The fact that there are competing moral standpoints raises the question of how you choose between them. — Andrew4Handel

Why not select the least problematic elements from each of the major ethical schools and consistently reassemble them into an adaptive moral practice?

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin: — 180 Proof

I think this is a useful frame to remind people of whenever they struggle to identify reasons for having moral behaviour.

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? Some people argue that such ideas are too vague or subjective to be useful frames for focused moral discussions.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone"
~Hillel the Elder :fire:

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? — Tom Storm

I think of 'flourishing / well-being' as the process of optimizing agency. What do I mean by 'agency'?

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

So my conception is that we flourish as our capabilities optimize from being exercised individually and collectively (otherwise, we languish...) E.g. Peirce-Dewey influenced 'disutilitarianism' + Philippa Foot's 'natural goodness' + Martha Nussbaum's 'capabilities approach'.

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me.

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me. — 180 Proof

Got ya.

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

:up:

I cannot object to people trying to improve the quality of life including if this involves constructing some kind of moral guidance like the legal system but I don't think it has truth value and cannot resolve moral disputes.

The value of moral truths is for resolving moral disputes such as concerning assisted suicide, abortion, the ethics of economic and political stances, the degree of personal responsibility, determing who has if anyone has obligations, the status of non human animals and the environment. Whether an act has the property of being right or wrong.

It seems that what will happen is people competing for the predominance of their personal ethics and interests but not with a real commitment to a rigorous moral calculation. Sometimes the most utilitarian position may triumph.

Well okay, don't answer my question.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808415