Is there an objective definition of flourishing that would avoid us smuggling in our own culturally-subjective agendas? Isis would be an example. If it represents a community that believes humanity would be better off without the presence of the infidel, how do we rule out that as a valid definition of "flourishing" in its eyes? — apokrisis

Every community has its own understanding of what it means to flourish. The way to cut through relativism is through scientific analysis based on evidence. I can confidently argue that ISIS's project of a new Caliphate was wrong and immoral and contrary to human flourishing based on the outcome, which evidence shows to have been a historic disaster for pretty much everyone who was touched by it.

I can confidently argue that racism is wrong and immoral and contrary to human flourishing on evidence provided to us by the experience of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII, not to mention the Confederate States in the American Civil War, or numerous less bloody historical disasters.

I think it is possible to broadly agree on criteria for human flourishing, criteria that pretty much any rational human being could agree on. Take for example health metrics, such as adequate nutrition, average years of good health in a lifespan, healthy birth weight, infant mortality, and so on. Science can tell us how to improve these metrics and thereby to serve the common good, and any country today whose population is doing relatively well actually does track these sorts of metrics and seeks to improve the numbers through science.

And I think most people would agree that to serve human flourishing in this way is the moral and ethical thing to do, and to take actions that hinder this effort or set it back we would regard as immoral. For example, if it were to be proven (and there is no evidence for this, so I don't believe it) that the novel coronavirus was intentionally released into the global population for whatever reason, I think most people would consider that to be immoral.

Why? Because a pandemic is harmful to human flourishing.

I keep in mind that on every side of every conflict there are those who consider a given war justified and ethical and those who do not. But let's focus on those who do.

I have read a lot of history and military history, and in every case I am aware of, those who support going to war or taking up arms believe their cause to be just. To say something like "our cause is just", or "Gott mit Uns" or "God/Allah is on our side", or we have the "Mandate of Heaven", or to call it a "Holy War", or a "Crusade", or really to offer any sort of justification, is to argue that there are universal values that we somehow embody, and that "they" don't.

Of course some primitive tribes might have a narrower view of human flourishing - many tribes name themselves using a word that in their language simply means "the people". Their view of human flourishing may not encompass the whole of humanity, but only the part of humanity that matters to them.

This is not much different from those who went to war and justified it on the basis of their own racial or cultural or religious superiority.

I also read a lot about chimp wars and chimp justification for war, and what you might call universal values of chimp society are simply this: might makes right. We are justified in wiping out our rival troupe because we are stronger than they are and we need what they have. It is just and right that we should flourish and they should not. So even among chimps, what is just and right is grounded on what serves chimp flourishing...

Well as I explained, just because a community truly believes they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of human flourishing, doesn't mean they are right...

Shakers see a better world "on the other side", they believe serving God through celibacy and simple lives will get them there. Many religious people do crazy things because heaven is more real to them than this mortal life - look at suicide bombers.

Just as in the natural world, diversity means some paths lead to the flourishing of the species, and some lead to extinction. The project of morality is to figure out which is which.

My next point is that we can actually determine what best serves human flourishing through science and reason. This means if we can agree on the common goal, we have an objective starting point for ethical considerations.

I go with the dictionary definition of "flourishing", it's nothing mysterious. To do well in a hospitable environment. A human community is doing well when there is personal safety, healthy lifespans, economic security, healthy environment, reasonable opportunity for personal growth, adequate water and nutrition, fulfilling work, etc.There are global wellness indicators out there.

But I like the word "flourishing" better than "well-being" because well-being is a subjective brain state that goes up and down and actually is influenced a lot by genetics. And anyway the mortality rate is running at 100% last time I checked. Life is suffering.

I think population metrics are a better yardstick by which to measure human flourishing, in the same way if we ask whether bison are flourishing in Yellowstone, we don't track the life history of an individual bison.

The other reason I like the term flourishing is because it seems to me a more active verb better suited to creatures like ourselves who have a certain agency, a level of input into our own trajectories. If you want to flourish you have to get out there and make it happen, and this is indeed what we do and part of what we consider a virtuous and fulfilling life.

I disagree. Even those who intend to serve only the immediate interests of their tribe do so because they identify the interests of their tribe as synonymous with the best interests of humanity.

Well yes, I think ISIS is a stain on humanity, as wrong-headed as you can get, but read the literature and you find that the young fighters of ISIS believe that their project is to serve humanity, to address injustice and create a better world - the Caliphate, a land of totalitarian Islamism.

When I ask myself whether what ISIS is engaged in is a moral enterprise, I ask myself, "Does their work serve human flourishing?" If it is destructive to human flourishing, it is immoral.

The Shakers of course saw their truest flourishing to happen after death and their beliefs were meant to lead them to it...

That's my next step but don't want to get ahead of myself...