Philosophy meme
Philosophy meme
Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy..blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
You're viewing part of a thread.
Exactly, physical pain and other forms of suffering are an objective reality. You can, in theory at last, decide objectively whether any decision will lead to more or less pain immediately and in the future.
If you look at ethics you could assume the only axiom it has is that when comparing more pain or less pain, less pain is better. This is even independent from circumstance if you consider all suffering now and in the future that are consequences of an observed decision.
In my opinion that makes the decision whether something is morally bad or good objective in it's nature.
Many people think pain is necessary for virtue, so that right there would dispell pain as the objective measure.
Many others have some biased view on it. That it should only be for their clan/nation/species that this applies.
Even if all of humanity agreed reducing pain was the #1 goal, that wouldn't mean it had any objective value outside that society. An uncaring universe with a lifeform that have similar values, is still an uncaring universe.
You could still in theory measure it if you also measure whether and to what extent the idea that pain is a virtue leads to more or less suffering in the life of the person and others directly and indirectly affected.
Otherwise what you suggest is that consequences don't exist if we can't foresee them. But obviously the consequences will objectively exist, whether or not we can measure them.
Imagine you could look at the whole universe, all factors in all of it's future. It's an objective reality, if you agree that suffering is real, that every option will either entail more, less or the same amount of suffering than the other options.
That's what I am asking, is the option that entails more suffering better or the one that entails less suffering?
This all rests on the assumptions that avoiding suffering is objectively the ideal, and I disagree on that.
I'd like to see less suffering, but I don't confuse my own values with objective values.
It's not subjective, though. Morality is an objective reality, that can, in theory, be compared between any two options and there would always be an objective answer which of the options are better or worse or the same. You just think there is no objective reason to follow those options which are morally better, but that's a different question.
Morality is an objective reality, that can, in theory, be compared between any two options and there would always be an objective answer which of the options are better or worse or the same.
Whatever standard you used to compare two moral systems would itself be based on the values of the judge.
Even asking "which leads to less suffering" is a subjective value, placing suffering as the most important aspect.
You just think there is no objective reason to follow those options which are morally better, but that's a different question.
Just the opposite. I believe people have their own reasons for following one system over the other.
One system can be more useful to a society, and they will have cause to maintain that ethical system.
I think you confuse cultural norms and rules with the abstract concept of ethics. When you question whether or not something is objectively morally better or worse than something else, that's independent of different current norms and values.
It's the same as maths. If you have two black boxes one with three and one with fifteen potatoes in them, the box with the fifteen potatoes in it will objectively have more potatoes. It doesn't matter if you can look into the boxes, like potatoes or if some people consider "less is more" or if they do not have a concept of mathematics. If you ask whether or not 15 potatoes are more than 3 this will always be an objective truth since numbers are defined by math and that a bigger number is bigger than a smaller number is an axiom of mathematics.
If the black boxes would instead contain "suffering" it doesn't matter what makes the suffering grow bigger or smaller. Someone who likes pain or for whom pain leads to greater outcome down the road will put less suffering into the box. It will still be an objective amount. Independent of whether or not you can measure it.
Rooting ethics in the idea that suffering must be avoided is not an agreed upon moral goal. Many cultures do not see the world this way.
A Buddhist would agree with you, a protestant might not.
Some view progress, wealth, understanding, or some other abstract goal as more important.
You can objectively say one decision leads to more suffering, but you can say objectively that's what matters the most.
Likewise with the potatoes, you can objectively say that one weighs more, but not that having more potatoes is the most important thing.