My view of flaws in common atheist/freethinker morality.

[Digitised]

And if they like that, then those emotions are clearly good. I just menitioned the emotions as examples. Most people enjoy a good laugh, that doesn't mean it's a good thing to tell a joke to someone who just had major surgery and will rip his stitches when he hears it. No action or emotion are objective, everyone experiences everything slightly different, but we do know that at some level consciousness exists, and that it can feel positives and negatives.

But the line of reasoning you claim to use for deciding moral actions has to now simaeltaneously accept that pain and pleasure are both good and evil.
This is where it collapses since it depends on pleasing the individual. It is incapable of working for groups, or societies where many different and contradicting requirements must be met.

All you're doing here is moving the goalpost. You want a basis to discuss morals from, I provided the basis I use.

I didnt move the goalpost, i just explained why it does not work.

Now you are arguing against a strawman, as I never said anything about the majority, or the group. I was merely providing a basis we can then use to discuss further what is morraly acceptable and what is not. I don't think it's morally acceptable for society to execute criminals against their wishes. And I never stated that improving pleasure and hapniess for all was a "goal". I was merely creating a basis for what can be defined as "good" and "bad" or "right" or "wrong". Stop putting words in my mouth.......

.....This has literarly NOTHING to do with my post.

It was just further discussion and elaboration, i wasnt arguing against you, sorry if you thought otherwise.

 

[obsidianavenger]

And in what way does that refute my assertion that there is no objective standard by which to gauge morality?

Obsidian you're not pointing out things that I haven't considered, in fact in a way you are pointing out the very premises upon which my argument is based.

The fact that people harm themselves and others, and derive enjoyment from doing so is proof that there is no universal commonality of response amongst human beings.
Those who enjoy causing pain often do think it's moral to do so, whereas most of us think that it's not.....there you go...morality established by majority consensus....QED


"To live we have to be free to exercise our power of thought and judgment..." This is another baseless assertion.
To live we need to breath, eat, drink, sleep, etc,.......thought and judgement are nice little luxuries, but they are far from essential.

As to the rest of that statement, again I'm confused as to how it relates to the issue at hand.
Human intellect is definitely one of the most powerful survival traits we have,...but it's only one of them,....without the opposable thumb human intellect would be robbed of nearly all it's practical applications.

Be that as it may, what does it have to do with morality?

Without wishing to be condescending, I think you may be mistaking your higher ideals for self evident truths.

ok. to live we need to breathe, sleep, metabolize. these are automatic physical functions. we need to eat and drink. how do we acquire food? by hunting it, finding it, or producing it. because we can't hunt based on strength or speed alone, we need to invent tools to help us hunt. because not all plants are good to eat we need to remember which are good to eat and which are not. this is a state of humans in nature, and requires use of the intellect... planting requires skill and foresight, which requires thinking as well.

in a modern society, we need our intellect even more. we must choose to work instead of do nothing; we must produce something of value to someone. whether it be growing our own food as in agricultural times, or serving as a middle man between a fast food chain and their customers, we must use our minds to perform actions that eventually allow us to acquire food and shelter and all our other physical needs.

i was not trying to imply that reason is sufficient for survival, only that it is necessary. not for ALL living things, but for human beings yes. one can choose not to think, or be deficient in one's thinking, but one cannot obtain food from nature without thinking.

we, being conscious, are able to choose our values. IF we choose to value things that lead to our PHYSICAL harm, then we are taking action towards our own destruction. and if we die, then our values are undermined, since dead things can't hold values. so by valuing X, which leads to my destruction, i destroy my ability to value X.


i have to go to work now, so i don't have time to expand it further but i will attempt to do so when i get home. do you at least see what i am getting at with the concept of self undermining values?

 

[Digitised]

@OP: have you taken an ethics course? Also you seem to be parroting David Hume (I think...).

No, but i have looked at ethics in regard to the 'is' 'ought' fallacy.
Im not trying to parrot, im just putting forward what i think is logical inconsistency.

As Nogre, myself, and many others (though not necessarily in this thread) have pointed out: you need axioms to be a functional human being. The reasoning you are using here of "assumption therefore wrong" means that your assumption that this reality exists is unjustified. It's the same line of reasoning that brought Descartes to his flawed "I think therefore I am". You *must* make assumptions, my two primary ones are that reality exists, and that some form of cause and effect exists at least some of the time and in some of the places. As such, I reject your "assumption therefore wrong" idea.

Well i explained that other cultures and societies had different moral systems.
So it is not an assumption to state that other systems worked with great success, despite the bloodshed and misery inherent in their culture.
We today will probably sicken future generations with our current behavior and backwardness.

This is one of the strongest reasons i have to ask why we hold our current system to be 'better', i am asking the standard by which this decision is being made.
It may also be so, that morality is nothing more than an opinion, this is something i wish people to consider and discuss.
I am not claiming to have the most consistent alternative and i am avoiding where possible simply dismissing arguments purely because of their roots in assumptions. It would be rather ignorant to do so, as i understand science and logic rests on many assumptions (such as inductive reasoning) which enable us to progress with ideas and investigations. However their does come a time when we maybe need to revise the foundations of what we accept, especially when contradictions are noticably problematic.

This is not a casual attempt to annoy people with unfalsifiable arguments.

That's what we do when we say subjective...

But yet we take the moral high ground over theists, despite admitting it is subjective at bes.I feel a bit awkward telling a theist he is evil, when i know my morality is internally contradictory. Im happy to call them illogical, as i stated because i can honestly state that.

I think you perceive some sort of crazy feral dogma of rabid atheists that simply does not exist.

lol, i think you need to read the post i responded too originally.

You just made a bunch of assumptions about the existence of reality, the validity of your experience, the validity of evidence and inductive reasoning, the validity of reason itself. Or in short, give me an objective non circular argument that logic *is* the best system we currently have, I guarantee you that any such argument will rest in logic, and therefore is circular and relies on many assumptions.

i agree in essence with what you say, and i dont deny that logic is based on some assumptions.
My argument however is not solely about assumptions, we had to make some to get anywhere at all.
How about now going back and seeing if we can improve those assumptions.

Mostly you seem to have problems with ]the regress problem

I understand that its possible to conclude im just trying to drive everyone mad, but i assure you that isnt my intention.

 

[Nogre]

How about now going back and seeing if we can improve those assumptions.

I attempted to do just that, or an example of that in my last post, but I'm still waiting for a reply.

 

[Digitised]

How about now going back and seeing if we can improve those assumptions.

I attempted to do just that, or an example of that in my last post, but I'm still waiting for a reply.

Sorry this thread has been very active, and its taking up a lot of my time.
I actually managed to miss that post, but i will have a look tomorrow and give you an answer.

Can i just iterate that im looking for discussion, not a fight.

 

[Nogre]

Can i just iterate that im looking for discussion, not a fight.

I'm not trying to give you a fight...just what you're saying needs to happen for a legitimate system of morality.

 

[5810Singer]

ok. to live we need to breathe, sleep, metabolize. these are automatic physical functions. we need to eat and drink. how do we acquire food? by hunting it, finding it, or producing it. because we can't hunt based on strength or speed alone, we need to invent tools to help us hunt. because not all plants are good to eat we need to remember which are good to eat and which are not. this is a state of humans in nature, and requires use of the intellect... planting requires skill and foresight, which requires thinking as well.

in a modern society, we need our intellect even more. we must choose to work instead of do nothing; we must produce something of value to someone. whether it be growing our own food as in agricultural times, or serving as a middle man between a fast food chain and their customers, we must use our minds to perform actions that eventually allow us to acquire food and shelter and all our other physical needs.

i was not trying to imply that reason is sufficient for survival, only that it is necessary. not for ALL living things, but for human beings yes. one can choose not to think, or be deficient in one's thinking, but one cannot obtain food from nature without thinking.

^^This is a long way off-topic so I'll restrict myself to:

Be that as it may, what does it have to do with morality?

we, being conscious, are able to choose our values. IF we choose to value things that lead to our PHYSICAL harm, then we are taking action towards our own destruction. and if we die, then our values are undermined, since dead things can't hold values. so by valuing X, which leads to my destruction, i destroy my ability to value X.

Oh yes, how silly of me not to have noticed that human beings never take self-destructive courses of action.
I'm going to say it again, what does your above statement have to do with objective morality?

I'll give you an example: to a Christian fundamentalist atheism is a self-destructive urge because it will lead to eternal damnation.
This is a perfect example of subjective morality. The fact that there are many fundies that share that view is proof that it is also a consensus view, therefore it is a perfect example of subjective morality established by group consensus.

And we don't share it do we? Nope. In fact in our view the lies they tell and the coercion they use are immoral, and although we've arrived at our conclusions independently they form a consensus. The fundies don't agree with us so our view is subjective in their eyes, just as theirs is in ours...in short we have a subjective morality established by group consensus.

i have to go to work now, so i don't have time to expand it further but i will attempt to do so when i get home. do you at least see what i am getting at with the concept of self undermining values?

I see that some values undermine human survival, but that has nothing to do with objective morality, and if you want an example of why the two aren't the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

They didn't just think they were moral, they thought they were blessed.
Their view was subjective morality established by group consensus.

 

[obsidianavenger]

obviously i have not been clear. let me start from the beginning. i swear, everything i have said is relevant.

a system of morality is a philosophical system seeking to describe the best way for human beings to live. in order for one way to be best there must be a standard by which goodness is determined. the claim that morality is subjective is a claim that there is no one standard that applies to everyone, and this is the contention with which i disagree. any system of morality that does not hold life as its standard, that does not hold life enhancing actions as the best actions, undermines itself.

imagine a moral system X with Y as its ultimate value and standard. while the right to life is important to this system, and according to the people who adhere to it should not be violated lightly, in the end upholding Y is more important than upholding the right to life. This means that any time Y and someone's right to life come into conflict, in order to be moral Y must be chosen. adherents to X would be forced to sacrifice their lives for Y in order to remain moral. but dead people have no morality, no values, no standard. adherence to the standard X, which seeks to show the best way to live, leads to death. so by not advocating life as its highest value, X automatically advocates death. the best way to live life is to die? incoherent....

to establish the right to life, one must only examine the nature of existence. i exist, i possess my life; to say i have a right to it is to say it would be wrong for anyone to take it. no one else can possess my life; by attempting to take it they destroy it. it is completely incoherent to say that someone else has a right to my life when it is impossible for them to possess it.

ok so... i am alive. remember, any system of morality must hold life as its standard and highest value, otherwise it becomes self-contradictory. what is required for me to preserve and enhance my life, to achieve my highest value? as you said, food, breathing sleep, etc. many of these are physiological occurrences that i have no direct control over, but food must be acquired. thats where my bit about reason comes in.

i need physical things to preserve my life and in order to get those things i need to use my judgment to determine the best course of action. from this follows property rights, and freedom of action.

for morality to be objective people do not need to know what is in their best interest in all cases. there is still a fact of the matter, in that some choices are better for you and some worse. in order to be moral in such a system one must in all cases act to further their lives to the best of their knowledge. though often people will be wrong due to lack of knowledge, they will not be immoral unless willfully acting against their self interest; iow, holding some other value to be greater than life or willfully avoiding knowledge one finds distasteful (a la fundies)

doesn't sound much like morality? before you misunderstand me, violating the rights of others is not ok. first, its not in your self interest, since it gives others the right of retaliatory force against you. second, its inconsistent to ascribe yourself rights that other people do not possess unless it can be demonstrated by a medical exam that those people are mentally deficient in some way (ie children ).

not based on consensus or caprice at all...

 

[borrofburi]

@OP: have you taken an ethics course? Also you seem to be parroting David Hume (I think...).

No, but i have looked at ethics in regard to the 'is' 'ought' fallacy.
Im not trying to parrot, im just putting forward what i think is logical inconsistency.

Then perhaps you should (if for no other reason than this seems to be what you're getting at: ethics are interesting, you want to talk about them, how about take a course on great thinkers who have done a lot of talking about them and learning from them?).

That's what we do when we say subjective...

But yet we take the moral high ground over theists, despite admitting it is subjective at bes.I feel a bit awkward telling a theist he is evil, when i know my morality is internally contradictory. Im happy to call them illogical, as i stated because i can honestly state that.

First, "we" don't take the moral high ground because "we" are a group of unaffiliated people who just happened to reach the same conclusion about one specific idea. Second, I never tell a theist he is evil, and probably never will (and definitely not for being a theist); I will tell a theist an action he did was immoral, in the same way I will tell a murderer that his murder was immoral, and consequently our society of like minded individuals will punish that murderer, if for no other reason than to protect ourselves from being killed by him.

And finally, you keep saying that my morality is internally contradictory, but provide no evidence. Mine is not, so far as I know, except insofar as it relies on a couple of assumptions. On the other hand, I am not certain I have a coherent moral framework at all, so perhaps "so far as I know" is not as meaningful as I'd like it to be.

i agree in essence with what you say, and i dont deny that logic is based on some assumptions.
My argument however is not solely about assumptions, we had to make some to get anywhere at all.
How about now going back and seeing if we can improve those assumptions.

Absolutely, I do it all the time, or at least, try to, whenever new evidence is presented.

Mostly you seem to have problems with ]the regress problem

I understand that its possible to conclude im just trying to drive everyone mad, but i assure you that isnt my intention.

Well mostly I think I do not understand you when you claim we have internal contradictions or are being illogical. I thought you meant it was purely because we were making assumptions, but it seems I may have been incorrect, which means my response is off the mark.

 

[Nogre]

not based on consensus or caprice at all...

To provide a bit of support to what you're saying, the assumption you begin with in the very beginning is that what we ought to do is preserve ourselves or that any method for deciding your actions that isn't self-perpetuating is inherently immoral.

What Digitised has been getting here at some level is that you can't bridge the fact-value gap. This is true. You can't take a fact and derrive a value without something else. However, this doesn't mean morality inherently can't be logical. It just means you have to start from something other than facts, and what you have to start with is an assumption that in some way answers "what ought we do?" since all morality is is an attempt to find the answer to this question.

He's right in that you're assuming that a moral system cannot destroy those who follow it, and he's also right that the fact that such a system will destroy itself doesn't prove that assumption true. It's a reason you could use to support why you accept that assumption, but not a proof. Any real starting point is going to be this way, and we just have to use logic to decide which one you personally think is closest to the truth, even if you can't prove such.

 

[obsidianavenger]

not based on consensus or caprice at all...

To provide a bit of support to what you're saying, the assumption you begin with in the very beginning is that what we ought to do is preserve ourselves or that any method for deciding your actions that isn't self-perpetuating is inherently immoral.

What Digitised has been getting here at some level is that you can't bridge the fact-value gap. This is true. You can't take a fact and derrive a value without something else. However, this doesn't mean morality inherently can't be logical. It just means you have to start from something other than facts, and what you have to start with is an assumption that in some way answers "what ought we do?" since all morality is is an attempt to find the answer to this question.

He's right in that you're assuming that a moral system cannot destroy those who follow it, and he's also right that the fact that such a system will destroy itself doesn't prove that assumption true. It's a reason you could use to support why you accept that assumption, but not a proof. Any real starting point is going to be this way, and we just have to use logic to decide which one you personally think is closest to the truth, even if you can't prove such.

i understand about the "fact value gap" and as much as i love david hume, i think its become more of a dogma than anything. remember, he also said we have no real basis for causality but that hasn't much stopped anyone from employing the concept with glee. the connection is induction.

you have a fact... and you have a human, which can be described by other facts. put these two together and you do have values. what does morality mean if not "the best way to live a life"? and how can the best way to live life cause one to choose one's premature death? it doesn't make much sense to me...

 

[Nogre]

you have a fact... and you have a human, which can be described by other facts. put these two together and you do have values. what does morality mean if not "the best way to live a life"? and how can the best way to live life cause one to choose one's premature death? it doesn't make much sense to me...

I didn't even know that was something David Hume's said, but it makes sense to me. You ask a question "what is the best way to live a life?" and the answer to that is certainly a moral code. What "best" means, however, is also something that's part of that question. But anyway, you then ask "how can the best way to live life cause one to choose one's premature death?" Well, if someone thinks the best way to live life is suicide, then obviously, they did answer it that way.

The point is that you're not starting with a fact. You're starting with the assumption that "a premature death is bad." Or possibly "life is good." The fact that something ends itself doesn't make it bad. It certainly makes it unsuccessful by evolution (if it's a living thing), but then you're assuming that whatever is successful under evolution is what we ought to do. "Is" is fundamentally different from "ought" and while they intertwine, one doesn't turn into another.

 

[obsidianavenger]

gah... the best way to live life is to not live life?

if you kill yourself you're not living life at all. put in something else for live.... the best way to fly a plane is to not fly a plane? the best way to cook a steak is to not cook it? other than silly idioms like "no news is good news" statements like that have no real meaning...

thats my issue with the idea. and once you're dead "good" has no meaning let alone "best" unless you believe in heaven. so in order for there to be morality there must be life... a morality geared towards anything else can't really be called that.....

 

[ImprobableJoe]

you have a fact... and you have a human, which can be described by other facts. put these two together and you do have values. what does morality mean if not "the best way to live a life"? and how can the best way to live life cause one to choose one's premature death? it doesn't make much sense to me...

I didn't even know that was something David Hume's said, but it makes sense to me. You ask a question "what is the best way to live a life?" and the answer to that is certainly a moral code. What "best" means, however, is also something that's part of that question. But anyway, you then ask "how can the best way to live life cause one to choose one's premature death?" Well, if someone thinks the best way to live life is suicide, then obviously, they did answer it that way.

The point is that you're not starting with a fact. You're starting with the assumption that "a premature death is bad." Or possibly "life is good." The fact that something ends itself doesn't make it bad. It certainly makes it unsuccessful by evolution (if it's a living thing), but then you're assuming that whatever is successful under evolution is what we ought to do. "Is" is fundamentally different from "ought" and while they intertwine, one doesn't turn into another.

If you've already had a bunch of kids, it is an evolutionary success. Altruism also exists in other animals, which means it is something that is innate rather than purely learned... innate for most of us, at least. Some people don't have much of it.

 

[Nogre]

gah... the best way to live life is to not live life?

It would be if my sacrafice would save loved ones, or even the lives of strangers. That's my opinion at least. But I don't want to hijack this thread to argue about that. I was simply saying that you can't establish a foundation for morality; that foundation has to be some particular assumption which you then work from through logic. You can go back and logic about two competing assumptions or how an assumption might be bettered, but you can't logically establish one. What you're saying is still an assumption and to some extent, by saying "the best way to live life," you have an unfounded assumption that we should live life at all. Those are assumptions, and if you're happy with them and see no better, then there's no real logical inconsistancy.

 

[JacobEvans]

Joe, I think in this instance you're just being a twat!
What he said initially was in no way deserving of such excessive hostility.

 

[obsidianavenger]

gah... the best way to live life is to not live life?

It would be if my sacrafice would save loved ones, or even the lives of strangers. That's my opinion at least. But I don't want to hijack this thread to argue about that. I was simply saying that you can't establish a foundation for morality; that foundation has to be some particular assumption which you then work from through logic. You can go back and logic about two competing assumptions or how an assumption might be bettered, but you can't logically establish one. What you're saying is still an assumption and to some extent, by saying "the best way to live life," you have an unfounded assumption that we should live life at all. Those are assumptions, and if you're happy with them and see no better, then there's no real logical inconsistancy.

you're right. i was thinking about this on the way home. to even ask the question if there is a best way to live life is to assume there is, in fact, a best way, which isn't given.

i wonder if that makes it subjective though... given all the other assumptions we make to live life.. for example that our senses don't deceive us and there is no evil genius.

in the same way it is reasonable to dismiss those possibilities, is it reasonable to assume there is a *best* way to live? they seem qualitatively different and in even posing the best question you open a whole can of worms as to what best might mean...

as the assumption we can trust our senses arises from a complete lack of reasoning to believe otherwise... could the assumption there is a best way to live life arise from the fact that everyone strives after it? even if someone concludes... the best way to live life is to do whatever i want.... simply by living their lives they are indicating what they find to be best. it seems inherent in being alive that there are things people think they should and shouldn't do, that some ways of living life are "better" than others. so can that be taken as a given? it seems so, but "everyone does it therefore...." is a shit argument. then again, can you be alive without desiring some things and being repulsed by others?

this is very rambly but half of me wants to say that "best" is inherent in "life". but then like you said, why not just reject life? but then if you do you have no need of morality... and morality is about how to live...

i need more time to think about this.

 

[5810Singer]

i need more time to think about this.

I say this without condescending or being sarcastic,......the above is a triumph for REASON.

If we had a props button you'd be gettin some.

 

[Digitised]

So what do you suggest we do with this knowledge? Sure, we're hipocrits. Sure, we're ultimately illogical (oh, and science is unscientific through this idea, too, by the way) in our logic-based ethics. In fact, the reason we value logic is the exactly same way: completely and totally baseless. So what if formulating a system of ethics is completely misguided?

Well science and logic have a specific goal.
Science is trying to explain reality, and logic is trying to establish truth.

Hence these fields both have goals which can potentially be achieved (yet i agree this is asymptotic in practical terms)
However ethics has no tangible goal, but what we choose.

You can use science and logic to dervive facts about the natural world, the fact that you utilize some assumptions in order to get there really doesnt ultimately detract from the conclusions. Since when you discover what is, and how it works you have a demonstrable or observable model which gives you a clear indication and maybe even practical benefit. This all means we can obtain a certainty about what we think we know.
Logical propositions can also be tested in models and demonstrated to be at least somewhat accurate, even in metaphysical realms such as mathematics, which complements our understanding of the physical universe.

However, ethics really seems to have no forseeable goal.
There is no current understandable, or testable, REALITY for ethics. You cannot say we are getting closer to the goal, because the goal is an assumption, which avoids falsification, through an intellectual ignorance, or assuming that we hold a moral high ground and to question certain values is absurd.
As i stated earlier, if we want to live peacefully then we can prescribe certain values which enhance peace. Whereas other societies have wanted to praise a god, or conquer entire continents. Each have met their goals in the most efficient manner by prescribing different moral codes suited to attaining assumed ideal conditions.

What do we do about it? That's my question. You've only further outlined the intellectual impact.

TALK! lol
sorry to be vague, but cant we just see what comes up when we put our minds together?

Okay, what criteria are you using for claiming that logic is the best system we have? It's the exactly same question your asking. If you dig deep enough, you find that you're landed with an assumption that can't be established, only justified with almost ad-hoc reasoning, begging the question, and so on. Ultimately, it rests with individuals to decide on these foundational assumptions. You have to take some kind of action, even if you choose inaction. So making an assumption somewhere is unavoidable and inevitable. You might as well just think about the different options and choose one as best you can.

As i explained, assumptions in some fields of study can lead to demonstrable benefits. I may be wrong, but how do we test the accuracy of our morals as well as those of other societies?

You're also assuming a lot about every possible secular morality to say that they're always going to be violating logic. Really, you can only say that about individual ideas, not about the whole of secular moral philosophy. Also, I would argue that seeking a better system rests on the assumption that there is a better system, and even more, a legitimate criteria for "better."

Apologies if that came out as a universal proposition. Of course i cannot know everyones system, but from what i see most moral systems in place are based on either the logic i outlined, or theocratic values (as well as hybridisation of these concepts)
And by better i mean logically consistent. Logic as i stated does allow us to test and measure. If a moral code violates the values it prescribes than it is likely to cause problems and i would 'assume' not be correct.

I'm not working from a fact; I'm working from an assumption.

Well you suggested utilitarianism, which is based on the fact that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Im not making an argument out of this, im just making my reasoning clear to you.

To begin with, I'm simply asking the question of "what ought i do?" Basically, I'm trying to find out, through logic, a prescriptive morality to base my actions on. So you could say I'm assuming I have to prescribe something, but I would say that it's impossible to get out of that since one must act or not act, and everyone will base that on something, so ultimately, this flaw is in every single kind of morality someone goes by.

Oh i agree we must make a choice, since even inaction is an action.

I then approach this, not from a matter of values or rights, as that assumes that these will form the basis for the prescriptive form of morality. Instead, I choose to make one assumption, and that is that when someone is completely alone and in an action vacuum, they ought to do whatever they want. Essentially, they ought to fulfill their own preferences. This is not a fact. This is an assumption. I'm assuming that in this hypothetical case, that the prescriptive morality is simply the fulfillment of personal preferences. I think it can be argued that in terms of simplicity, it's hard to beat this assumption in terms of occam's razor. If someone is in a vacuum, you have to assume some kind of source of pre-existing standards to work from. With preferences, the source already exists. In addition, I'm just happier with this than any other possible starting point I've thought of. I also think that noone could truly disagree with this as being true. Religious a priori rules? Well, in this hypothetical, there is no god. There is no society to derive rights or duties or anything else from. This is not a logical proof so much as a brief justification for this assumption.

Yes on your own you can do whatever you need, or choose with no consequence to others. The problem does not lie here...

From this assumption, it's a simple logical step to get to a preference-based utilitarianism. You simply have to recognize that the fulfillment of my preferences is in no way different than the fulfillment of your preferences.

What if i want your money, your house and your wife. And i have the physical power to take that, without you being able to stop me, and with no negative consequences from government, society or god?
If i had the power to kill you and bury you, without anyone caring or stopping me.
If i chose to obtain everything you strived for, would i be moral or immoral?

I have a need, and i fulfill it. And i am better for it.

The only difference is perspective, and I think it's not only logically sound, but logically necessary to disregard perspective in this case, as it only makes everything entirely subjective. The only way to be objective is to disregard the uniqueness of your preferences and realize that all preferences matter on an equal level. That isn't to say that every individual preference is equal, but that whether it's your preferences or others' preferences is completley irrelevent.

Well then i would have to feel sorry for the food i eat.
After all the thousands of chickens, fish, cows, and crustaceans i have consumed to keep myself alive, were considered acceptable.
Just because i prefer not to eat humans doesnt mean all life which feels pleasure and pain can be simply ignored.
We abuse that which is weaker than us so that we can flourish, much in the same way i proposed above.

Anyway, if you want to debate the actual substance of the argument, we should make a new thread.

I will do, it seems that people are finally grasping the concept. I wanted to make sure people saw the problems before i opened up a thread to discuss the technicalities.

 

[Nogre]

you're right. i was thinking about this on the way home. to even ask the question if there is a best way to live life is to assume there is, in fact, a best way, which isn't given.

I guess a better question is "how should we act?" We do have to act. I think that is something that we can all agree upon, as even inaction is still action. Even ending your ability to act is an action. So this is unavoidable. I use should instead of ought mostly because ought is grammatically obnoxious to use, but the point is still the same. We have to act, so how should we make this decision? Once again, there's sort of an assumption that there is any "should" about it. We could simply act. But at the point where we're aware of our actions and do choose how to act, I think that there is a "should" by necessity because we're forced to prescribe some action for ourselves... And even if you want to say that this is an assumption, I think it's as justified as the assumptions science is based in.

There is no current understandable, or testable, REALITY for ethics. You cannot say we are getting closer to the goal, because the goal is an assumption, which avoids falsification, through an intellectual ignorance, or assuming that we hold a moral high ground and to question certain values is absurd.

Well, I just made the analysis above. No, there isn't a pre-existing ethical code that we're striving for. Instead, we're defining it. But the fact that there is some answer we will achieve in answering this question and defining morality through logic doesn't really seem absurd to me. Nor does the fact that this being based in logic would be better than systems that were less consistent with logic.

As i explained, assumptions in some fields of study can lead to demonstrable benefits. I may be wrong, but how do we test the accuracy of our morals as well as those of other societies?

I would say that it's a matter of using logic. There's the assumption at the very beginning that can be questioned and discussed through logic, even if it's not a matter of logical proofs. Everything after that is a matter of logic in terms of prescribing values, rules, etc. From there, actual actions would be based on science (moving from ethics into metaphysics), so that we know that our actions are actually complying with the the ethical values we prescribe. How we test the accuracy comes down to analysing the logical proofs after the assumption, as well as the discussion of the assumption itself, and is just like any other discussion through logic.

And by better i mean logically consistent. Logic as i stated does allow us to test and measure. If a moral code violates the values it prescribes than it is likely to cause problems and i would 'assume' not be correct.

So, essentially, we already agree on the criteria for "correct" morals: that which is most consistant with logic. And I would agree that a huge number of secular moralities fall into the trap you explain in that they don't recognize lay the right kind of foundation to really work in terms of logic.

Well you suggested utilitarianism, which is based on the fact that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Im not making an argument out of this, im just making my reasoning clear to you.

Well, you're rejecting one possible reason for Bentham's version of utilitarianism, but that does little to disprove any idea that falls under the category of "utilitarianism." This is another subject for another thread, though, so we can take the actual disagreements about this elsewhere.

Oh i agree we must make a choice, since even inaction is an action.

Okay, so you probably would agree with my above reasoning that prescribing a morality and thinking that there must be some "best" way or that some ways of acting are "better" than others is something we necessarily have to assume due to the nature of self-conscious action.

Well then i would have to feel sorry for the food i eat.
After all the thousands of chickens, fish, cows, and crustaceans i have consumed to keep myself alive, were considered acceptable.
Just because i prefer not to eat humans doesnt mean all life which feels pleasure and pain can be simply ignored.
We abuse that which is weaker than us so that we can flourish, much in the same way i proposed above.

Well, I didn't want to get into this here, as I've said, but I just wanted to say that this is one of the key reasons I'm a vegetarian. I don't think we should take advantage of those weaker than us.

I will do, it seems that people are finally grasping the concept. I wanted to make sure people saw the problems before i opened up a thread to discuss the technicalities.

I look forward to it. Getting into a serious discussion of ethics where we lay out our assumptions and explain logically where we go from there to get an ethical theory, and then establish secondary moral rules based on that theory would be the ideal way to discuss ethics, in my opinion. I do have to say you make an interesting case; the reason I end up disagreeing is that I don't think it's an inherent flaw in all ideologies; just most. And back when I was musing about the foundations of ethics, I guess just happened to stumble out of the problem. This discussion has been enlightening, though, as it makes a lot of things about the foundations of ethics clearer.

Sorry about the whole "I DEMAND AN IMPACT" thing. It's an automatic response whenever someone makes a philosophical claim that leaves us in a void without providing any real reason for change. I didn't entirely understand that you were making a case to understand a problem with certain ethical systems, not that you were claiming it existed in all ethical systems.