Humans are biologically programmed to survive. In that context, human survival is good. It follows that anything extending human survival, without negatively affecting other conscious life, is good. — CasKev

Parasitic organisms are biologically programmed to thrive off of harming others. In that context, harming others is good. How does that tell you anything about the morality of it though? Hume's is-ought problem.

Your opening statement was "I really don't see any reason of why one should act in any way besides because they have a preference for acting in that way". You went on to elaborate that people should just do whatever makes them feel good. It follow from this that if murder makes a person feel good, they should be able to do it. — JustSomeGuy

Since when does preferences for acting exclude wanting to live in a stable society where we can co-exist? I think it's pretty obvious that if you want to live in a society that's stable (because it's useful) that it's a preference. I didn't think it was necessary to explain that. And if one has a stronger preference to live in a stable society than murder, then they shouldn't murder. Murder might make them feel good, but living in a stable society makes them feel better. What is it that you are not understanding?

It seems to me that our moralities are nothing but subjective preferences... nothing else. — SonJnana


...so I really don't see where you made it clear that you understood the necessity and purpose of morality. It seemed to be quite the opposite. — JustSomeGuy

A subjective preference of living in a stable society where everyone benefits so you yourself benefit because it's useful.

we are essentially saying that we don't like the person because they aren't acting the way we want everyone to act — SonJnana


It's not about want, it's about need. These laws aren't just made up willy nilly, there is very clear purpose to the morals we have. — JustSomeGuy

There is obviously a purpose - to live in a stable society. But it's saying the person isn't acting the way we NEED them to act for a stable society because we the majority WANT to live in a stable society.

You still seem to be missing the point. If a person doesn't care about the well-being of others and is actively harming people, we don't allow them in our society.
Not murdering is a condition you must agree to in order to live in and receive the benefits of our society. If you want to try to form your own society where killing each other is legal, good luck. — JustSomeGuy

We don't allow them in our society. But what about a dictator killing people? What are you gonna tell them? "Stop what you're doing because me and many other people don't like it?" And why the hell will he care if you aren't a threat to his power?

For example, if someone discovers a plant extract that will extend life and reduce suffering, and distributes it to everyone in equal amounts, that act would be objectively moral. — CasKev

I think it's more honest to say that the person is acting morally based on a subjective morality that values the extension of conscious life. Someone else may value something else and have a different subjective morality.

Living in a civilized society arguably means each individual has a better quality of life than if we were all wild men living in nature, and a civilized society requires we have certain rules, things that are right and things that are wrong. — JustSomeGuy

I agree with this in my case. You won't see me going around harming others. What about someone who enjoys going around conquering lands and becoming a harsh dictator. That person has a better quality of life, right? Who are you to tell that person he should care about others' well-being, while he's benefiting from being a dictator?

I never said that there wasn't an obvious usefulness to have subjective morality. I mentioned that one reason to not murder would be because one has a preference to value others' well-being so we can coexist peacefully. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

My point in this post was just to say that when we condemn a murderer, we are essentially saying that we don't like the person because they aren't acting the way we want everyone to act (for a stable society). In a way, it becomes a might makes right.