@ Rob
Well not everyone has to agree how something is defined.
If some nutjobs wanted to define "health" as something that had nothing to do with health, that wouldn't change the study of what is medically healthy and unhealthy.
I'm saying that once morality and ethics is at the very least defined as being about the suffering and well being of conscious creatures, then some things are objectively more and less immoral based on that. At least in principle this could be studied just like health can.
To paraphrase Harris "If words like "good" and "bad" mean anything they mean at the very least staying away from the worst possible misery for everyone. If you think "good" and "bad" don't have anything to do with that, then I don't know what you're talking about."
So basically Harris doesn't need to prove that what is good and bad has anything to do the suffering and well being of conscious creatures, he is assuming that as his starting point. That doesn't make it any more epistemically subjective than it does to assume the definition of health as our starting point. In principle there are right and wrong answers to what is healthy and what is unhealthy based on the definition, and if morality and ethics get defined to be about the well being and suffering of conscious creatures, then there are right and wrong answers to what is good and bad based on that definition.
Theists who then defined morality as being "It's about what God wants even if everyone suffers horribly and there is a massive decrease in well being for everyone permanently. Morality is about what God wants even if it leads us to the worst possible misery for everyone."
That would be the equivalent of saying "God doesn't have to be moral" and to define that as "moral" would be the equivalent of saying:
"Health is about what God wants even if everyone has a horrible disease and doesn't ever take any medication when they need it. Even if everyone becomes extremely ill and there is a massive decrease in wellness for everyone permanently. Health is about what God wants even if it seems to lead us to the worst possible healthiness for everyone: If God gets what he wants, our health is good."
The way I see it, any time anyone ever talks about something being "good" or "bad" it's about what people value and when it's about what people value it's relevant to their well being and suffering. Any time something is considered horrible or awful it involves suffering and people who say "Goodness is whatever God says it is" are basically redefining what "good" and "bad" mean.
Well not everyone has to agree how something is defined.
If some nutjobs wanted to define "health" as something that had nothing to do with health, that wouldn't change the study of what is medically healthy and unhealthy.
I'm saying that once morality and ethics is at the very least defined as being about the suffering and well being of conscious creatures, then some things are objectively more and less immoral based on that. At least in principle this could be studied just like health can.
To paraphrase Harris "If words like "good" and "bad" mean anything they mean at the very least staying away from the worst possible misery for everyone. If you think "good" and "bad" don't have anything to do with that, then I don't know what you're talking about."
So basically Harris doesn't need to prove that what is good and bad has anything to do the suffering and well being of conscious creatures, he is assuming that as his starting point. That doesn't make it any more epistemically subjective than it does to assume the definition of health as our starting point. In principle there are right and wrong answers to what is healthy and what is unhealthy based on the definition, and if morality and ethics get defined to be about the well being and suffering of conscious creatures, then there are right and wrong answers to what is good and bad based on that definition.
Theists who then defined morality as being "It's about what God wants even if everyone suffers horribly and there is a massive decrease in well being for everyone permanently. Morality is about what God wants even if it leads us to the worst possible misery for everyone."
That would be the equivalent of saying "God doesn't have to be moral" and to define that as "moral" would be the equivalent of saying:
"Health is about what God wants even if everyone has a horrible disease and doesn't ever take any medication when they need it. Even if everyone becomes extremely ill and there is a massive decrease in wellness for everyone permanently. Health is about what God wants even if it seems to lead us to the worst possible healthiness for everyone: If God gets what he wants, our health is good."
The way I see it, any time anyone ever talks about something being "good" or "bad" it's about what people value and when it's about what people value it's relevant to their well being and suffering. Any time something is considered horrible or awful it involves suffering and people who say "Goodness is whatever God says it is" are basically redefining what "good" and "bad" mean.
