(June 7, 2024 at 10:39 am)Lucian Wrote:

(June 7, 2024 at 10:19 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Cultures and social systems are subject to evolution in a sense. Not hereditary, but spectacularly bad ideas for ordering a society tend to get winnowed out. Unfortunately, we can always try new bad ideas or old ones we've forgotten the lessons from.

So do you see evolution of cultures and social systems as somehow discovering / making true moral progress towards an objective standard by which people ought to live, even if that is just at the societal level and not universally binding?

Yes I do. If you define evil as unnecessary suffering, there are definitely social systems that are objectively better at that than others. And though it may not seem like it from the news, we have measurably less violence and poverty per person on average than fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. However we must keep in mind too that as conditions change, what's best to reduce suffering can change too. For instance, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last fifty years, but we don't know yet if that's sustainable. Conceivably it could lead to more suffering in the future than there would otherwise have been.

If I keep feeding my kids I'm practically ensuring that they will one day get old and sick and die in pain. Clearly, the best thing to do is starve the little shits beforehand.



In seriousness, that's what people are referring to with the term exclusively sub optimal decision field. Where there is no clean choice, and all roads lead to some specific misery - and yet we will still..or even must still..make some choice between said options. I don't personally think it's a good example in reality...we're not living so well there isn't enough stuff to go around. That's just something people who have things say to keep us from taking them. More fundamentally, I don't think that I should avoid doing some good thing for the fear that something may someday go wrong somehow and turn that into an engine for bad stuff. That worry is evergreen. It's never not the case that future externalities can stymy the best intentions of lowly human worms in the present. Guy who invented dynamite thought it would be the end of war. Modern chemical weapons came out of a project to end hunger.

Moral objectivity doesn't have a problem with claims that turn out to be wrong. Claims like "this is gonna put an end to alot of suffering". In the context of moral objectivity, the fact that they turned out wrong doesn't even make them less objective - which is a thing to remember that I think would resolve alot of miscommunications. If the particular issue is based in facts of a matter, and the proposed resolution is likewise informed by facts of a matter, the failure of the course of action does not indicate a failure of the metaethical position. Generously, it means we didn't have command of every relevant fact - but we don't know what we don't know...so we can never know if we've reached content fact terminus. Or, supposing we did, it could indicate that that we were willing to do a bad thing for a good outcome and roll the dice, which shouldn't be mindblowing when we consider the full breadth of human motivations.

Well starving to death is pretty painful too, isn't it? And suffering isn't the only evil, I think.

Not for long..... Certainly works quicker than cancer.

We could use less strained examples. What do we do when we find ourselves stranded with only so much food. Eat it ourselves and fuck the kiddos? Give it to the young, knowing that means we'll die..and roll the dice on the issue of whether they, then...alone and without us, succeed? Or do we find a creative way to off ourselves in each others arms after throwing a big fucking party and using all our supplies?

In a perfect world we would pick none of the above, but we don't live in that world and neither do any of our moral systems. I think, as a moral objectivist...that the latter thing would be a tragedy...but I have no moral condemnation for it or people who choose to face their circumstances in such a way. In fact, I'd worry that my trying and failing at the other two prevented me from going that route if all roads lead to the grim reaper. Not that this would stop me from trying..and..probably..continuing to try long after I had internalized the fact that it was all hopeless.

(June 10, 2024 at 12:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not for long.....  Certainly works quicker than cancer.

We could use less strained examples.  What do we do when we find ourselves stranded with only so much food.  Eat it ourselves and fuck the kiddos?  Give it to the young, knowing that means we'll die..and roll the dice on the issue of whether they, then...alone and without us, succeed?  Or do we find a creative way to off ourselves in each others arms after throwing a big fucking party and using all our supplies?

In a perfect world we would pick none of the above, but we don't live in that world and neither do any of our moral systems.  I think, as a moral objectivist...that the latter thing would be a tragedy...but I have no moral condemnation for it or people who choose to face their circumstances in such a way.  In fact, I'd worry that my trying and failing at the other two prevented me from going that route if all roads lead to the grim reaper.  Not that this would stop me from trying..and..probably..continuing to try long after I had internalized the fact that it was all hopeless.

Well you sure know how to make a man depressed ;-)

(June 10, 2024 at 11:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 7, 2024 at 10:39 am)Lucian Wrote: So do you see evolution of cultures and social systems as somehow discovering / making true moral progress towards an objective standard by which people ought to live, even if that is just at the societal level and not universally binding?

Yes I do. If you define evil as unnecessary suffering, there are definitely social systems that are objectively better at that than others. And though it may not seem like it from the news, we have measurably less violence and poverty per person on average than fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. However we must keep in mind too that as conditions change, what's best to reduce suffering can change too. For instance, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last fifty years, but we don't know yet if that's sustainable. Conceivably it could lead to more suffering in the future than there would otherwise have been.

Would you base the objectivity of this view on it seeming that there are objective moral standards (like I think @The Grand Nudger does) that can be approached or departed from? Is reduction of harm in your view what constitutes goodness, or is goodness somehow a standard outside the reduction of harm but supervenes on it?

(June 11, 2024 at 7:44 am)Lucian Wrote:

(June 10, 2024 at 11:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes I do. If you define evil as unnecessary suffering, there are definitely social systems that are objectively better at that than others. And though it may not seem like it from the news, we have measurably less violence and poverty per person on average than fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. However we must keep in mind too that as conditions change, what's best to reduce suffering can change too. For instance, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last fifty years, but we don't know yet if that's sustainable. Conceivably it could lead to more suffering in the future than there would otherwise have been.

Would you base the objectivity of this view on it seeming that there are objective moral standards (like I think @The Grand Nudger does) that can be approached or departed from? Is reduction of harm in your view what constitutes goodness, or is goodness somehow a standard outside the reduction of harm but supervenes on it?

Reduction of harm is part of it, it's not the only good, just an easily identifiable one. For example, virtues in moderation are good. Honesty is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you'd tell the Nazis where your Jewish friends are hiding. Generosity is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you go broke.

I feel virtues have been identified and confirmed as such because they contribute to social cohesion and a satisfying life. They go beyond reduction of harm to promotion of well-being.

(June 11, 2024 at 12:24 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Reduction of harm is part of it, it's not the only good, just an easily identifiable one. For example, virtues in moderation are good. Honesty is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you'd tell the Nazis where your Jewish friends are hiding. Generosity is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you go broke.

I feel virtues have been identified and confirmed as such because they contribute to social cohesion and a satisfying life. They go beyond reduction of harm to promotion of well-being.

Any idea of scholars who represent the view you hold, or what name they would give it? Trying to expand my reading list

I suppose it would be virtue ethics. Here's the Wikipedia article, you can find original sources at the bottom of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

There's also this:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

(June 11, 2024 at 12:33 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I suppose it would be virtue ethics. Here's the Wikipedia article, you can find original sources at the bottom of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

There's also this:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Thanks, appreciated.