral judgments. 
Subjects, consciously or not, evaluate human action based on their own answers to the questions: "what is human nature/In what consists a well-lived human life?" and "which actions will bring about the best individuation of a well-lived human life in my own personal context?"

or 

There is no human nature and no object about which subjects make moral judgments 
Subjects, consciously or not, evaluate human action based on their answers to the questions: "who/what must I obey?" and "what must I do/what does my authority tell me to do?"

The second one seems like a boring and frustrating way to live, but that is just me.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant: [1] You've just stated the goals of morality as you see them. [2] If I disagree about what the goals should be, then what?

1) I don't remember doing so. Can you point me to where you're reading that? I seem to remember intentionally leaving the "goals" part blank (________________)!

2) Then we can have a conversation about it! Hopefully, due to our both being human, we could have some common ground regarding the "object" in question, as well as common experiences of that object (the object being life lived as a human).

[added later in an edit] In order to disagree about what the goals "should be", you must first have an idea of where you are trying to "end up" through your actions. If you have that idea, then you have an idea of what human nature/human happiness is. Clearly, seeing as few people on earth (if any) seem to know exactly what that is, know how to bring it about well, and possess the power to bring it about, then you or I can be flat wrong about the goals, how to achieve them, or what we are in the first place. Talking with people who disagree can aid in painting a clearer picture.

For one thing, it doesn't even mention other animals at all. According to that, [3] I can do anything I like to them as long as it doesn't upset humans without being "immoral".

3) How does that follow from my words: The happiest of human lives consists in ___________ ? I mean... it's not even a complete thought! =)

[edit] Just so you know, my "blank" would include information on the relationship between a human life and the rest of nature. In other words, there are many things you could do to animals that, even if not "upsetting" to humans, will ultimately fail to bring about human happiness, and will often bring about sadder versions of it instead. I'm more interested in whether or not there are things we can put in the blank that would apply to every human being, because that would be a good start for an objective and reasonable moral "authority".

[The Grand Nudger]

If you equate happiness with pleasure, then you'd be right. In other words, if the ______________ was "pursuing and obtaining as much pleasure as possible", then it would be hedonism. Does happiness mere pleasure? I don't think so.

5
Oh boy, a semantic objection.  If happiness isn't pleasure, and pleasure isn't happiness..then I don't know what is...but I don't base my morality on either, so it's irrelevent to me either way.

I couldn't agree more. Would you agree that, if there is no such thing as an "object" (in the subjective vs. objective sense) we could reliably call "human nature", then there is no rational means for human to approach a judgment about the morality of a human being?

Nope.  

Either:

Human nature itself is the ultimate object about which subjects make moral judgments. 
Subjects, consciously or not, evaluate human action based on their own answers to the questions: "what is human nature/In what consists a well-lived human life?" and "which actions will bring about the best individuation of a well-lived human life in my own personal context?"

I don't approach moral questions in the context of the question asked above, even when I do refer to "human nature". 

or 

There is no human nature and no object about which subjects make moral judgments 
Subjects, consciously or not, evaluate human action based on their answers to the questions: "who/what must I obey?" and "what must I do/what does my authority tell me to do?"
The second one seems like a boring and frustrating way to live, but that is just me.

I don't approach moral questions in the context of the question asked above, even when I -don't- refer to "human nature"

Help and harm, that's the entire system, for me (and I might even be inclined to shave it down to just harm).  I'm not, even in that, trying to be "the most helpful" and I don;t insist that anyone "must obey".  There's no statement for me along the lines of "the most helpful life is the most well lived life" or anything that even remotely approaches it.  I don;t, in my opinion...leave room for people who disagree, but if pressed, academically, and someone disagrees about help and harm,...say they disagree about the nature of either or the nature of human beings, I let them have it.  If they think that some "x" is helpful that I think is harmful...they should do it, we'll see who eds up getting hit over he head with a brick after it's done, lol.

Since neither your either -or- your or seem to apply to me, that suggests that there are other ways to address these things. While I appreciate such classifications as braod strokes we've seen, for example by reference to Kant, that one mans tleology is another man deontology...and whatever permutation there may exist in between our outside or either relegates any insistence that they be one or the other, imo, to the dustbin of the history of moral philosophy. It;s eaither that, or we're making subtle frame shifts in reference without acknowledging or realizing that we've done so....and subsequently saying very foolish things, lol.

[Ignorant]

Helpful/harmful in what sense? Help achieve/bring-about what?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I said in my last post, we could disagree as to what constituted help and harm all day long, the nature of those two things.   Irrelevant to me.  If our notions are in agreement, good.  If they aren't, oh well.

They seem...to me, to be fairly self explanatory. Importantly, with regard to the foundation you offered...it's trivially easy to show that you can do something that helps someone...that doesn't necessarrily make them happy or lead to the happiest human life. Meanwhile, you can harm someone in ways that just might lead to the happiest human life. That;s why we have a fundamenal disconnect, you and I...though I imagine we'd come to the same conclusions about some of the same things. Hell, probably even -most- of the same conclusions about -most- of the same things.

If you were really fuzzy about why harm is my negative metric, ask yourself why it's wrong to rape.
If you were really fuzzy about why I use help as my positive metric, ask yourself why it's good to save a life.

[Ignorant]

If happiness isn't pleasure, and pleasure isn't happiness..then I don't know what is... [1] but I don't base my morality on either, so it's irrelevent to me either way. [2]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to convince you, but just for the sake of clarity: Happiness often and mostly includes pleasure, but happiness cannot be reduced to MERE pleasure. That is the exact error upon which hedonism rests and fails. E.g. Heroin causes temporary pleasure, but a life spent in pursuit and use of heroin seldom causes "happiness".

[Ignorant]

As I said in my last post, we could disagree as to what constituted help and harm all day long, the nature of those two things. [1]  Irrelevant to me.  If our notions are in agreement, good.  If they aren't, oh well. [2]

They seem...to me, to be fairly self explanatory. [3]

1) Yes, but the point in asking you what they mean is to investigate if you mean the same thing by those words as my own language intends. If you mean "helpful" in bringing about human happiness, then you really fall in the realist/aristotelian category while using your own vocabulary (which is fine). In other words, you may be excluding yourself incorrectly. And, after all, I did admit to painting with a very broad brush.

2) Right, and I am pretty sure we are in agreement, so no need to attempt to distinguish yourself as existing in a third category.

3) HA! I wonder why YOU would find your OWN language SELF-explanatory? =) Talk with enough people and you will find that people often use similar words with subtle, important, and non-obvious nuances.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) Yes, but the point in asking you what they mean is to investigate if you mean the same thing by those words as my own language intends. If you mean "helpful" in bringing about human happiness, then you really fall in the realist/aristotelian category while using your own vocabulary (which is fine). In other words, you may be excluding yourself incorrectly. And, after all, I did admit to painting with a very broad brush.

Obviously not what I mean.  You can help someone, and it won;t necessarily lead "the happiest human life", you can harm someone...and it might.  As broad as your brush is, it missed me completely.

2) Right, and I am pretty sure we are in agreement, so no need to attempt to distinguish yourself as existing in a third category.

We're not.  

3) HA! I wonder why YOU would find your OWN language SELF-explanatory? =) Talk with enough people and you will find that people often use similar words with subtle, important, and non-obvious nuances.

I think that they;re self explanatory because they;re painfully simple terms that very few human beings fail to understand and I don;t mean anything subtle or tricky about them whatsoever.  

Sigh.  I'll say to you what I've said to other posters. If this, simplest of moral systems, leaves you confounded in any way as to what I or they mean.....if you don't know why it's wrong to harm someone, or why it's good to help someone, you do not possess moral agency, and therefore having a conversation regarding morality, with you, would be pointless.

[Ignorant]

Obviously not what I mean.   You can help someone, and it won;t necessarily lead "the happiest human life", you can harm someone...and it might. [1] As broad as your brush is, it missed me completely. [2]

1) I haven't disputed that. My questions are much more basic, and you might be misinterpreting my responses. You wrote:

If this, simplest of moral systems, leaves you confounded in any way as to what I or they mean

"if you don't know why it's wrong to harm someone, or why it's good to help someone, you do not possess moral agency"

I am not confounded. Quite the contrary. I'm just trying to tease out more implications and implicit meaning.

It is precisely this "why" that I am saying we agree on. Moral agency depends on this "why". Why help and why avoid harm? I'm not asking because I doubt you have an answer. I am asking because I know you have an answer (every human does) and I want to know how you would phrase your own answer. think your answer would help illustrate that we don't actually disagree on some fundamental things. 

Why is it good to help and bad to harm? I am saying that however you choose to answer, you will mean the same thing I mean when I might say, "because that is what it means to live well" or "because in living like that consists a happier living".

2) I think you may just like to be missed. Perhaps you don't like being categorized? You seem to oppose most of the things I post on these forums, so maybe we are just the complete opposite person.

[Ignorant]

I think that they;re self explanatory because they;re painfully simple terms that very few human beings fail to understand and I don;t mean anything subtle or tricky about them whatsoever.

 
Yes, they are painfully simple terms. I know you don't mean anything subtle or tricky about them. However, as communicated, you are asking your reader to fill in some blanks about what you mean by them. In everyday conversation, that is fine, especially among people you know. In the world of philosophical discussion on the internet with perfect strangers, those locunae of meaning can be filled in any number of ways by your reader.

For example, if I wrote to you merely saying, "Please help me", and you were willing to do so, how would you help? Wouldn't you need to know some more information about the sort of help I need?