If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[HappySkeptic]

Moral Objectivism has been dealt with by Sam Harris.  Here is a summary of his book "The Moral Landscape".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/


Sean Carroll does not agree with Sam:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo...landscape/

nor with Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God"

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo...l-realism/


My takeaway is that morality CAN be discussed in an objective way, but only when we have agreed on the criteria for determining morality. 

If it is just cultural norms, then the criteria are "what society likes".  That seems like a pretty bad way to determine morality.  Yes, crowd-sourcing morality may tend to reduce harm to the societal structure, and to some extent individuals, but it comes with a lot of arguably bad morals.

I see morality as coming in two parts:

1. Actions that maximize happiness and reduce pain of oneself and others.
   
2. A structure that allows society to function, so that the individuals are likely to engage in 1.
   

Unfortunately these two parts can be at odds.  Even 1. can be a problem if we try to answer questions about short-term pain for long-term gain, or conflicting happiness of different individuals, or rights vs. responsibilities.

I think that an "objectively" better morality emerges when we can, in hindsight realize that a morality framework does indeed lead to increased happiness and less pain.  Better moral systems are difficult to know in advance, but they can be judged on their effects. They can also be societal-dependent (I mean rules have to match the survival conditions of the times). That means that morality can be discussed objectively, but a morality isn't "for all time".