If it's bad for society then it will inevitably cause people suffering.

(July 17, 2024 at 1:34 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: If it's bad for society then it will inevitably cause people suffering.

Everything causes people suffering. Even utilitarianism, which proposes ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, acknowledges that there will always be those who suffer.

But I do admire the neatness of your tautology.

Boru

In which case you just choose the option with the least suffering.

(July 17, 2024 at 1:34 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: If it's bad for society then it will inevitably cause people suffering.

It is bad for society if it happens too widely. That doesn’t mean it causes suffering in specific instances. Same as my views on voting - I don’t because I don’t know enough about the parties involved, I don’t want to try to learn because for me to feel like I know enough involves stupid amounts of reading. So I don’t vote but also recognise if everyone did that it would cause our modern societies major issues. That said, my single example of non-voting won’t influence other people to do the same, nor will it swing a vote. 
Same sort of thing when people say same sex sexual behaviour is sinful as if everyone did it then society wouldn’t exist. Other than the obvious rejoinders, my favourite is to say that “being a milkman must be immoral then, as if everyone were a milkman society would collapse”.

(July 17, 2024 at 1:41 pm)Lucian Wrote:

(July 17, 2024 at 1:34 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: If it's bad for society then it will inevitably cause people suffering.

It is bad for society if it happens too widely. That doesn’t mean it causes suffering in specific instances.

In which case, in specific instances it may not be entirely wrong.

(July 17, 2024 at 1:41 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: In which case you just choose the option with the least suffering.

How do you know what that option would be?

Boru

(July 17, 2024 at 1:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 17, 2024 at 1:41 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: In which case you just choose the option with the least suffering.

How do you know what that option would be?

Boru

That's the challenge. Figuring that out. Epistemology is hard.

(July 17, 2024 at 1:40 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 17, 2024 at 1:34 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: If it's bad for society then it will inevitably cause people suffering.

Everything causes people suffering. Even utilitarianism, which proposes ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, acknowledges that there will always be those who suffer.

But I do admire the neatness of your tautology.

Boru

Everything? If I don’t treat someone like a jerk but am polite and courteous towards them then I am avoiding immoral behaviour and acting in a positive moral manner. That doesn’t cause suffering? Sure, in some instances it may cause me to have to put up with things I don’t want to… but not always

(July 17, 2024 at 11:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That would be the absence of any moral system, not a simple moral system.

Is there anything simpler than nothing?

(July 17, 2024 at 12:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(July 17, 2024 at 11:45 am)Lucian Wrote: The problem here for both of us is that without reviewing the relevant studies across societies and seeing the proportion of people who see what as moral and immoral and why, we can’t really armchair theorise our way out of this I think. I guess that is a question though for you as I don’t know - have you read many studies on this. I haven’t, so am at a disadvantage here

Consider one of the most common and intuitive stories humans have told about normative content.  That we should not anger the gods or the spirit of the land or the king...or...honestly..whatever, because of what will or might happen if we do.  This invokes a specific or general harm in the explanation of a normative command.  Then we have the various carrot and stick deontologies which are all doubly harm-based..in that they invoke harm as both a consequence and a promise.  

I think we need to be super clear going forward that when I say I think it's safe to assume that a person talking about bad stuff is talking about harmful stuff I don't mean that I believe that there actually is any harm in a given x.  Just like I don't believe that there are any gods to do that purported harm.  Just that I recognize and acknowledge that people making such a claim are invoking harm. We don't have to agree that a harm is real or actual  and it doesn't require a treatise on morality as the individual sees it for a system to be recognizably harm based or harm interested in an accurate and descriptive sense.  

What you'll find in the literature is that there is broad intersubjectivity in moral content - harm is a part of that - but that even in harm interested or harm based systems the correlation between morality and harm is not universal.  It's more often conditional.  That there is space for a good bad guy, and a bad good guy.  For unintended consequences.  I think this reflects our experience in reality with morally motivated actions and actors - and..often enough, we find some proverb or utterance or whole ass narrative to that effect in the cultural products of societies across the globe.  In that sense, it's a negotiation with reality; between how we think things ought to be or ought to happen, and how they are or do. 

Returning to the beginning...I think it's intuitive for us to believe that doing the good thing will lead to beneficial results.  With religious ideologies doing the good thing -is- the beneficial result...explicitly.  Now...sam harris summed this up much better and more succinctly than I can or will..but, in short....  If we're not talking about harm, at all, when we talk about morality and bad things...I have no clue what we're talking about.

I think you're committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy. The fact that harm is often associated with immorality doesn't mean that harm is morality. The same with benefit. What is beneficial may or may not be good in a moral sense.