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.

[Autodidact]

You raise an interesting and important point. I've been talking about individual ethics, but society also has and needs a group morality. For one thing, on what basis can we argue what the laws should be without one? It's one thing to say that something is illegal, and another to say that it's wrong. I have been giving this question some thought, and hope to respond at greater length when time permits.

[Goat]

Morals are the collection of practices that have enabled a community to survive and prosper. They are not absolute and God-given. Neither are they totally subjective and up to the individual. A society has the right to enforce those restrictions that foster the survival and well being of that society but the obligation to recognize when historical rules require modification to meet a changing social environment.

I have not agreed or disagreed with that model in this thread. I haven't even proposed my model, I was simply discussing Autodidact's model. And his is different than Thatgirlagain's because according to her, morals are the practices that enable survival, while Autodidact's thesis is that morals are the practices which promote happiness. I'd be happy to discuss Thatgirlagain's model, but up to this point I have been dialoguing concerning something entirely different.

Autodidact's model and thatgirlagain's model are not mutually exclusive, and indeed 'survival' is a needed requirement for happiness.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Morals are the collection of practices that have enabled a community to survive and prosper. They are not absolute and God-given. Neither are they totally subjective and up to the individual. A society has the right to enforce those restrictions that foster the survival and well being of that society but the obligation to recognize when historical rules require modification to meet a changing social environment.

I have not agreed or disagreed with that model in this thread. I haven't even proposed my model, I was simply discussing Autodidact's model. And his is different than Thatgirlagain's because according to her, morals are the practices that enable survival, while Autodidact's thesis is that morals are the practices which promote happiness. I'd be happy to discuss Thatgirlagain's model, but up to this point I have been dialoguing concerning something entirely different.

Autodidact's model and thatgirlagain's model are not mutually exclusive, and indeed 'survival' is a needed requirement for happiness.

But survival of a community does not ensure individual happiness. In general morals are either restrictions on an individual's behavior or behavioral mandates. These presumably support the survival of the community or that set of morals would not be passed on. But I might be very happy if I were able to murder a really annoying person but I am morally bound not to do that. I would be happy to spend all my spare change on myself but I am morally bound to help the needy. In both cases the survival of the community is enhanced by morals but my personal happiness suffers. Of course I might feel good about acting morally but that stems from doing what the group considers right. If murder of a certain kind of person were sanctioned by society I might feel good about fulfilling my social obligations even if I had nothing against such a person.

[Kismet]

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.

It does not seem to me at all obvious why "an objective basis" (which is really nothing but words) should at all establish the veracity of normative claims....

Put it differently, when we look at moral oughts we don't first of all, look for WHY something is wrong. Rather, something is wrong, and thereafter we look for why humans should basically go along with us... In essence, it is settled. Something like murder is ALREADY disgusting and horrible. We don't need any indicators that this is such. And anyway, it remains a complete mystery how an indicator would "prove" to us any more clearly why murder is wrong. It would basically be an equally unexplained intuition of sorts.

[Logomachist]

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.

1) Random acts of kindness do make one feel better but isn't this just a trivial feel-good act that completely misses the point of a moral system? Shouldn't morality be based on something more substantial? IMHO dorality should address major issues about how people live their lives and how evil is to be confronted (and what evil is in the first place).

2) When your happiness and others' happiness are in perfect agreement doesn't morality tend to be boring and undisputed? Things get tricky when values conflict. Take the veil thing- some Muslims say without a veil you're immodest and liable to be abused by men, but you probably don't think hiding 99% of your body is the best way to be happy. Moral philosophies should be designed to navigate such territories.

3) As for laws, I think all laws should be based on morality. If women wearing veils is an important moral principle for you, it makes sense to try to uphold that value in the legal system. If freedom of dress is important to you, it makes sense to uphold that. When you're forced to follow a law that conflicts with your values, morality is the fallback argument you use to argue that the law should be changed.