(August 17, 2019 at 1:52 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(August 17, 2019 at 7:11 am)Acrobat Wrote: No. I don't agree.
So you think wellbeing is not a moral objective. Oh fucking boy.
Explain why wellbeing is not a moral objective.
You asked me if well-being is a reasonable basis to base morality on, not whether wellbeing is a moral objective.
So based on the original question, let take the example of gave of Japan.
It would be beneficial to the wellbeing of Japanese society, if their younger generation got married and produced more children. The situation currently shows a growing trend that’s causing a significance demise of their society as a whole.
Yet, I don’t see the idea of forgoing marriage and children as immoral, do you? Is it immoral for Japanese young people to be okay with the predicated decline of their society as a whole, as a result of low birth rates? I don’t think so.
I also fail to see any reason to label what’s beneficial or not beneficial to wellbeing with moral components, not to mention the term is a bit hazy.
Has Christianity been beneficial to the wellbeing of society, has western societies been better off with it, than if they continued n their pagan tradition? I think so, does that mean Christianity is or at least was morally good?
How about slavery, if slavery benefited us more than cost our societies in the long term with several hundred years of free labor, does this mean it was a morally good thing?
In addition in the real world morality works a lot more different, than any sort of rational system you devise for it. In fact our proactive moral behavior, has no real connection with any sort of moral rationalization.
