Why do you need to cover all species? You invite a lot of complications. Why not sentient species or something similar? After all, you are discussing an ethical system and trying to lift animal behavior from instinctual or biological to ethical is a heavy task. Likewise, your notion of flourishing seems to imply a level of quality. not mere quantity as Isaac is asserting. Limiting your scope to humanity is more in keeping with that qualitative assertion. — Pro Hominem

Hi Pro Hominem, nice to see a Pro for a change instead of an Ad...

I go to the species level not to make things complicated but to make them simpler. I mentioned in an earlier post that the only important difference between humans and other animals is that we store our memories outside of our own bodies. We have language, we have text, we have images, we have the Internet, we have a recorded culture, we have a recorded morality and ethical standards and we have philosophy forums to discuss them.

Animals have standards of what is right and wrong for their species, but it is stored in their short-term memory, it is recorded in their brains, and most importantly it is coded into their DNA. But it is stored in their actual bodies. Animal morality is a species-learning, learning of genetic material, about what it takes to flourish as that kind of animal.

So I would argue there is Lion morality, which says you can kill hyenas and it’s OK to eat a newborn calf alive, you have mosquito morality, which says it’s OK to suck the blood of an unsuspecting mammal, and so on. It is the genetic material plus some limited memory capacity that tells the animal what is right and what is wrong. All of which is stored inside the actual body of the animal. But the grounding of that animal morality is the same as that of human morality, we just have means to circulate our common understanding of what is moral in the form of laws and norms.

But for both humans and other animals alike, what is right is what serves the flourishing of the species, and what is wrong is what hinders it.

Yes, you are right, flourishing implies quality, and quality of life differs from species to species, but it’s pretty easy to identify qualities associated with the flourishing of a species, personal security, access to food and water, health, hospitable environment, stability, reproductive success, specifically for humans we might agree on a few more, etc.

You might say, well these are all just more norms, to which I reply, people do of course invent and agree or disagree on norms and moral precepts. My project is not to invent or propose new norms. I am interested in meta-ethics. Why agree on norms at all? My answer: all norms and moral precepts are an attempt to answer the question before humanity: what best serves human flourishing?

My argument is that to flourish is more than a norm, it is a biological imperative for the species. — Thomas Quine

Hard to see how one could refute this, precisely because it's premised in the material nature of being.

Is also false. Divine Command Theorists do not determine their principles of the basis of human flourishing either here or in a mythical afterlife. They believe that God's commands
should be obeyed because they are God's commands -regardless of their consequence on humanity in any way shape or form. — Isaac

It is possible that in classes on the philosophy of religion Divine Command Theory has nothing to do with human flourishing in this world or the next, but out here in the real world, ask any religious person, and they will tell you that they follow God’s Law because God knows what is best for us, because God wants us to live well and fare well, because God is all-powerful and can send us to the lake of fire for all eternity if we disobey his commands, and can send us to an eternal life in paradise if we submit to Him.

By the way I always thought it was charming how in the Quran, paradise is always a shady glade with a cool stream running through it... How idyllic for a desert people...

Studies in the neuroscience of moral decision-making show conclusively that we do not always (or even commonly) consult any moral system dealing with consequences before acting morally. Babies can act morally - are you suggesting they calculate the effect of their actions on human flourishing? — Isaac

Obviously we are fitted with instincts right from birth like any other animal. Our instincts can provide subconscious guidance when confronting moral challenges. We are coded to behave in ways that are conducive to human flourishing.

My three-year old grandson is the most selfish little critter, he is struggling to learn to share and he has crazy tantrums when he does not get his way. He’ll grow out of it.

But from a species level, toddlers are extremely needy and they are programmed by evolution to be extremely demanding in order to have their needs met. Toddlers are selfish because they have to be. Toddlers are takers and parents are givers because that’s how it has to be to raise a healthy child. He’s learning that others have needs too, he’ll grow out of it.

We need to judge the morality of his behavior not by the U.S. constitution, not by Divine Command Theory, not by whether his tantrums contribute to utilitarian happiness, but by how evolution has shaped three-year olds to do what they have to do in order to flourish.

but by how evolution has shaped three-year olds to do what they have to do in order to flourish. — Thomas Quine

This is the the first stage of consciousness in an advanced species.

If you're going to include people's beliefs in a mythical afterlife as demonstrating that all moral theories are about human flourishing, then it cannot also be the case that science can tell us how to achieve it. — Isaac

Many people believe that life is hell but there’ll be pie in the sky when you die. This is a human aspiration for a better life, that seems impossible to obtain here on earth. Just because people believe something doesn’t make it true. What science can tell us is there is no evidence of an afterlife. There is lots of evidence that belief in the afterlife can lead to harmful consequences - think 9/11 World Trade Centre towers. Think suicide bombers. There’s lots of evidence that magical thinking has harmful consequences: think Trump. I think there was an atheist theorist in the 1800’s, Clifford I think, who said the greatest harm of religion is that it increases credulity in the population. Lots of evidence for that.

Science can always inform our moral decision-making, and sometimes it can provide definitive answers. But again, as I said in an earlier post, the role of science is to provide authoritative answers to practical questions, not to dictate to us what is moral and what is not. “Does XYZ behaviour help or hinder human flourishing?” is a practical question. Does mask-wearing and social distancing help reduce the spread of infection during a pandemic? Does childhood sexual abuse have a negative impact on both the child and society in general? Is widespread distribution of opioids a benefit to humanity? Does high social and income inequality lead to prosperity? Does prayer heal the sick? Does the death penalty lead to reduced crime?

Name any moral challenge and tell me that access to truth and evidence won’t help us resolve it...

So the domestic turkey is an example of a species that propagates its genetic material very successfully. But can anyone say this species is growing and developing in a healthy and vigorous way? — Thomas Quine

I have literally no idea what you're talking about at this stage. Are you asking me if I'd like to be turkey? Or if farmed Turkey's are healthy? Either question I'd have no idea how it relates to my criticisms. Your argument is that all species seek to flourish and you define flourish by growth in a healthy and vigorous way. What has this got to do with the fact that turkeys are subjected to onerous conditions by a more powerful species?

The criticism I'm raising here is that if you define things like 'health', 'vigour', and 'flourish' in terms of biological markers then you fall to either measuring those think by numbers, or measuring them by human sensibilities and so begging the question. Maybe turkeys are 'flourishing', how would you know other than by judging the quality of their lives by the very feelings you're claiming to thus identify?

Your claim, remember, is that all species seek to active this state called 'flourishing'. You've dismissed pure population size as a measure of flourishing, you've dismissed human values as a measure of flourishing. You've trued to imply that its something to do with biology (but all that leads to is that 'flourishing' is that which a creature strives toward, which makes your claim tautologous).

So, as clear as possible, what is the commonality in the term 'flourish' as you're using it? One minute you seem to suggest it's common to all creatures, the next you're invoking how awful it would be to be a turkey to argue that they're not 'flourishing' as a species. Do you think bacteria would care uf we treated them like turkeys?

Name any moral challenge and tell me that access to truth and evidence won’t help us resolve it... — Thomas Quine

OK.

Whether to help a friend in trouble. Two year olds know to do this, no science is required because the challenge has been resolved before we can even talk.

Whether to distribute rewards fairly. Even chimpanzees arguably know this one, certainly infant humans do. No science required.

Whether to care about the emotional state of others, whether to befriend or punish those who don't, whether to be generous in fortune, whether to cooperate for mutual goals, whether to deceive for personal gain... I could go on. All of these are developed in infancy, none require so much as a grain of scientific knowledge.

We may, at any time, require science to tell us how best to achieve these goals in complex situations, but that's nothing to do with meta-ethics, it's justvto do with efficient goal- achievement strategies, it would be no less true of an evil genius trying to destroy the world.

the only common objective is to have as many offspring as possible which are fit enough to themselves have as many offspring as possible. Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem, others will not.
— Isaac

Tell me how you interpret "Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem" as mindless propagation. — Isaac

I interpret your repetition of "as many offspring as possible" as implying mindless propagation, because you say that the only common objective of all living species is reproduction for the sake of more reproduction. I call this mindless reproduction because there is apparently no logic to this reproduction.

Remember that the Greek word "logos" can be translated as "the reason" or "the point". We need to go Meta. We need to ask, what is the point of all this reproduction? Why do living things reproduce and die? Why don't they live forever?

Evolutionary theory gives us the answer. Reproduction of offspring results in occasional genetic mutation. Genetic mutations can sometimes help offspring to better adapt and survive. If an individual is better able to adapt and survive, it will pass on its genetic material to its offspring, helping them to better adapt and survive. If the genetic variation is robust enough, it will become incorporated over X number of generations into the genome of the species. Which will help the species to flourish.

The entire purpose of having offspring is therefore not to have more offspring, but to serve the flourishing of the species.

Let's look at an example, working backwards. The Norwegian Rat, otherwise known as the common rat, is a highly intelligent, highly adaptable, highly successful species. It is said that for every human being on earth there are 10 rats within 100 meters.

One of the adaptations that helps the rat to succeed is that it has evolved the ability to eat any foul offal without getting sick, and is in fact physically incapable of vomiting. How did this ability evolve? Through generation after generation of genetic variation, introduced into the species through reproduction. A species that does not reproduce does not evolve and is therefore less adaptable, and therefore less able to flourish.

Now this discussion again highlights my main critique of most of contemporary ethical theory, and indeed most of contemporary evolutionary theory. Most want to deny that there is a point, that there is a logic behind the evolution of species, or behind the evolution of morality, but prefer to argue that it's all just happenstance with no Telos in sight.

I was going to respond, but as I was thinking about what I was going to say, I remembered that I already made similar points in this thread, which you largely ignored, as you also ignore most other objections, in favor of recycling the same talking points or digressing on various bits of pop-science. So I'll leave you to it.

I would say you are partially correct in the sense that morality is based upon human flourishing.But here the word 'Human' in my opinion doesn't encompass whole population.So what might be 'flourishing for some one might be 'torture' for some one.Based on these views we can say that nothing is inherently moral or immoral.

All of these are developed in infancy, none require so much as a grain of scientific knowledge. — Isaac

Well science is all about evidence, and I think before you go to help a friend in trouble you should be sure you have reliable evidence that they are actually in trouble.

But I take your point, we do have moral intuitions, some of which we absorb from the culture by osmosis, some of which are instinctual and put in there by evolution. Don't forget, instincts are species-learning validated through real deep-historical experience and natural experimentation.

Of course we don't run to check scientific journals before making daily decisions, but we should respect scientific advice based on good evidence - mask-wearing during a pandemic being a case in point.

I go to the species level not to make things complicated but to make them simpler. I mentioned in an earlier post that the only important difference between humans and other animals is that we store our memories outside of our own bodies. We have language, we have text, we have images, we have the Internet, we have a recorded culture, we have a recorded morality and ethical standards and we have philosophy forums to discuss them.

@Thomas Quine

Ok, so I repeat my question. Why do you insist on including animals? They weaken your argument considerably, as your diversion into turkeys and Isaac's responses demonstrate. If you want your argument to be useful in some way, then refine it at least so far that it doesn't fail to just casual reasoning. Please read that last sentence again. You have asked for responses to help you formulate your concepts, but you don't seem to be listening to any of them.

You say that all species "seek" "flourishing". Seek implies intent, and flourishing implies some knowledge that one IS flourishing, because one must have some sense of the abstract condition of one's species to know whether it is happening or not, or even to formulate the very idea of it. Animals don't do these things. They just don't. There is no lion morality. There is 'do what it takes to survive in the moment', overlaid by a biological imperative to produce offspring. In the majority of species, they care very little for their offspring's individual survival, except for some mammals.

Your point about the difference between humans and other species drives this point home even further. By saying that morality should be considered on a species level, you are acknowledging that morality has an inherently external nature. Morals are projected by the community at large and then (theoretically) acted on by the individual. As you have stated that humans are the only species that externalize their ideas in a way that allows them to be apprehended and considered by others of their species, why do you persist in the idea that, say, toads are somehow paying any attention to the flourishing of toaddom. It's facially nonsensical.

I continue to respond because I like the idea of individual humans considering the welfare of their species as opposed to their limited families, communities, or nation-states. I wish you would expend more effort on the scaling of that idea, and less on turkeys getting happy endings.

Why agree on norms at all? My answer: all norms and moral precepts are an attempt to answer the question before humanity: what best serves human flourishing?

@Thomas Quine

Start over from here, and develop and defend only this.

So how would we know the success of any given strategy other than by measuring the extent to which it has successfully lead to propagation of genetic material? — Isaac

I have literally no idea what you're talking about at this stage. — Isaac

I was talking turkey.

You suggested that the success of a species should be measured only by the extent of propagation of genetic material. This is a quantitative measure.

I think a better measure of success is whether a species is flourishing or not. This is a qualitative measure. Note that I earlier included reproductive success as only one element of what it means to flourish - I disagree that it should be the only measure of the success of a species. To say that evolution develops creatures that seek to flourish, and that this is how it ensures that genetic material is propagated, is not to concede your point that the purpose of evolution is nothing more than propagation of genetic material. It's to say that unless a species finds a way to flourish it will not have reproductive success.

Yes, you are right, flourishing implies quality, and quality of life differs from species to species, but it’s pretty easy to identify qualities associated with the flourishing of a species, personal security, access to food and water, health, hospitable environment, stability, reproductive success, specifically for humans we might agree on a few more, etc. — Thomas Quine

So I gave the example of the turkey, a sorry creature that has succeeded in propagating its genetic material, but whose quality of life cannot be described as favorable. Did I mention that a favorite hobby of the domestic turkey is pulling out its own feathers? Or that it is so prone to cannibalism that farmers must cut off the tip of their beaks with a special tool?

Because the turkey does not have to find food or evade predators, it has become so dumb that it will die of heat exhaustion before seeking shade. You can't have a pond on your property because the turkey will just walk into it and drown. It is so prone to disease that it must be pumped full of medication before it will survive long enough to be sent to market. I can't consider a species that would go extinct if turned loose into the wild to be in any way successful.

I judge the quality of life of the domestic turkey not by human standards, but by comparing it with that of the wild turkey, and I am ashamed at what people have done to the breed.

Isaac, let's cut to the chase. Do you think evolution has a purpose, and if you do, what do you think it is?

You say that all species "seek" "flourishing". Seek implies intent, and flourishing implies some knowledge that one IS flourishing, because one must have some sense of the abstract condition of one's species to know whether it is happening or not, or even to formulate the very idea of it. — Pro Hominem

I stated way back that just as "the market" is an emergent property of countless people engaging in transactions with one another, so morality is an emergent property of countless people trying to find a way to get along harmoniously.

What the heck is the market? Can you touch it, feel it, pick it up? Is it something supernatural? How can we say that the market sets prices, goes up or down, doesn't like instability, etc.? How can an abstract thing like a market have intentions? Because the market is a real thing, an emergent property of the interaction of countless people that is much larger than the individual can grasp.

First understand that DNA learns from the experience of a species, and that we may therefore speak of "species-learning", and that there exists such as thing as "species-intent" as an emergent property of individual animals unconsciously pursuing individual goals that collectively serve the species.

For example, herd animals or school fish will rush to be close to one another when threatened, instinctively and without self-reflection or consideration of the available science. This behaviour results in a herd or a school that serves to protect the individual from harm and helps the species to flourish. Herds or schools are emergent properties of herding and schooling behaviours, they are an emergent property of a behaviour that is specific to their species. I have no trouble saying that species have intentions of which the individual member of the species is unconscious. One of these emergent properties is the existence of herds of animals and schools of fish.

But the ultimate intention of the species is to flourish, and evolution produces behaviours and emergent properties of a species that serve that intent.

We should get away from the idea that intention requires a conscious mind. I think of it more as a trajectory. I think of intention in the same way Aristotle did when he said the intention of a rock is to succumb to gravity and fall towards the center of the earth. The novel coronavirus intends to infect as many people as possible, it has the intent to flourish, it has that intention without ever having a conscious thought.

We have an advantage over animals in that we can quickly disseminate information and learn as a species - our response to the pandemic is a case in point. Whether you wore a mask or maintained social distancing in public didn't used to be a moral question. Now it is, because spreading the virus hinders human flourishing. Human morality evolves very quickly.

The information stored in DNA about how a species should flourish is not fundamentally different from human information about how humanity should flourish. The difference is that we communicate this information at warp speed, so that we should be able to control this virus within a few years.

Animal morality evolves extremely slowly, because all the information it has is limited to its own body. An animal species will also learn to control a virus, but because information is transmitted through DNA, it can take a thousand generations to develop immunity, if the species has not gone extinct before then.

So I say animals know instinctively what is right and what is wrong for their species, that what is right for their species is what serves the flourishing of the species, and what is wrong for it is what hinders that flourishing. The experience of countless generations has taught them. This is the sense in which I think we can speak of animal morality, and my argument is that in this respect animal morality and human morality are not that different. Human are animals too, we just have better technology.

The information stored in DNA about how a species should flourish is not fundamentally different from human information about how humanity should flourish. The difference is that we communicate this information at warp speed, so that we should be able to control this virus within a few years. — Thomas Quine

Yes, it is fundamentally different. Your own arguments undermine your conclusions. Essentially, you are arguing that there's no difference between natural and artificial selection - but, there is, there just....is. It's why we have two separate concepts.

All you're describing with your animal examples is a gene model of natural selection which only serves to propagate reproduction in animals and pass on the genes, which opens you up to all of @Isaac's criticisms, which are well-founded.

The virus response example further underlines this point. Humans, by virtue of their intelligence, possess an agency in approaching events that all other organisms on this planet absolutely lack. We are different, period. This difference is exactly why we have conversations about, and feel a need for, morality or ethical systems. Animals don't do these things.

I'm sort of amazed that instead of actually trying to develop your thoughts about morality in a human context which is the only one that matters or even exists, that you would rather spend your time pretending that a herd instinct has a moral dimension to it.

If you want to talk about the interesting part of your idea, which I see as "what is the proper scope for systems of human morality?", then I am happy to do so.

If you want to keep trying to convince me that every fish in the ocean is deeply concerned with living his best life and hopes all his fish friends are doing the same, then I'm out. You might find a more sympathetic audience at a screening of Finding Nemo.

Ok, so I repeat my question. Why do you insist on including animals? — Pro Hominem

Well I want to show that morality is grounded in the logic of the natural universe. In a nutshell, that logic says, "Persist or perish". That is the logic that drives evolution.

We are not different than any other species in that we have a biological, instinctual imperative to persist in this wildly gyrating universe. Like all other living species we seek to flourish.

I include animals in this just as a simple observation.

If you believe this weakens my position I would be interested in hearing why you think so.

We tend to view behaviours that harm human flourishing as immoral and behaviours that serve human flourishing as moral. This should tell us something about the grounding of morality.

I want to completely get away from the idea that morality is just an accidental happenstance. Of course we make up norms and moral systems to suit the circumstances, but the root is always the same.

When I read the news or venture into the world I see that everyone I meet or read about is trying to do what Aristotle said they were trying to do: to live well and fare well. Of course people will disagree about how best to flourish, and we have ways to resolve disagreements, including science. But very few people will disagree that the human project is to live well and fare well; to flourish. I have read Darwin and extend that to the human species and to all living species.

If you want to talk about the interesting part of your idea, which I see as "what is the proper scope for systems of human morality?", then I am happy to do so. — Pro Hominem

Well we disagree about morality being grounded in natural biological imperatives, but perhaps we can move on from there.

Do you think there is a capital G "Good" that all moral precepts serve? If so, what might it be? If not, why not? Is morality grounded in anything? Does it come from God? Or do we just make it up as we go?

My project is not to invent or propose new norms. I am interested in meta-ethics. Why agree on norms at all? My answer: all norms and moral precepts are an attempt to answer the question before humanity: what best serves human flourishing? — Thomas Quine

Well I want to show that morality is grounded in the logic of the natural universe. — Thomas Quine

Which is it? This is the heart of my criticism.

I trust you know the adages about serving two masters or chasing two rabbits?

For my part, I think the first one is your best bet.

The second one is a pandora's box of concepts that will be very difficult to defend or even explain. If you do decide to go this way, I'd focus on the idea that complexity tends to accrete in the universe. Look into modern AI theory, or maybe Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach since you seem to enjoy a certain poetry in your thinking.

Well we disagree about morality being grounded in natural biological imperatives, but perhaps we can move on from there.

Do you think there is a capital G "Good" that all moral precepts serve? If so, what might it be? If not, why not? Is morality grounded in anything? Does it come from God? Or do we just make it up as we go? — Thomas Quine

Morality arises out of human consciousness as means to try to organize our increasingly complex systems of interaction. It is agreement reality, but part of the agreement can be to give it a sort of transcendent power, as in the veneration of the US Constitution, or the notion of human rights.

Morality arises out of human consciousness as means to try to organize our increasingly complex systems of interaction. It is agreement reality, but part of the agreement can be to give it a sort of transcendent power, as in the veneration of the US Constitution, or the notion of human rights. — Pro Hominem

Well, that's "how", but my question is "Why?" Why is it that we try to organize our increasingly complex systems of interaction?

Because the complexity demands it. Complexity begets complexity. Random noise does not perpetuate itself. If you want to describe this as the "logic of the universe", that's fine. At the largest scale, complexities search each other out and accumulate. Systems arise from this accrued complexity. The cycle continues.

Morality arises out of human consciousness as means to try to organize our increasingly complex systems of interaction. — Pro Hominem

If only it were so intelligent.

Because the complexity demands it. — Pro Hominem

I'm trying to go a little deeper. I see what you're saying, complexity requires rules.

But I'm pretty sure you're not saying, the purpose of morality is to reduce complexity. I'm pretty sure you're not saying, one should behave morally because that would serve to reduce complexity.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that reducing complexity is the target that Aristotle's moral archers should aim for. I can't imagine that one should advise citizens not to kill each other randomly or release a deadly virus from the lab because complexity demands it.

So I want to ask the next level of Why? Why would human beings want to reduce complexity?

Or perhaps you are saying there is nothing more to it than this, morals and laws arise only to solve ephemeral and fleeting problems and there is no larger reason why. In which case how does one reply to G.E. Moore, who said that without a definition of the Good, it is difficult to justify any system of morality?

Or perhaps you are saying that really morality does not have any greater purpose, you are rejecting moral teleology?

So could you clarify, do you think that morality has any greater purpose other than to reduce complexity or solve other practical problems?

Sorry, something got crossed up there. I absolutely do not want to see complexity reduced. I don't think I agree with your notion of a "higher purpose" or some kind of "Good", because these tend to rely on some sort of outside influencer and lead in the direction of theology, which is fruitless.

I don't think that the desire to lift the condition of humanity as a whole even requires a justification. It is self-explanatory. I don't think humans are special per se, but I think sapience is and we should do our best to use it to increase the general well-being of ourselves and our environment. The accretion of complexity is just the "how" as you put it. The "why" is that it is clearly a better option than any of the alternatives.

I don't think that the desire to lift the condition of humanity as a whole even requires a justification. It is self-explanatory. I don't think humans are special per se, but I think sapience is and we should do our best to use it to increase the general well-being of ourselves and our environment. — Pro Hominem

This is precisely the kind of down to earth common sense that has been marred by religious abstraction and abstraction in general. Yes, it is self-justificatory! 'Should we make life harder for ourselves?' Everyone will deny it, but so many are engaged in precisely this vocation through the medium of abstraction.

There is little need for us to contend with each other, we all agree with this. The enemy is abundant in the world, mindless superstition, wisdom dictates forces united to stop the advance of stupidity.

I don't think that the desire to lift the condition of humanity as a whole even requires a justification. It is self-explanatory. — Pro Hominem

Well I said in earlier posts at the start of this thread that all moral systems appear to aim for this end, whether they express that explicitly and literally or not.

I feel the need to ground the claim that what is moral is what serves human flourishing in science, because my next move is to say that science can help us determine what is moral, because science can tell us a lot, maybe not everything but a lot, about what serves human flourishing, and what hinders it.

We need to bring science into the equation as an objective referee between competing claims about what actually does serve human flourishing.

For example, climate change - is it addressing climate change that will "lift the condition of humanity", or accelerating economic growth?

Are LGBTQ rights harmful to society? Is immigration?

At what point does freedom of speech cause more harm than good?

Does the death penalty deter crime? Does mass incarceration make society safer?

Is it better to wear a mask during a pandemic, or is it better to refuse a mask to champion individual liberty? Is quarantine an unjustified violation of the freedom of the individual?

You mention the veneration of the U.S. constitution. Right now the justices decide cases mostly on a close reading of the constitution, literally as if it were a holy text, or on case precedent. Imagine if instead the justices said, "OK, let's decide this case on the following criteria: what judgement would best serve human flourishing? And let's get some scientists in here to present some hard evidence before we decide..."

And so on.

I'm all in favour of competing ideas, that's how progress and evolution happen. But unless you have an objective standard of moral behaviour and an objective arbiter, there's no response to those who say, well what makes your idea any better than mine? You won't be able to get past the moral relativists and the magical thinkers - and today they seem to be both in power and in the majority...

unless you have an objective standard of moral behaviour and an objective arbiter, there's no response to those who say, well what makes your idea any better than mine? — Thomas Quine

You still haven't made any progress whatsoever on this this.

1. Your notion of what exactly constitutes 'flourishing' is just your personal opinion. Some people think a 'flourishing' society is one in which we have amazing technological advances, everyone is wealthy, others focus on happiness, others health, some see spiritual fulfilment, some the pure measure of population numbers. Most people have a varied mix with different emphasis placed on different aspects and it is this different emphasis which causes disagreement in moral dilemmas. You saying we should seek 'human flourishing' hasn't added anything useful at all in terms of objectivity. We all agreed on that in the first place. What we disagree on is what constitutes 'flourishing', what features (and in what measure) a 'flourishing society' has.

2. It's the same with bringing in scientists. Only an absolutely tiny and insignificant minority of people make moral judgements that are contradicted by all of science, no-one seriously thinks the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese. Scientists disagree, and their disagreement becomes greater the more complex the system and the further into the future you want them to predict consequences. Gathering scientific evidence will serves absolutely no purpose at all toward increasing the objectivity of moral decision making beyond the state it is already in because you will simply obtain a range of opinions wide enough to encompass all the options already being discussed. Nothing in there tells you which option to choose.

With all of your examples the key questions remain -

How far into the future do we extend the predicted consequences?

How much certainty do we need of some negative consequence in the future in order to sacrifice some positive consequence now?

We need to bring science into the equation as an objective referee between competing claims about what actually does serve human flourishing.

For example, climate change - is it addressing climate change that will "lift the condition of humanity", or accelerating economic growth?

Are LGBTQ rights harmful to society? Is immigration?

At what point does freedom of speech cause more harm than good?

Does the death penalty deter crime? Does mass incarceration make society safer?

Is it better to wear a mask during a pandemic, or is it better to refuse a mask to champion individual liberty? Is quarantine an unjustified violation of the freedom of the individual? — Thomas Quine

With the possible exception of the last one, I don't think "science" has much to add to any of those conversations.

All the science we have on climate change is easily available. It has not changed that most people still hold beliefs based on their political or economic interests, not anything to do with science.

The rest of them don't really involve science at all. Social science, I suppose, but that's not really "science". Statistics can be made to tell whatever story the person choosing the statistics wants to tell.

It is obviously scientifically verified that it is better for everyone to wear a mask during a pandemic, but that has not stopped countless people from choosing not to do so.

There will always be disagreements about what is the best thing for humanity - except in cases of mass extinction, science often can go either way. If you are asking what I think is important, it is education. It is not required that we all end up with the exact same definition of human "flourishing". It is important that we are all at least conditioned to ask such a question and try to view major issues through that lens.