The argument is more or less sound up until you start to talk about objective morality; we derive most of what we conceive as good from the happiness we derive from it, of which the "goodness" cannot be reduced further. However, we experience happiness*subjectively, this means that our happiness is only a good to ourselves. Therefore, it is impossible to extend the realm of morality beyond a consistent, if a little dispiriting, form of rational egoism. How do you justify us all being one?
@tomdbeevers1 I described two kinds of possible objective moralities here. The first one suggested that one objectively ought to seek happiness for himself. I come to this conclusion because of how all oughts we can agree to exist ultimately route to a personal happiness/suffering measure.
Indeed, considering this alone, it does mean that one's own happiness is only valuable to himself, but that doesn't make it a non-objective ought, but rather an objective statement about one's subjectivity.
"We can derive an ought from an is/are because you can't logically justify your selfishness once I magically derive an ought from an is/are and claim that you ought not be selfish because we are all one."
Personally, I think people who try to question why suffering is undesirable in debates are idiots. In my opinion, a good philosopher will accept certain premises without question. Doing otherwise is a waste of time.
@Keitaro2011: Well... suffering is a rather vague/nebulous concept, so...is a strenuous workout suffering? Is going to work suffering? If suffering now, will make me suffer less later, is that suffering undesirable? If my hand gets cut off, would it be better if I didn't even notice?
Personally, I think a good philosopher assumes nothing, and asks lots of questions.
You conflate moral epistemology with moral ontology. Finding a natural explanation of objective morality simply won't happen.
richp860 10 months ago
@richp860 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
WhiteDragon103 10 months ago
The argument is more or less sound up until you start to talk about objective morality; we derive most of what we conceive as good from the happiness we derive from it, of which the "goodness" cannot be reduced further. However, we experience happiness*subjectively, this means that our happiness is only a good to ourselves. Therefore, it is impossible to extend the realm of morality beyond a consistent, if a little dispiriting, form of rational egoism. How do you justify us all being one?
tomdbeevers1 1 year ago
@tomdbeevers1 I described two kinds of possible objective moralities here. The first one suggested that one objectively ought to seek happiness for himself. I come to this conclusion because of how all oughts we can agree to exist ultimately route to a personal happiness/suffering measure.
Indeed, considering this alone, it does mean that one's own happiness is only valuable to himself, but that doesn't make it a non-objective ought, but rather an objective statement about one's subjectivity.
WhiteDragon103 1 year ago
I have a question for you:
If we are all one, then why would we need to convince ourselves of something we already know?
D4Shawn 1 year ago
@D4Shawn Two unique strawmen in one minute. That's a record, isn't it?
WhiteDragon103 1 year ago
Totally not circular reasoning:
"We can derive an ought from an is/are because you can't logically justify your selfishness once I magically derive an ought from an is/are and claim that you ought not be selfish because we are all one."
D4Shawn 1 year ago
@D4Shawn: Would it make me a better person if I did not suffer for my mistakes? These are complicated questions. I wouldn't take them so lightly.
D4Shawn 1 year ago
Personally, I think people who try to question why suffering is undesirable in debates are idiots. In my opinion, a good philosopher will accept certain premises without question. Doing otherwise is a waste of time.
Keitaro2011 1 year ago
@Keitaro2011: Well... suffering is a rather vague/nebulous concept, so...is a strenuous workout suffering? Is going to work suffering? If suffering now, will make me suffer less later, is that suffering undesirable? If my hand gets cut off, would it be better if I didn't even notice?
Personally, I think a good philosopher assumes nothing, and asks lots of questions.
D4Shawn 1 year ago