Religion is a poor source of morality

[robvalue]

I do make things hard for myself! I get so passionate about subjects like this, that I have trouble shutting them out of my mind. Some evolutionary drive wants me to keep discussing things like this at extreme length! But then it affects my life in other ways, as I find it hard to concentrate on other things or to sleep. So I'll have to leave some thoughts here and come back to read replies since my previous post later. Am I a freak? I don't know. I suppose I see some subjects as so important that I get overcome and lose a sense of proportion, to some degree.

Anyhow! I'm going to have to disagree with Harris quite strongly, in lots of ways. I won't go into it all right now, but I'll just say the idea of a "landscape" of all possible worlds just doesn't work for me. Of course I agree that his "worst possible world" should be avoided, and we should "maximise wellbeing". But to try to reduce the wellbeing of a society to an overall numerical value so that you can objectively compare it to other societies is I think a gross oversimplification. Again, I'm talking about conflicts. This talk of "alternate peaks" is just not doing it for me, because it assumes a correct way to relatively evaluate different aspects of wellbeing. That is essentially playing god, and is my objection to objective morality in the first place.

Let me pose a simple example to try and make my point. Due to obsession issues, I'll be active on the forum probably but will leave it a few days before checking this thread again. So I'm not ignoring replies, I will get back to them in time Freak! I know.

Let's say surveys are taken in a society and everyone rates out of 100 how happy they are. For a society S, let M(S) be the average score recorded for the males, and F(S) be the average score recorded by the females. Assuming all other factors to be roughly equal, write in terms of M(A), M(B), F(A) and F(B) the conditions for which society B has an objectively better wellbeing than society A.

If morality is truly objective, then there must be a correct answer. What is it? It's safe to say that if M(B) > M(A) and F(B) > F(A) then society B has objectively better wellbeing, all other things being equal. But what happens in the grey areas where M(B) > M(A) but F(B) < F(A)? (Or the same deal with M and F reversed.) If the wellbeing of a society can be measured objectively to form a "landscape" then there must be mathematical conditions in this area which tell you when society B is "higher" than A on the landscape. In my opinion, if you write that condition and you claim it is objectively correct, you are playing god.

I don't argue that you could come up with a very rough formula that takes into account different aspects of wellbeing of a society. But this idea that science can tell you which is "better" when various factors are competing is I think totally wrong. It should always be a matter for discussion.

Am I the only one who sees a danger in an objective formula for wellbeing? Again, I'm talking about conflicts. If you can improve one area without detriment to others, that's just fine. Great! Go for it. But life is rarely that simple, and compromises are inevitable.