What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, still not there, still bitching about me.  Try again.

[Angrboda]

Hahaha. Apparently you've gotten so used to having your head up your ass that you've mistaken that for the natural position. Still you, Bud.

[The Grand Nudger]

If and when you can accurately express what moral theorists are referring to when they discuss mind independence, and thus objectivity..then we can continue this conversation as though this whoel sad affair never happened.  You can bank on that, but it depends on you. I simply can't poceed in that discussion with you, productively, because moral theorists...and I..are simply not talking about whatever it is that you're talking about.

Follow?

[bennyboy]

As has been said of Harris, you think that you've solved the perennial problem of objectively grounding morals when instead you've simply done philosophy badly

I haven't watched Harris in a while, but I don't think he's actually arguing that morality is intrinsically objective. I think he's saying that we could choose, if we like, to base morality in an objective metric, like hedonic state, and that this would be much better than the false dilemma: believe that God dictates moral truths, or watch the entire world burn in anarchy while everyone just does whatever they want.

I could be wrong, though. I haven't read his books or anything.

[Angrboda]

Not my responsibility. Look, we could resolve this simply. Present your argument as to harm being mind independent again so that you can demonstrate your point. The problem there is that I will simply again point out the errors you made the first time you made the argument. That won't advance the ball. I'm perfectly happy if you choose not to advance the ball this way, because then I win. Anything other than you putting forward a valid, assertive defense and you lose. But knowing you, I rather suspect that you won't do this. So I win by default.

(I will also point out that my inability to read your mind and demonstrate what you think moral theorists are talking about is irrelevant. I don't need to know what they are talking about or what they have said, as I know what you have talked about and what you have asserted, and harm isn't mind independent based on what you've asserted. So my not being able to intuit what you think moral theorists are talking about is nothing more than a red herring. And now you're reduced to making elementary logical errors instead of defending the things you've claimed.)

[The Grand Nudger]

I haven't watched Harris in a while, but I don't think he's actually arguing that morality is intrinsically objective.  I think he's saying that we could choose, if we like, to base morality in an objective metric, like hedonic state, and that this would be much better than the false dilemma: believe that God dictates moral truths, or watch the entire world burn in anarchy while everyone just does whatever they want.

I could be wrong, though.  I haven't read his books or anything.

He definitely tries, regardless of whether he fails, to ground that choice in some meaningful objectivity.  He does it quickly and breathlessly, as he does many other things....so it's easy to miss.

[Angrboda]

As has been said of Harris, you think that you've solved the perennial problem of objectively grounding morals when instead you've simply done philosophy badly

I haven't watched Harris in a while, but I don't think he's actually arguing that morality is intrinsically objective.  I think he's saying that we could choose, if we like, to base morality in an objective metric, like hedonic state, and that this would be much better than the false dilemma: believe that God dictates moral truths, or watch the entire world burn in anarchy while everyone just does whatever they want.

I could be wrong, though.  I haven't read his books or anything.

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris published in 2010. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Wikipedia || The Moral Landscape

[The Grand Nudger]

Not my responsibility.  Look, we could resolve this simply.  Present your argument as to harm being mind independent again so that you can demonstrate your point. 

-asked, answered..and simply asked again. You can disagree all you like, and I respect that, but to assert that the question has not been answered is petulant and useless. Just say that you find it unsatisfying...because thats the truth of the thing, even if you find that truth insulting.

Bother me..when you show that you have the slightest clue...wtf you're talking about.

[bennyboy]

With regard to defining harm:

Sure, you can find objective examples of "harm," once it's defined.  Very few people would argue that breaking a leg isn't harm to a human being.  And if you choose to define harm as bad, you can say that breaking someone's leg is bad.

But the original conception itself is that there's a right state for a leg to be in, and a wrong state, with being broken in two pieces definitely a wrong state.  Even then, there could be some space giant species abducting people and putting them in pots, and breaking legs is an objectively better way of getting them to cook properly. They may not see any real harm at all, since we are a lower species.

But back to vegetarianism.  You'd likely fight to the death to protect a human baby from being killed with a bolt gun to the head.  You'd almost certainly not do the same for a calf.  I'd argue that's because babies make you feel "squeeeeee" and veal makes you feel "yummmmm."  Or perhaps you just look around and see that one of those harms is frowned upon, and one of them not so much.

Unless the sense that morality is objective actually informs our decisions about how to behave, then not only would I (as I have so far) judge whether that view is correct in any way, but even if correct, I'd ask whether there's any value to holding that view.

It seems to me that I can make up whatever ideas about right/wrong I want, in response to my own feelings. I then have enter into a process of negotiation with my peers-- to find out which ideas they'll get behind, which ideas they want ME to get behind, and to discuss methods by which we can cause others to fall in line.

Now, social morality can be called objective, in the sense that consequences for behaviors are enforced in a way mostly beyond my control. I might not think that jerking off on a bus harms anyone ("Hey, I'm doing it into a bag. It's cool!"), and that therefore it's okay to do. But I'm going to be immediately in a losing negotiation-- several police who are unwilling to engage philosophically with me.

But even then, I'd say that ultimately, all those moral ideas came from the way archetypal Man, if not all individuals, feels about things.

[Angrboda]

Not my responsibility.  Look, we could resolve this simply.  Present your argument as to harm being mind independent again so that you can demonstrate your point. 

-asked, answered..and simply asked again.  You can disagree all you like, and I respect that, but to assert that the question has not been answered is petulant and useless.  

Bother me..when you show that you have the slightest clue...wtf you're talking about.

Hahahaha. Called it. The problem is not that it has been asked and answered, but that the answer was then answered and no further followup was made. That's a you problem.

Get back to me when you actually have a point to make instead of simply putting your fingers in your ears and going, "La la la la I can't hear you."