What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

It is hugely unwise to go down the road of proposing ethical enhancements to child abuse such as laughing gas and better hand puppets to keep the little tykes amused while you do your business.

Freedom is more than happiness, and often brings the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and the unhappiness of martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
Children are not small adults but are not capable of the degree of freedom that adults should have, so we shelter them within benign authority; the shelter includes freedom from sexualisation.

relevance?

[Belinda]

It is hugely unwise to go down the road of proposing ethical enhancements to child abuse such as laughing gas and better hand puppets to keep the little tykes amused while you do your business.

Freedom is more than happiness, and often brings the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and the unhappiness of martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
Children are not small adults but are not capable of the degree of freedom that adults should have, so we shelter them within benign authority; the shelter includes freedom from sexualisation.

relevance?

Laughing gas and hand puppets induce 'happiness'; entertainments are escapist. If a child or adult is induced to escape from reality they escape into powerlessness. The converse of powerlessness is freedom.

[FlashDangerpants]

Freedom is more than happiness, and often brings the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and the unhappiness of martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
Children are not small adults but are not capable of the degree of freedom that adults should have, so we shelter them within benign authority; the shelter includes freedom from sexualisation.

relevance?

Laughing gas and hand puppets induce 'happiness'; entertainments are escapist. If a child or adult is induced to escape from reality they escape into powerlessness. The converse of powerlessness is freedom.

And the point?

[Belinda]

relevance?

Laughing gas and hand puppets induce 'happiness'; entertainments are escapist. If a child or adult is induced to escape from reality they escape into powerlessness. The converse of powerlessness is freedom.

And the point?

The best of the human is the free/ powerful individual. NB As I implied previously power lies with knowledge and reason, not with any sort of escapist fantasy such as consumer goodies("laughing gas and hand puppets"), supernatural Providence, or shrugging off the responsibilities of a man.

"The responsibilities of a man" are inherent in parenthood; or, generally , care for what is other than self. Add to inherent caring: cynicism regarding all ideologies versus actual individual subjects of experience.

We don't and maybe can't ever know the whole of human nature but at least we do know men are sentient, and care for their dependent offspring.

[FlashDangerpants]

("laughing gas and hand puppets")

You just didn't read my post and went off on some nonsense tangent then?

[Belinda]

("laughing gas and hand puppets")

You just didn't read my post and went off on some nonsense tangent then?

Quite the opposite! I quoted your phrase because I thought you said laughing gas and hand puppets like we say bread and circuses. Obviously we can't list all the stuff that makes us feel happily entertained, and it's a good idea not to use big words such as consumerism when simple examples suffice.

[promethean75]

normative ethics and morality is the expression of a group's level of collective empathy i think. good will is essentially based on a common understanding and agreement between approximately equal people who can suffer in the same ways, and therefore by way of analogy see themselves as the Other... hence the empathetic expression at the foundation of morality.

so for example u could say that it takes special circumstances for a guy to shoot another guy... that if we go back far enough in the shooter's life we'd arrive at a point where such a thing wuz inconceivable; he'd not naturally ever want to do such a thing, and this is not becuz of some special religious reason or human virtue shining through. no. it's simply a built in physio-neurological mechanism (mirror neurons have much to do with it) that allows the intelligent human to empathize. special circumstances are then needed to justify normative immorality. that is to say people who aren't literally brain damaged and violent on account of that, will have to rationalize a purposeful violent act against the Other. and for that you have to create an especially stressful environment.

but i think it wuz Piaget who noticed toddlers naturally inclined to help other toddlers perform tasks without being instructed to or promised an immediate reward. plato was right; all toddlers act for the good, and if they commit wrong, it is becuz of ignorance and not bad will.

[Walker]

but i think it wuz Piaget who noticed toddlers naturally inclined to help other toddlers perform tasks without being instructed to or promised an immediate reward. plato was right; all toddlers act for the good, and if they commit wrong, it is becuz of ignorance and not bad will.

That's true. However, humans have the potential for evil that can be activated by conditions.

There's a very simple way to turn knowledge of conditions to the toddler's advantage.

You simple tell the little whippersnapper the cause and effect of any particular action, and you tell the truth, so that the child hears it.

As the child ages, it sees that you were correct. It is confident that it can and will achieve what it wants, for it also learns how to assess and arrange the necessary elements to manifest that condition. This is from toddler to teens and then you have to back off unless asked, and this sets the foundation for the child to accurately know the way things are.

For example, you tell the child that if they take advantage of every opportunity the school offers and study hard, they will have this kind of life. And then you describe the wonderful life that they will have.

What gets interesting is when they actually do the cause as you describe it, and they do have a wonderful life ... as defined by their terms. It's interesting because you see that to have that wonderful life they have, they had to do the good things.

[CIN]

Only pleasure and pain are fundamental.

This becomes obvious if we ask, 'why is slavery bad?'

So... uuuh. Why are pleasure and pain fundamental to morality?

A central concern of morality is the question: what is good (or bad)? To answer this question, we first need to work out what the words 'good' and 'bad' mean, otherwise we don't know what the question itself means. Once we've worked out what 'good' and 'bad' mean, we can then ask if there are any things that are actually good and bad. Those are the things that will be fundamental to morality.

My theory is this:
1) 'Good' and 'bad' mean, respectively, 'merits a pro-response' and 'merits an anti-response'.
(This is a version of fitting attitude theory. Compare the following passage: 'Thus A. C. Ewing (1948) writes: “if we analyse good as ‘fitting object of a pro attitude’, it will be easy enough to analyse bad as ‘fitting object of an anti attitude’, this term covering dislike, disapproval, avoidance, etc.”' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitt ... -theories/)

2) Pleasure intrinsically merits a pro-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to seek out experiences that give them pleasure, e.g. eating and sex, and seeking out is a pro-response.

3) Pain intrinsically merits an anti-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to avoid experiences that give them pain, e.g. getting injured, and avoidance is an anti-response.

So if my theory is correct, pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad. Since they are natural, and not ideas invented by humans like freedom and justice, they alone are fundamental to morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Only pleasure and pain are fundamental.

This becomes obvious if we ask, 'why is slavery bad?'

So... uuuh. Why are pleasure and pain fundamental to morality?

A central concern of morality is the question: what is good (or bad)? To answer this question, we first need to work out what the words 'good' and 'bad' mean, otherwise we don't know what the question itself means. Once we've worked out what 'good' and 'bad' mean, we can then ask if there are any things that are actually good and bad. Those are the things that will be fundamental to morality.

My theory is this:
1) 'Good' and 'bad' mean, respectively, 'merits a pro-response' and 'merits an anti-response'.
(This is a version of fitting attitude theory. Compare the following passage: 'Thus A. C. Ewing (1948) writes: “if we analyse good as ‘fitting object of a pro attitude’, it will be easy enough to analyse bad as ‘fitting object of an anti attitude’, this term covering dislike, disapproval, avoidance, etc.”' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitt ... -theories/)

2) Pleasure intrinsically merits a pro-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to seek out experiences that give them pleasure, e.g. eating and sex, and seeking out is a pro-response.

3) Pain intrinsically merits an anti-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to avoid experiences that give them pain, e.g. getting injured, and avoidance is an anti-response.

So if my theory is correct, pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad. Since they are natural, and not ideas invented by humans like freedom and justice, they alone are fundamental to morality.

Your theory and views above re Morality are too shallow and narrow.
To rely in the concepts of pleasure and pain is too crude, especially in consideration of Morality.

There are many who seek pleasure from acts of evil, e.g. rapes, incest, pedophilia; note the terrible evils related to drug addiction for pleasure; evil acts can arise from those seeking pleasure in eating - those who will kill for food;

As for pain, there are many who will bear with pains and sufferings to generate good for others. Mothers in general will bear with pains for the good of ensure their offspring. Many are willing to suffer and bear with pains [mental and physical] to gain means for subsequent pleasures, e.g. laborious worker, entrepreneur, farmer, etc.

As such pleasure and pain can both be good and bad [evil]. Both pleasure and pain must be modulated to optimize the necessary intent, e.g. Morality as one human objective.

Morality is basically about avoiding evil to promote the related moral good; and morality may necessarily entails either pleasure or pain relative to the circumstances.

Morality is necessary for the well being of the individual and that of humanity; the potential and propensity for morality is innate and inherent in ALL humans existing in various degrees of activation. As such Morality must be Objective in principle.

[Peter Holmes]

So... uuuh. Why are pleasure and pain fundamental to morality?

A central concern of morality is the question: what is good (or bad)? To answer this question, we first need to work out what the words 'good' and 'bad' mean, otherwise we don't know what the question itself means. Once we've worked out what 'good' and 'bad' mean, we can then ask if there are any things that are actually good and bad. Those are the things that will be fundamental to morality.

My theory is this:
1) 'Good' and 'bad' mean, respectively, 'merits a pro-response' and 'merits an anti-response'.
(This is a version of fitting attitude theory. Compare the following passage: 'Thus A. C. Ewing (1948) writes: “if we analyse good as ‘fitting object of a pro attitude’, it will be easy enough to analyse bad as ‘fitting object of an anti attitude’, this term covering dislike, disapproval, avoidance, etc.”' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitt ... -theories/)

2) Pleasure intrinsically merits a pro-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to seek out experiences that give them pleasure, e.g. eating and sex, and seeking out is a pro-response.

3) Pain intrinsically merits an anti-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to avoid experiences that give them pain, e.g. getting injured, and avoidance is an anti-response.

So if my theory is correct, pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad. Since they are natural, and not ideas invented by humans like freedom and justice, they alone are fundamental to morality.

Your theory and views above re Morality are too shallow and narrow.
To rely in the concepts of pleasure and pain is too crude, especially in consideration of Morality.

There are many who seek pleasure from acts of evil, e.g. rapes, incest, pedophilia; note the terrible evils related to drug addiction for pleasure; evil acts can arise from those seeking pleasure in eating - those who will kill for food;

As for pain, there are many who will bear with pains and sufferings to generate good for others. Mothers in general will bear with pains for the good of ensure their offspring. Many are willing to suffer and bear with pains [mental and physical] to gain means for subsequent pleasures, e.g. laborious worker, entrepreneur, farmer, etc.

As such pleasure and pain can both be good and bad [evil]. Both pleasure and pain must be modulated to optimize the necessary intent, e.g. Morality as one human objective.

Morality is basically about avoiding evil to promote the related moral good; and morality may necessarily entails either pleasure or pain relative to the circumstances.

Morality is necessary for the well being of the individual and that of humanity; the potential and propensity for morality is innate and inherent in ALL humans existing in various degrees of activation. As such Morality must be Objective in principle.

To repeat: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. So facts about what humans and other animal do - such as seek pleasure and avoid pain - can't entail the moral conclusion that humans and other animals should or ought to seek pleasure and avoid pain. That's a separate judgement or opinion.

As is the opinion that the well being of the individual and humanity should or ought to be pursued.

At the beginning - or the bottom - of any moral discussion is a moral belief, judgement or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And this perplexes or enrages moral objectivists, who want moral facts that simply don't exist.

[Skepdick]

To repeat: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

That's a normative/moral claim.

Any premise can entail any conclusion.

Appraising the quality of such reasoning is a normative exercise.

The weather is nice therefore we should punch Peter Holmes in the face.

I can and I have concluded it. Now tell me why I am not allowed to do that.

[CIN]

You don't seem to understand 'What is Morality and Ethics".

Morality and Ethics involved Universal Principles applicable to ALL humans.

As an analogy from Biology, it is a Universal Principle in Biology and human nature, that ALL humans ought to breathe without exception.

Why ought they? Only to stay alive. So this isn't a categorical ought, it's a hypothetical ought ('if you want to stay alive, you ought to breathe'). But moral oughts are categorical, not hypothetical, so this biological ought is not relevant to the question whether there are moral oughts.

Say, you are the average person, I challenge you to hold your breath for more than a minute if not two or more, surely you will and can experience that 'oughtness' to breathe as you will try to grasp for air or even kill to ensure you can breathe.

'Ought' expresses an obligation or duty. You are not under an obligation to breathe, nor do you have a duty to breathe. What you are referring to here is the very strong desire to breathe. A desire is not the same thing as an obligation or duty.

The 'oughtness' to breathe is a 'program' that is innate and involuntary within the human organism and other breathing organisms.

Something that is involuntary can't be an obligation or duty. It can't be the case that you ought to do something if in fact you can't help doing it.

My point is, whilst not as obvious as the oughtness program to breathe, in a similar way, all humans are embedded with an inherent program for the propensity towards morality-proper. This moral potential inherent in all humans is unfolding within humanity in a range of degrees of activation.

At this point I am saying there an inherent potential for morality within all humans that is similar to the inherent oughtness to breathe in all humans.
I have not provided the justifications of my thesis as yet, but if you researched deeply into the subject, you will get a clue that such an inherent program do exists within all humans.

Well, as it's your thesis, you're the one who should justify it. Since I don't believe that there is 'an inherent program for the propensity towards morality-proper', I'm not going to waste my time researching it. That's your job.

The "oughtness to breathe" is universal in all humans, and for morality to be universal, morality will be similar to the universal principle of the inherent "oughtness to breathe".

No. You haven't demonstrated that slavery is a moral element, you have merely ASSUMED this. And in fact slavery is NOT a moral element. That is, it is not fundamental to morality. Only pleasure and pain are fundamental. Therefore only pleasure and pain can be involved in universal principles.
This becomes obvious if we ask, 'why is slavery bad?' This question is reasonable, and the answer is 'because people are generally happier if they're free.' Whereas 'why is pain bad?' is just stupid. No-one needs to have it explained why pain is bad. Everyone knows that pain is bad. Even animals know it's bad, that's why your dog runs away from you if you keep beating him.
'Slavery is a moral evil' isn't a universal principle, it's just a rule of thumb. It's a good rule of thumb, because when humans enslave other humans, this generally makes these other humans unhappy; but it's still only a rule of thumb, because pain (or unhappiness, which is a kind of pain) can be the only reason anything is an evil, and if slavery doesn't cause people pain or make them unhappy, it isn't an evil.

What is primary and critical to Slavery is about 'freedom' as a basic human right and not to be 'owned' as a property and 'traded' by another human.
There is also an inherent 'oughtness' programmed into all humans to be 'free' i.e. not owned as a property by another human.

You state here that freedom is a basic human right, but you offer no argument or evidence to support your claim. I deny the claim. Since you are making a substantive claim, the burden of proof is on you. So prove it.

The physical plus mental sufferings and pains are significant to slavery but is it secondary.

In general no normal humans would want to be enslaved by another in view of the inherent propensity for freedom and the avoidance of the associated physical and mental sufferings.
Those who feel good as being a slave to another are perverts.

'Perverts' is a hate word. I duly note that you are a misanthropist.

Out of 8 billion humans on Earth, how many do you think would feel good and happy to be enslaved and owned by another to the extent they can be sold as a property to another?
1000? that is only 0.0000125% or even 1,000,000 [which is unlikely] that is only 0.0125% and these small groups are really perverts in contrast to normal humans.

More hate speech. Apparently you hate minorities. Not an amiable characteristic.

Slavery is recognized by all normal people as evil.

If you mean intrinsically evil, then I don't recognise it as such. I suppose, in your view, that makes me abnormal. Thanks.

To be objective and as a fact, the above universal principle must be empirically verifiable and justifiable with reinforcement by philosophical arguments.

You haven't verified your principle empirically. Nor have you established it by argument, as I pointed out, you merely ASSERTED WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION that slavery was a moral element.

The term 'morality' used at present is very loose and in many cases corrupted within various groups.
I define 'morality' [proper] as 'promoting good and avoiding evil' for the well being of the individual and humanity.
What is 'good' in this case means not-evil.
What is 'evil' is the net-negative impact on the well-being of the individual and humanity.
What is negative to the well-being is that which to the extreme form threatens the preservation of the human species and in lesser forms, the related physical & mental sufferings and freedom of the individual.
In this sense, slavery [especially chattel slavery] is a moral element which must be eliminated morally [in contrast to politically].

You appear here to be saying that well-being and the preservation of the human species are both good. However, once again you offer no argument or evidence to support these views. Again, they are substantive claims, so the burden of proof is on you. Please supply the necessary proofs.

[CIN]

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

YES

I wish I hadn't asked. Please don't say any more, I find your answer extremely disturbing.

[CIN]

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

It is hugely unwise to go down the road of proposing ethical enhancements to child abuse such as laughing gas and better hand puppets to keep the little tykes amused while you do your business.

I entirely agree. All child abuse is evil. It does huge psychological damage to the child, and should be met with the full force of the law.