Well this is old one isn't it? Is morality objective or subjective or, in fact, intersubjective? We come to this on the forum every few weeks or months it seems to me.

How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

For my money, I don’t think we decide questions of legality by appealing to some eternal moral law written into the fabric of the universe. Instead, we put together compromises that let us get along with one another while pursuing our different projects. Hence the public conversation about morality which result in law reform and an evolution of what is right and wrong over time.

So it seems that the line between legal and illegal is not discovered, it’s negotiated. What matters isn’t whether a law corresponds to some deep moral truth, but whether it works well enough for the purposes of reducing cruelty, minimising conflict, and keeping social life manageable. So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing. We can certainly decide not to do this and see what happens.

Given humans are a social species and getting on with each other has been the source of our strength and success (such as they are) it’s clear to see how not killing, not stealing, not lying and not assaulting others works to all our advantages. But there are always situations where even these prohibitions may not be useful.

If anybody has any ethical questions, they can just ask me.

If anybody has any ethical questions, they can just ask me. — frank

Yep, that's an option too.

So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing — Tom Storm

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries?

Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

Because not enough people care about the welfare of animals, and eating meat is deeply embedded in our culture. The moral conversations of many cultures haven't taken this matter seriously as yet.

You’re understanding my point back to front. Across ethical systems, a common theme is the prevention of harm. This does not imply that every possible instance of harm is recognized or codified into the moral principles of a culture. Ethical systems are selective, shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations. Some harms may go unnoticed or be considered acceptable in certain contexts, while others are amplified as morally significant.

A truth seeker who begins their search with a quote from fiction might be already on the wrong path.

We may disagree about what makes a good meal, but we can know edible from poisonous fairly reliably.

Some people may think that torture is justifiable under some circumstances, and others think it is never justified. But anyone who complained that there was not enough torture going on in society, as if torture were itself a good thing, would be a lunatic.

There are no falsehood seekers, only truth seekers.

Our disagreements over good and bad tend to be matters of priority - Is it better to let the robber take your stuff or kill them? We agree that best is to not have your stuff taken and not kill anyone, but...

I believe that if one is to believe that there is an objective morality, the one thing we can consider is that existence vs non-existence is good. Proof here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Although I can't prove anything beyond that, and the discussion is purely philosophical beyond that point, I think that any assertion of morality should not violate this core tenant.

You’re understanding my point back to front. Across ethical systems, a common theme is the prevention of harm. This does not imply that every possible instance of harm is recognized or codified into the moral principles of a culture. Ethical systems are selective, shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations. Some harms may go unnoticed or be considered acceptable in certain contexts, while others are amplified as morally significant. — Tom Storm

You are right in that ethical systems are selective. That's why non-vegans murder sentient organisms and think they are doing the right thing, even though there are vegan options that avoid the deliberate exploitation and murder of sentient organisms.

Our disagreements over good and bad tend to be matters of priority - Is it better to let the robber take your stuff or kill them? We agree that best is to not have your stuff taken and not kill anyone, but... — unenlightened

How would we work out whose priority matters? Vegans prioritise saving and improving the lives of nonhuman sentient organisms, but non-vegans don't. Are vegans in the right and the non-vegans in the wrong?

I believe that if one is to believe that there is an objective morality, the one thing we can consider is that existence vs non-existence is good. — Philosophim

How can you know whether morality is objective or subjective? We know things from subjective sensory perceptions, e.g. I see these words on my computer screen.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

If plants are conscious does veganism lose some of it's moralistic appeal?

That's why non-vegans murder sentient organisms and think they are doing the right thing, even though there are vegan options that avoid the deliberate exploitation and murder of sentient organisms. — Truth Seeker

But they don't taste as good. I had an impossible burger once. Never again. But, I would pay twice as much at the store for lab grown meat.

How can you know whether morality is objective or subjective? We know things from subjective sensory perceptions, e.g. I see these words on my computer screen. — Truth Seeker

A subjective morality devolves into opinion, which means there is no morality that anyone should reasonably listen to. When you state morality is subjective, its the equivalent to me saying, "Blue is the best color". If that is the case then we cannot reasonably make any enforcement of prevention or allowance of morality. A society which said murder is wrong would be just as reasonably justified as a society which actively encouraged murder and celebrated it. Subjective morality simply does not work as a rational system, and the only reason why anyone holds onto it is because they want to justify doing the things they like, or because there has been no proven objective morality thus far and people just want to hold onto something like "God makes it rain."

The proof does not prove that there is an objective morality, but it does show that IF morality is objective, the tenant of existence is good vs non-existence must be held as a foundational premise.

How would we work out whose priority matters? — Truth Seeker

Fight!

If plants are conscious does veganism lose some of it's moralistic appeal? — RogueAI

Yes.

But they don't taste as good. I had an impossible burger once. Never again. But, I would pay twice as much at the store for lab grown meat. — RogueAI

I understand what you mean. I have been a vegan for 19 years. I do miss the taste of non-vegan food, but I prefer being a vegan because it saves and improves sentient nonhuman lives.

Fight! — unenlightened

People have certainly gone to war over priorities, e.g. the United States had a civil war about slavery.

The proof does not prove that there is an objective morality, but it does show that IF morality is objective, the tenet of existence is good vs non-existence must be held as a foundational premise. — Philosophim

I agree.

I understand what you mean. I have been a vegan for 19 years. I do miss the taste of non-vegan food, but I prefer being a vegan because it saves and improves sentient nonhuman lives. — Truth Seeker

Even outside of veganism, people could demand an end to the more odious forms of factory farming. Future generations are going to judge us harshly on this.

Even outside of veganism, people could demand an end to the more odious forms of factory farming. Future generations are going to judge us harshly on this. — RogueAI

I agree.

It's funny when legality and morality are conflated by politicians/political movements. Most judges would scoff at that idea.

Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? — Truth Seeker

Yes (see below).

Different countries have different laws.

Legality (institutional) =/= morality (interpersonal).

Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

Probably for the same reason carnivorism isn't "legal mandatory in all countries".

:up: :up:

[T]he one thing we can consider is that existence vs non-existence is good. — Philosophim

Well I agree, more or less, with Thomas Ligotti (Cioran, Buddha et al): "nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone."

How can you know whether morality is objective or subjective? — Truth Seeker

Consider this post from a thread An inquiry into moral facts (2021) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198

and further elaboration (2023) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773

Shakespeare was based at times. You know what is bad by understanding what is injurious to you. You know what is good by understanding what revitalizes you.

You know what is bad by understanding what is injurious to you. You know what is good by understanding what revitalises you. — DifferentiatingEgg

What about delusions? For example, people have religious beliefs about going to heaven as they believe they are going to heaven because they have the right faith, e.g. Christianity, and others are going to hell because they have the wrong faith.

nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. — 180 Proof

Thank you for your reply and the valuable links to the other discussions. I agree that existence hurts all sentient organisms, but it does not hurt any nonsentient organisms, e.g. plants, because pain requires sentience.

it would seem the majoroty need such a dream. That doesn't mean it has to be your truth(s).

Hamlet is pithy on this point, but I prefer Milton's Satan:

A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Note, Satan always relates everything to himself. He begins this first epic speech ostensibly talking about another demon, but then it is all "me mine me me" for most of it. He is almost always speaking in similes relating the rest of reality to himself most often. God, very strikingly for Paradise Lost, never uses any similes. I think it's a brilliant, subtle, linguistic point about elements of the "New Science" and mechanistic philosophy of Milton's day, which makes everything a matter of private valuation.

On the question of different laws holding at different times, if this is meant to suggest skepticism, I would just point out that the same holds for all issues of truth. For most of human history, people held disparate beliefs about the shape of the Earth, how infectious diseases spread, etc. What individuals believed on these issues has tended to be a function of the answers they grew up around. If you're culture thought the Earth was flat , you probably did too. But surely this doesn't give us grounds to believe that there is "no fact of the matter," or that the shape of the Earth varies depending on which cultural context you are currently in.




In practice, this seems to be what many "ethics" end up reducing to.

If you're culture thought the Earth was flat , you probably did too. But surely this doesn't give us grounds to believe that there is "no fact of the matter," or that the shape of the Earth varies depending on which cultural context you are currently in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: :up:

Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right (e.g. it is right to save and improve lives) and something is wrong (e.g. theft, fraud, rape, robbery, enslaving, torture and murder are wrong)? Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? Different countries have different laws. Even the same country has different laws at different times. How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

No, just thinking something is right doesn't make it right. Same with feeling something is right, which is what our morals are built upon - there is no way to say one person's feelings are right over another's, and just because a majority think of feel something, doesn't make it right either.

As a result, nothing "should" be made legal and illegal. It is just a battle of the preferences.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

The worst part for me is the suffering these animals go through - for many it is a living hell. It's disgusting that animal agriculture is still legal.

How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

What is legal and what is right are not the same thing. Laws are a matter of control with the purpose of maintaining social stability. Much of what is called morality is the same thing.