Objective morality based in reality

[cholland]

I have an objective basis for my own morality. It's grounded in reality.

Honestly I don't have a topic for debate (maybe move to Random Ramblings). I just wanted to hear more explanation of what Autodidact means by these two statements.

[Goat]

I know an ipad would make me happy, but not truly happy.

And your belief that happiness comes from ipads turns out to be objectively mistaken. Science (and the wisdom of the ages) has learned this much.

Is it possible that your belief that happiness comes from X would turn out to be objectively mistaken?

Absolutely

On the other hand, my desire to see other people happy is purely selfish. If people are happy, then they are much much less likely to cause social disruption, which in turns lessons negative impact on my life. Someone who is well fed, and is content with their life won't be out there committing violent crimes, and upsetting my well oiled routine.

People who are poor (but ambitious), and are suffering that see people living in luxury and waste off of their pain and labor are much more likely to 'rise from the depths' against those in power.

If people are happy, then my happiness won't be interrupted by their discontent acting on me.

[Defender of Truth]

It is an objective fact that people prefer being happy to being unhappy.

Again, as Aristotle observed, happiness is the final goal, beyond which no inquiry is possible. If I ask you why you do something, and continue to ask, why, why, why for each response, eventually you will be forced to say, because you will be happier.

Let's say a Christian follows a certain morality because the Bible commands it. Why does she do what the Bible commands? Because God will reward her with eternity in heaven. Why does she prefer to go to heaven, rather than Hell? Because she will be happier there. Beyond that no further inquiry is possible. Why does she prefer to be happy? Because that's how people are

I think you are correct in saying that objectively pretty much all humans do what makes them happy. I mean, if it didn't ultimately result in them being pleased, satisfied, or "happy", then they wouldn't do it. Happiness or the belief that an action will make one happy or content is the motivator for most actions.

However, to make this the standard of morality is quite subjective I'm afraid. The first question that would need to be answered is "whose happiness?" Why should humans' happiness be valued over any other species' happiness? Is it because we are humans?

Additionally, within the human species, different people are pleased by different things. If killing you makes me happy, are you going to say that I can kill you? It makes me happy...

Abraham Lincoln said that when he does good, he feels good. Now, if he can "do good", that assumes there is a standard for that good. If not, the standard is simply what "feels good". We already established that people only do what "feels good" or makes them happy. This means that if the standard for "good" is what "feels good", and people only do what "feels good" (at least ultimately), then everything that is done is good. If that is the case, then why do we have laws prohibiting actions? If an action is done, it must be good, so why do we make it illegal?

[Autodidact]

I know an ipad would make me happy, but not truly happy.

And your belief that happiness comes from ipads turns out to be objectively mistaken. Science (and the wisdom of the ages) has learned this much.

Is it possible that your belief that happiness comes from X would turn out to be objectively mistaken?

Research seems to indicate that it is not. Have you read any of the recent research in the field of positive psychology?

[Autodidact]

I don't know that there really are people who prefer suffering to happiness. Have you ever met one? If you asked them why they like to suffer, wouldn't they answer because it makes them happy?

Actually i have never met one. In fact i think you are making a fine argument for at least one absolute truth. That being that all people prefer happiness to unhappiness. I agree that this truth cannot be established as fact without interviewing every single person, but I think a survey of one hundred people might prove the point.

If someone prefers to be miserable than happy, and prefers suffering to joy, they would not benefit from this empirical, scientific approach to morality. Or rather, I guess they'd learn to do the opposite: seek fame, status and wealth, don't take good care of personal relationships, do what society expects of them, not what they love, lie, treat other people badly, and care for no one but themselves. That should make them good and miserable.

You just described the human race. Maybe that would explain the drug epidemic.

Yes, many people, most people, actually, are misinformed and factually mistaken about what leads to happiness. As an example of a person who has figured it out, I submit the Dalai Lama, who tries to live his life based primarily on compassion for others, and who appears to be very happy.

[Autodidact]

I know an ipad would make me happy, but not truly happy.

And your belief that happiness comes from ipads turns out to be objectively mistaken. Science (and the wisdom of the ages) has learned this much.

Is it possible that your belief that happiness comes from X would turn out to be objectively mistaken?

Absolutely

On the other hand, my desire to see other people happy is purely selfish. If people are happy, then they are much much less likely to cause social disruption, which in turns lessons negative impact on my life. Someone who is well fed, and is content with their life won't be out there committing violent crimes, and upsetting my well oiled routine.

People who are poor (but ambitious), and are suffering that see people living in luxury and waste off of their pain and labor are much more likely to 'rise from the depths' against those in power.

If people are happy, then my happiness won't be interrupted by their discontent acting on me.

Furthermore, being kind to other people will make you happier. This has been demonstrated many times in various experiments, and you can easily test it yourself. Find a random act of kindness and do it as soon as possible. Your mood will elevate and remain elevated for around 24 hours. For example, if buying yourself a coffee, pay for the person behind you, anything like that. It works.

[Autodidact]

It is an objective fact that people prefer being happy to being unhappy.

Again, as Aristotle observed, happiness is the final goal, beyond which no inquiry is possible. If I ask you why you do something, and continue to ask, why, why, why for each response, eventually you will be forced to say, because you will be happier.

Let's say a Christian follows a certain morality because the Bible commands it. Why does she do what the Bible commands? Because God will reward her with eternity in heaven. Why does she prefer to go to heaven, rather than Hell? Because she will be happier there. Beyond that no further inquiry is possible. Why does she prefer to be happy? Because that's how people are

I think you are correct in saying that objectively pretty much all humans do what makes them happy.

Actually, they don't. They think they do, but they are mistaken about what will in fact make them happy.

I mean, if it didn't ultimately result in them being pleased, satisfied, or "happy", then they wouldn't do it. Happiness or the belief that an action will make one happy or content is the motivator for most actions.

However, to make this the standard of morality is quite subjective I'm afraid. The first question that would need to be answered is "whose happiness?" Why should humans' happiness be valued over any other species' happiness? Is it because we are humans?

Well, morality is something that humans do. I'm not concerned about dolphin morality.

Additionally, within the human species, different people are pleased by different things. If killing you makes me happy, are you going to say that I can kill you? It makes me happy...

It doesn't. That's my point. It's a simple point, and yet people have such a hard time grasping it. Assuming that you are not a psychopath, killing me will make you very, very unhappy. It will probably ruin your life, on both a practical and emotional level. Chances are that you will suffer direct negative consequences, and you will carry the burden of guilt and fear for the rest of your life. Why would you want to do that? Objectively, it is a fact that killing me will make you miserable. That is my point.

Abraham Lincoln said that when he does good, he feels good. Now, if he can "do good", that assumes there is a standard for that good. If not, the standard is simply what "feels good". We already established that people only do what "feels good" or makes them happy.

No, they don't. People make errors about this every day of their lives. They do things that they think will make them happy, but won't.

This means that if the standard for "good" is what "feels good", and people only do what "feels good" (at least ultimately), then everything that is done is good. If that is the case, then why do we have laws prohibiting actions? If an action is done, it must be good, so why do we make it illegal?

He didn't say when he does what feels good, he is happy. He said that when he does good he feels good. Doing what feels good will not, as a factual matter, make you happy beyond the next few minutes. Shooting up some heroin would feel lovely, I imagine. It would not tend to my greater happiness in the long run. However, inventing a cure for polio would. So would composing a beautiful song for my beloved, or saving a child's life. It's a question of acquiring wisdom. Wisdom leads to virtue, which is the science of happiness.

As I said, there are no shortcuts. Neither hedonism nor cruelty will make you happy. If you want to be happy, you should not build your life around either; they are false trails. Things that science has found contribute to lasting happiness are:

Good health.
Material security.
Autonomy.
Good intimate relationships.
Practicing compassion.
Creative, rewarding work.
A sense of purpose.

So, to be happy, live your life to maximize these themes. Killing people and shooting heroin don't work. Being a loving husband and father and serving a higher purpose do. That's reality--objective reality.

[Defender of Truth]

Assuming that you are not a psychopath

Hehe

killing me will make you very, very unhappy. It will probably ruin your life, on both a practical and emotional level. Chances are that you will suffer direct negative consequences, and you will carry the burden of guilt and fear for the rest of your life. Why would you want to do that? Objectively, it is a fact that killing me will make you miserable. That is my point.

Okay. The problem with your model is that it's circular. Morality is based on ultimate happiness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be claiming that killing you is wrong or at least not "good" because it doesn't result in long-term happiness. I will suffer from guilt, and will probably go to jail. Now, the reason that's circular is because of why I will be unhappy. I'll be miserable because I'll spend the rest of my life in a jail cell. Why? Because society will put me there. Why? Because I did something "wrong". Why was what I did "wrong"? Because it caused misery. Why did it cause misery (why will I be miserable)?" Because I'll spend the rest of my life in a jail cell. Why will I spend the rest of my life in jail cell? Because society will put me there. Why will society put me there?...

And so it continues. If you change one of those conditionals, a new consequent will come forth. For instance, let's suppose society doesn't put me in jail. Then I will not be unhappy, making it a morally acceptable act. For instance, in Germany they were not punished for killing Jews, in fact, they were rewarded! Does this make the killing of the Jews morally acceptable? (I do understand that ultimately they were defeated, but that again goes back to society making them unhappy).

You also mentioned that I will be miserable emotionally. This is also circular. The reason I'm emotionally miserable is because I feel guilty for what I did. This guilt is generated out of a sense or feeling that I committed a "wrong" action. However, the only reason the action is "wrong" is because I am miserable that I committed a wrong act! Why is it wrong? Because you're miserable. Why am I miserable? Because you feel guilty. Why do you feel guilty? Because you did something wrong. Why was what I did wrong? Because it made you miserable...

No, they don't. People make errors about this every day of their lives. They do things that they think will make them happy, but won't.

The fact that people make mistakes according to your model presents somewhat of a problem. Since no one can know for sure what action will ultimately provide him the most happiness (unless someone can know the future), his best guess is as good as any's. Since there is no objective way to determine one's future or ultimate happiness, people will have different ideas of what will bring them happiness. I may think that killing you will provide me happiness down the road. On what basis will you be able to object?

[Autodidact]

Assuming that you are not a psychopath

Hehe

killing me will make you very, very unhappy. It will probably ruin your life, on both a practical and emotional level. Chances are that you will suffer direct negative consequences, and you will carry the burden of guilt and fear for the rest of your life. Why would you want to do that? Objectively, it is a fact that killing me will make you miserable. That is my point.

Okay. The problem with your model is that it's circular. Morality is based on ultimate happiness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be claiming that killing you is wrong or at least not "good" because it doesn't result in long-term happiness. I will suffer from guilt, and will probably go to jail. Now, the reason that's circular is because of why I will be unhappy. I'll be miserable because I'll spend the rest of my life in a jail cell. Why? Because society will put me there. Why? Because I did something "wrong". Why was what I did "wrong"? Because it caused misery. Why did it cause misery (why will I be miserable)?" Because I'll spend the rest of my life in a jail cell. Why will I spend the rest of my life in jail cell? Because society will put me there. Why will society put me there?...

Not quite. Society decides what to punish, and a part of that is to control anti-social actions. It's not circular to say that if you inflict pain, society will make you miserable. The break to your circle comes after the "Why did it cause misery," above. It will cause misery because it will hurt the victim, their family and society.

And so it continues. If you change one of those conditionals, a new consequent will come forth. For instance, let's suppose society doesn't put me in jail. Then I will not be unhappy, making it a morally acceptable act. For instance, in Germany they were not punished for killing Jews, in fact, they were rewarded! Does this make the killing of the Jews morally acceptable? (I do understand that ultimately they were defeated, but that again goes back to society making them unhappy).

No, you're wrong. That's what I'm telling you. Whether you get caught or not, you will make yourself miserable for the rest of your life. And that is why, if you want to be happy, you should not do it. You will ruin your life even if you're not caught.

Who is happier, the nazi who works herding Jews to their deaths, or the rare civilian who saved a Jew's life?

You also mentioned that I will be miserable emotionally. This is also circular. The reason I'm emotionally miserable is because I feel guilty for what I did. This guilt is generated out of a sense or feeling that I committed a "wrong" action. However, the only reason the action is "wrong" is because I am miserable that I committed a wrong act! Why is it wrong? Because you're miserable. Why am I miserable? Because you feel guilty. Why do you feel guilty? Because you did something wrong. Why was what I did wrong? Because it made you miserable...

No, this is not correct. As social animals, we have evolved to be emotionally enmeshed with other humans. We cannot harm another person, or see another person harmed, without experiencing pain and sorrow; that is how we are made.

Imagine I hand you a tiny baby, and it's crying. That causes you distress. You want to help it. If you feed it and comfort it and it stops crying, you will be much, much happier. That's how people are. That is an objective fact about human beings.

Again, I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this simple, objective fact about human beings. It is our nature to care about other people, and to derive happiness from, among other things, caring for them.

No, they don't. People make errors about this every day of their lives. They do things that they think will make them happy, but won't.

The fact that people make mistakes according to your model presents somewhat of a problem. Since no one can know for sure what action will ultimately provide him the most happiness (unless someone can know the future), his best guess is as good as any's. Since there is no objective way to determine one's future or ultimate happiness, people will have different ideas of what will bring them happiness. I may think that killing you will provide me happiness down the road. On what basis will you be able to object?

We don't know anything "for sure." But we do know, both through science and the wisdom of the ages, to a reasonable degree of certainty--enough to base your life decisions on. It is not the case that one guess is as good as another. We know for an empirical fact that if you have a good meal, you will be happier for about an hour. If you do a good deed, you will be happy for about a day. We know for an empirical fact that people who live their lives dedicated to a higher purpose are happier than those who do not. If you think that killing me will provide you with happiness, you are simply factually, objectively, mistaken. It won't. We know that. It's an empirical fact.

Do you honestly think you would be happier if you killed me? Seriously?

Imagine someone you love very much. Now imagine doing something delightful that makes them happy. Do you think it would give you joy?

[Autodidact]

Or to put it differently, people who make mistakes are not going according to my model. They're going according to someone else's model.

People tend to twist my system into, "Do anything you want." That is emphatically NOT what I'm saying. Go back and read it. To distill it into a nutshell, it's this: If you want to be happy, do good. Nothing to do with doing whatever you want, is it?

[Defender of Truth]

You will ruin your life even if you're not caught.

Is this not because of two things: (1) Society will condemn you, and (2) you will condemn yourself (guilt)?

that is how we are made.

ID? (Jk)

As social animals, we have evolved to be emotionally enmeshed with other humans. We cannot harm another person, or see another person harmed, without experiencing pain and sorrow

And you think this is a just foundation for objective morality? On what basis should I obey my chemical inclinations?

It is our nature to care about other people, and to derive happiness from, among other things, caring for them

Why do we have a moral obligation to live in conformity with our nature?