Argument for Objective Morality Without God

[jgh7]

This was an argument of mine back in 2015. I wanted to revisit it to gain some better understanding. Here it is in its original form:

------------------------------------------------------------

Argument of Objective morality without God existing: What it is in this case, and why it exists

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
***

2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.

***
If you can propose a reason for a thinking entity to interact with others that is in no way related to achieving what matters to that thinking entity, then I will no longer hold (4) to be a fact. Please let me know if you can.
***

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.

* One way that objective morality does not exist is if there are zero reasons for any and all happiness increases and thus zero possible guidelines that could be followed. All happiness increase is therefore completely random and with no cause in this case. I feel no need to argue the impossibility of this. It should be apparent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questions are, is this argument logical and sound? Does it qualify as objective morality or is it subjective?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

I am not sure of your argument. Are you saying that the holocaust was wrong because we Brits thought it wrong? Or right because the Nazis thought it right? Or are you ambivalent about this? Or was it neither right nor wrong, only a matter of opinion, and 'divergent realities'?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I am saying that chalking the holocaust up to "ethical development" does not address the question of how "ethical development" occurs. Those things were not limited to the "Germanic sphere of influence" or Fascist regimes. Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did and the Japanese did similar things in the Pacific theater. Regarding Fascism, Mussolini, the author of Fascism, did not approve of the holocaust. He was more of an idealist, holding the principles of Fascism as the overarching goal. His treatment of the Jews depended primarily on whether or not they agreed with Fascist ideology. Simply labeling the Nazi attempts at improving the species "objectively wrong" does not negate the similarities between them and the attempt at "ethical development" in other societies.

[Bust Nak]

I don't know of any such individual. Do you?

I know some professional rappers went to art and music school, does that count?

If music taste is objective, what about other art? Or food taste?

[2ndRateMind]

Simply labeling the Nazi attempts at improving the species "objectively wrong" does not negate the similarities between them and the attempt at "ethical development" in other societies.

Interesting. Because the Nazis, Japanese and Russians did bad stuff, do you think that no one should attempt 'ethical development' on a national scale? My own feeling is that these were all totalitarian regimes, and that forcing people to become ethical defeats the whole object of the enterprise. Individuals should be ethical because they freely choose to be so, not because they have no choice in the matter. If you are forced to be moral, one can legitimately ask whether you are moral, at all. Indeed, it may well be that the sine qua non of ethical development is free individuals inhabiting a free society, despite all the ethical errors that they will inevitably commit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

I don't know of any such individual. Do you?

I know some professional rappers went to art and music school, does that count?

Maybe, maybe not. I need more data!

If music taste is objective, what about other art? Or food taste?

By art, I presume you mean the 'fine arts'; painting, sculpture, literature, poetry, that kind of stuff. I have little knowledge in this area, but can still see that creativity in concept, and skill in execution, play an important role, and these seem to me to be objective traits. As for the sense of taste; it's partly genetic, partly cultivation of the palate. Take the connoisseurship of wine. Though there is some degree of disagreement in detail among the cogniscenti, broadly speaking, they can at least tell a fine wine from cheap plonk, which again, implies an objective difference in quality. Similarly with gourmets and food, generally.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Maybe, maybe not. I need more data!

This is what I had in mind.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jade-sim ... 53875.html

Or this guy: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news ... -interview

By art, I presume you mean the 'fine arts'; painting, sculpture, literature, poetry, that kind of stuff. I have little knowledge in this area, but can still see that creativity in concept, and skill in execution, play an important role, and these seem to me to be objective traits. As for the sense of taste; it's partly genetic, partly cultivation of the palate. Take the connoisseurship of wine. Though there is some degree of disagreement in detail among the cogniscenti, broadly speaking, they can at least tell a fine wine from cheap plonk, which again, implies an objective difference in quality. Similarly with gourmets and food, generally.

Objective difference is one thing. Objective standard for which is better is quite another. It's not all that hard to tell the difference between a fine wine and cheap wine, but you are trying to tell me that the someone who can tell the difference must prefer the expensive fine wine.

[2ndRateMind]

It's not all that hard to tell the difference between a fine wine and cheap wine, but you are trying to tell me that the someone who can tell the difference must prefer the expensive fine wine.

Is not the fact that the fine wine is more expensive, somewhat indicative that it is to be, and is, prefered? Maybe because it is, objectively speaking, better? The market price often seems to me to be a fairly reliable guide to the extent of quality...

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Maybe, maybe not. I need more data!

This is what I had in mind...

OK. The point is well made. There is an exception to every rule.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Simply labeling the Nazi attempts at improving the species "objectively wrong" does not negate the similarities between them and the attempt at "ethical development" in other societies.

Interesting. Because the Nazis, Japanese and Russians did bad stuff, do you think that no one should attempt 'ethical development' on a national scale? My own feeling is that these were all totalitarian regimes, and that forcing people to become ethical defeats the whole object of the enterprise. Individuals should be ethical because they freely choose to be so, not because they have no choice in the matter. If you are forced to be moral, one can legitimately ask whether you are moral, at all. Indeed, it may well be that the sine qua non of ethical development is free individuals inhabiting a free society, despite all the ethical errors that they will inevitably commit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree, I am a localist. Federal action should be limited to only those things that can not be done at a much more local level. I believe that is why the Constitution of these United States limited Federal power to foreign affairs and arbitration of interstate disputes. The federal government has no business being involved in 'ethical development'. In fact, it shouldn't even be involved in controlling the economy. That is the root of Fascism, the subjugation of private enterprise to Federal authority at the point of a gun. That said, justifying current morality based on the concept of 'ethical development' is nothing more than social Darwinism, which in turn is based on the fallacy of novelty. That is why I prefer constitutional morality, a morality based on social contracts, not social trends.

[bluethread]

It's not all that hard to tell the difference between a fine wine and cheap wine, but you are trying to tell me that the someone who can tell the difference must prefer the expensive fine wine.

Is not the fact that the fine wine is more expensive, somewhat indicative that it is to be, and is, prefered? Maybe because it is, objectively speaking, better? The market price often seems to me to be a fairly reliable guide to the extent of quality...

Best wishes, 2RM.

This is a fallacy. A commonly accepted fallacy, but a fallacy none the less. If your tastes tend to correlate with price, that is fine. However, it is a well established fact, that quality and price are independent of one another, at least with regard to wine. Check out John Cleese's wine for the confused.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jo ... &FORM=VIRE

[2ndRateMind]

Simply labeling the Nazi attempts at improving the species "objectively wrong" does not negate the similarities between them and the attempt at "ethical development" in other societies.

Interesting. Because the Nazis, Japanese and Russians did bad stuff, do you think that no one should attempt 'ethical development' on a national scale? My own feeling is that these were all totalitarian regimes, and that forcing people to become ethical defeats the whole object of the enterprise...

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree, I am a localist. Federal action should be limited to only those things that can not be done at a much more local level...

I applaud this sentiment, and am glad we have discovered at least some common ground.

Nevertheless, what are you proposing in the case of some state, city or neighbourhood deciding to impose the death penalty for (say) homosexual sex? Seems to me, that while we all want maximum autonomy for each citizen, county, region or state we also need to protect each citizen's human and democratic rights, and that is a legitimate preserve of a national or global government.

Best wishes, 2RM.