We should take the Moral Highground

[mediamogul]

---

I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

---

---

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident.

---

After all who would want to be unhappy.

Some people desire strange things which fulfil psychological needs. Satisfaction can be derived from being upset, ignored, etc. Not that I'm suggesting these people are a majority or anything. But even if all people desire happiness that doesn't establish it as 'good' or 'right'. I disagree with Aristotle on that matter. Nothing is self-evident in my opinion. It's important to make as few assumptions as possible, but when they're made they should be acknowledged.

To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology.

Sentient beings are afforded rights by society. Rights disappear when there's no society to grant them or system to enforce them. That humans share a common sense of morality is not arbitrary, no. But assuming something is innate, and therefore good is arbitrary. Our sense of morality is "good" for survival. Phrases like "X is good" are meaningless to me, but phrases like "X is good for..." are useful. "Good" without context (such as "good for" or "good at") is a totally vacuous word. Still, I agree with the conclusion that we ought to give rights because I think they're good at increasing overall happiness.

Nature seems indifferent to suffering. The strong prey on the weak.

Nature isn't sentient so it is necessarily indifferent. You might say it's in nature's nature to be indifferent As for the strong preying on the weak (akin to the saying "survival of the fittest") that's not always the case. It's more accurate to say "the most well adapted survive". Throw a lion in the middle of an ocean and see how long it lasts.

I am not arguing for an "innate sense" of ethics but instead from the ideas of happiness and suffering, which are both self-evidence claims. Basing ethics on facets of human nature and reason are not arbitrary as they are precisely based upon the reason and human nature!

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective: 1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

As you can see this system of ethics is not simply arbitrary but in fact a direct refutation of the idea.

A person has a right to pursue something if it neither impinges upon the reasonable ability of another to pursue their own happiness or causes the unwarranted suffering of another sentient creature (a being that is capable of suffering). A person can pursue "weird" things, S+M for instance, provided it is a consensual act between those of sufficient agency to consent to such acts and provided they do not use others as a means to their own ends. This is rights theory in a nutshell.

The last objection I believe is the strongest. It is Hume's argument abou the "is" "ought" gap. Just because something IS the way it is doesn't mean it OUGHT to be that way.