Morality quiz, and objective moralities

[Mudhammam]

An obvious question is which objective morality is best to maximise the well-being of people (and animals). Most people probably consider this to be a goal, if not the goal, of morality. However, for people who don't share this goal, or hold it secondary to other strange notions, such a criteria is not going to be agreed. Neither side can declare themselves to have "the best" morality when they haven't agreed what it even means to be the best.

Those who claim that morality is not essentially about the happiness or misery of creatures are not talking about morality, plain and simple. If someone tells me that being satisfied with one's past, present, or future is not a good everyone hopes for, or that the very idea of happiness is not demonstrably better in proportion to its opposite, they don't understand these terms, and they're likely just not being honest. If they agree that happiness is good, and that it is a good which all human beings naturally will and strive towards, but that possibly each person may disagree about what such a good means in practical affairs, then we have the foundation upon which to discuss objective morality, aside from which there are obvious conditions which are universally recognized as better than others.

Let's say we agree that the goal is just to maximise well-being. That raises the next problem: how do you measure well-being? There are a multitude of aspects, and everyone will have differing opinions as to how important they are relative to each other. They will also consider the importance of the wellbeing of non-human life as compared to humans differently. So unless some universal method of "measuring" wellbeing is agreed, you can't even begin to pick out a "best morality". You could certainly make a very strong case that some were now objectively better than others. That would be very simple, in cases where an obviously harmful principal is replaced by a less harmful or even helpful one. But for cases where the principals come into conflict, as is almost continually the case in real life, there is going to be a large element of subjectivity. Even if it was agreed by science/medicine that there was an objective way to measure well-being, that would still be a subjective choice from an infinite number of objective ways of measuring it. So now the "best" morality is just a function of the choice of measurement.

One can begin by differentiating qualities in the abstract that virtually everyone agrees upon, as the first principles are practically always perceived as more favorable to one side than the other (courage is better than cowardice, honesty is better than double-dealing, etc.) and then measure actual situations in terms of how they align to these universal ideals. Of course, it will be complicated, but the "choice of measurement" that is supported by a rationale analysis and that expresses moral sentiments which are actually, or inherently, better, will usually persuade those whose moral intuitions are informed by valid and sound argument. Even where there is room for reasonable people to disagree, the very expression of their disagreement will likely represent a more nuanced, and a more ethical position, than those who merely assent to the herd morality out of ignorance. This statement, of course, can only be made given the fact that it appears to everyone (as revealed by how each acts towards others) that an absolute standard does exist, whether they believe themselves to be its cause (which will quickly lead them to unsustainable contradictions) or not.

So to sum it all up: objective moralities are available, an infinite amount. We each select our own from the possible ones. We will all have our own reasons for this decision. Once basic goals have been agreed, some moral principals can be easily seen to be superior to others. But no morality can be declared "the best" without subjectively choosing an objective way to measure wellbeing (or whatever other goals morality may be seen to have); and as such is only conditionally the best. And even if we agreed on an objectively best set of principals, the way any individual person puts those into practice would be subjective, unless they were so detailed as to literally cover every possible situation ever. This is totally unrealistic, bordering on us being programmed like robots.

Every science, from physics to logic, involves "subjectively choosing an objective way to measure X." You make it needlessly complicated by pretending that the conditions for any possible objectivity in the domain of morality are somehow unique or different from those required in even having a discussion about morality, such as this. You and I have subjectively agreed that there are words which have certain meanings, and that these meanings represent states about a real, objective world - one that is only subjectively apprehended - and furthermore, that truth "exists" (floating around somewhere?) and that it is better than falsehood (better?). It makes no difference if we are talking about physical or mental states - people value such things as happiness, well-being, honesty, etc., just as much as they value their senses. You can prove this to them by asking them if they would permit you to chop their hand off, since a denial of these values would be basically nothing short of nihilism or complete apathy, in which case losing a hand can't really be seen as a big deal - plus, since it will become quite apparent to themselves that not being harmed by you does in fact matter to them, they will also quickly show you that they very much care whether or not your their not being harmed matters to you. And when you've demonstrated not only the need, but the reality of these assumptions by which everyone operates, you can proceed as normal.