(July 4, 2016 at 3:18 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:(July 3, 2016 at 7:58 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Morality seeks to define what is 'good' and 'bad'. You make moral judgments almost constantly. Kind of important for daily life. From Wikipedia:
I was pointing out that while you think your morality is objective, it is not."Maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures" is simply not sufficient to form a theory of ethical behavior. So if it is not sufficient to form a system of morality, what is it that you are basing your system on? Not science. What then?
Think about it. What is 'good' about good and 'bad' about bad?
In a universe devoid of life, populated only by rocks, would good and bad mean anything?
If morality is about behaviour, why does behaviour matter? Other than how it positively or negatively impacts on conscious creatures?
Sam Harris explains it very well, I'm paraphrasing: imagine a world in which every conscious creature, every human and animal, suffered as much as it can for as long as it can. This is by definition 'bad' - in fact, this is as bad as things can be. If you think there's a reality that is worse than this, then you haven't understood the definition.
So, if we start there, any universe, any choice, any reality with less suffering is by definition better. Once you take this basic premise, and assume that non-suffering is generally preferable to suffering, health is generally preferable to disease, life is generally preferable to death, you have the basis for a system of moral behaviour.
Evaluating the morality of any given action is now simply a question of evaluating its impact on ones self and others in terms of whether it creates suffering or promotes wellbeing. From there it's just a question of how to we make life better. Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using - it is the most realible method we have to make models of reality and figure out what is real and how the universe works.
But why base morality on the "well-being of conscious creatures"? First what is good/goodness; bad/evil? Harris is redefining the moral words good and evil in nonmoral terms as the well-being of conscious creatures. So when we ask "why is maximizing well-being good?" it is the same as asking "why is maximizing well-being maximizing well-being?". This is question begging and circular.
Second, can rapist, liars and thieves be just as happy as 'good' people? Since their greatest state of 'well-being' conflicts with someone else's all you have is a continuum of well-being and not true 'morals'. What about psychopathic people or even worse, a group of psychopaths? How do you define well-being within that group? Linking well-being with brain states does not get you to anything resembling objective morality.
Regarding your statement about evaluating morality: "Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using" is wrong on many levels. First, science can only tell us what is and not what ought to be. It can describe how we are but not offer an opinion as to what is wrong with how we are. It certainly cannot tell what we ought to do (moral obligations) and therefore obligatory actions for things like the well-being of conscious creatures.
Second, ought implies can. Do you believe as Harris does that free will is illusory? He rejects both the libertarian and compatibilistic view so we are left with hard-core determinism. If we don't really have choices, what does that say about a system of morality?
Third, aren't there other goals beside scientific well-being that would be of interest to us? Happiness, love, fulfillment, security, companionship, loyalty, creativity, etc.?
