On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

So far, you've written just under 1500 words in response to my original question about what it is, exactly, you are aiming to help and avoid harming and in what sense that is meant. Several times, you have said it is very obvious, and that anyone who has moral agency knows the answer. Somehow, you have avoided providing that answer in the 1500 words you have written about your own morality. That is fascinating to me.

You don't aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of human happiness (as you use the terms). Fine. 

But you DO aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of something. 

"The happiest human life consists in __________________."

Your evaluation then your apparent revised version: "That is mere hedonism! You couldn't possibly mean anything else by 'happiness' than what I understand by the term!" The happiest human life Something about a moral life consists in providing help and avoiding harm. 

It's not my fault that hedonism is a dirty word to you.  If its the happy life that forms the basis of morality then you're describing some form of hedonism or another -no matter what you define as a happy life-, ask a hedonist, lol.  

Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is most associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE.) who taught that our life's goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

You say it is good to do helpful things, and bad to do harmful things. Yes, even a child can grasp that concept. But children would struggle to formulate a sentence about WHAT helpful things are good for and WHAT harmful things are bad for. What do helpful things help? What do harmful things harm? I am not asking so I can agree or disagree with whatever your answer might be. I am asking because the fact that you have an answer AT ALL to the question means that you fall into one of the two broad categories I described earlier. 

There is no "for" in my moral system.  Doing helpful things -is- good, harm -is- bad.  In my system, you don't do good for the sake of the happiest life, you do good....wait for it, because it is good.  Goodness for the sake of goodness.  Very straightforward.  

Either your answer has something to do with the 1) intrinsic value and reality of human life,

Nope, though I do think we have value and meaning, it may not be intrinsic, and I do not require it anyway.  Helping -is- good, even if we have no intrinsic value.  Harm -is- bad, even if we have no intrinsic value.  OFC it has to to with the reality of human life, all moral systems have to have something to do with the reality of human life, or they aren't moral systems.  

or 2) it has to do with obedience to some external and arbitrary authority.

Ah, but it is obedience, just not necessarily external and certainly not arbitrary.  

Before, you explicitly rejected the rational appeal of #2 above.

Because an external, arbitrary moral authority is less-than-compelling.  

I don't care what your answer turns out to be. The fact that you have an answer at all that is not categorized by #2 is enough for me. Getting you to actually formulate an answer could have easily shown that. 

If, however, helping is good and harming is bad "just because", then we can talk to each other as children. I'd prefer to talk to you as an adult.

I take these to be moral facts of the matter.  If you don't, it's easy to see why you're having trouble.  I simply have no interest in arguing with you that they -are- moral facts of the matter  

1) I am happy to accept simple disagreements where simple disagreements exist. I am happy to accept simple agreements where simple agreements exist. I'd prefer to accept ACTUAL disagreements and ACTUAL agreements.

You're clearly not, lol.

2) Neither am I interested in these things. The fact that you suppose that I am is evidence that there has been a gross misinterpretation.

....uh huh...

3) And I'm trying to make you aware that your "different framework" is a mere reformulation of already acknowledged frameworks.

What aren't you interested in, again?

4) That is often the case for me. I am sorry you have found this so miserable.

Then stop?

So, if you hold it to be true that decapitating someone is helpful and therefore good according to the reality of what a human is, then that means YOU have judged such an action as leading toward a happy life. You have made a subjective judgment about an objective reality. Subjective judgments can be wrong. Some judgments are closer to the objective reality than others (e.g. some "lists" of helps and harms will bring about better human lives than others, objectively. And I'm not interested in trying to determine which lists those are right now) 

I think there are any number of reasons why you (the royal you) could have made this bad judgment, but the things that will guide the conversation in discovering where you went wrong will revolve around the reality/intrinsic value of humanity (what is a human) and how actions actually bring about the best versions of that reality. These also happen to be the two things you are refusing to provide even a bare bones answer.

There you go, telling me it;s bad judgement.  Irrelevant.  In my system decapitating someone and parading their skull up and down th street can be a moral good.  If I''m wrong, if my subjective appraisal of the situation is a mistakje by your standard of the happiest life...then guess what - they clearly and obviously aren't the same thing and so we can just put that to bed and move forward, can't we?  The same goes for example two, where you -continue- to not be interested in arguing those things with me, while describing all of the ways that your petulant little bullshit argument has been pointless and remains pointless.

3) Actually, quite the opposite. I was trying to rescue "happy life" from the dumpster and return it to its fuller meaning, and you seem hell bent on keeping it where it is among the hedonist garbage. Clearly we're not at the place where we can do that.

Again, not my fault that hedonism is a dirty word, for you. It's not, to me. I think that, as far as it goes, it's a useful moral heuristic. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that you and I would arrive at the same moral conclusions regarding many of the same things. If maximizing happiness and "the happiest life" are not the same thing..then I don;t know what you could possibly be referring to. You may think that some list of things some other hedonist you talked to gave you doesn't adequately encapsulate "the happiest life"...but what you both agree on is the very point of hedonism...that maximizing happiness is what it means to be moral. That goodness comes from doing things that will maximize happiness, that will lead to "the happiest life". don't tell me you've been a fucking hedonist all this time and just didn't realize it, for reasons™?

Our respective moral systems are different., not only with respect to their foundation, but also with respect to at least -some- of the conclusions that arise from them. How much more different do you think they could be........is that not enough, to realize that they are different?