2. All morality is an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" What kinds of rules can we come up with that will help us to all get along and prosper? — Thomas Quine

Is someone obligated to prosper? No.

Is someone obligated to not cause unnecessary harm? Most likely yes.

That is why prosperity seems to not be related to morality. Rather, it is more related to folk-wisdom for what one should strive for. Even that is ill-defined and breaks down when looking at individuals. For example, in an ideal world, let's say, no one has to do any activity they didn't like. But this is not the real world. So, we must do the least worst thing we would like. What happens if even the least worst thing is incomparably not the ideal? So now it is just dealing with the least worst outcome. But what if there are many barriers? So now we are dealing with getting rid of the barriers that lead to the least worst outcome, and so on and so on. Why put more people in the world to deal with situations of removing barriers to the least worst outcome in the first place?

all" is a gigantic ask, and I'm not quite sure this is accurate. There are animal rights activists who favor the rights of non-human animals in their morality not from the perspective of human flourishing, but rather for the sake of the animals themselves. — InPitzotl

You are right, those whose primary concern is animal rights are a challenge to the premise. I am not a vegetarian but I support animal rights because I believe causing animals to suffer is not far from causing humans to suffer and once you get a taste for that bad things may follow. Where I come from up in British Columbia we had a serial killer who killed 50 women. He was a pig farmer and he slaughtered the women just like farm animals and fed them to his pigs. He had been traumatized as a child when his pet calf was slaughtered and butchered before his eyes.

I was struck by an article I read that noted that most soldiers in WWI and WWII were farm boys used to killing by hand, and war atrocities came easier to them as a result.

And it was noted that Heinrich Himmler, who set up Dachau, one of the first death camps, had formerly been a chicken farmer and an early adopter of mechanized chicken slaughter and butchery.

So from my point of view avoiding unnecessary suffering contributes to a more humane society, and this contributes to human flourishing. But I do know some animal rights activists who are far more concerned about animal rights than about human flourishing.

So perhaps I should say "almost all" instead of "all".

"Flourishing" is the constant, not the variable. — Thomas Quine

Then you should be able to substitute it for a synonymous sentence in all cases. So in all cases of moral systems what is a sentence we can use in place of the constant 'flourishing'?

Then you should be able to substitute it for a synonymous sentence in all cases. So in all cases of moral systems what is a sentence we can use in place of the constant 'flourishing'? — Isaac

Not sure why you believe this, Isaac, but I settled on the word "flourishing" because it is how Aristotle's word "eudaimonia" is usually translated today. It would take more than a sentence to explain eudaimonia, and my sense of flourishing adds some evolutionary theory to Aristotle.

But I've just been reading Heidegger and I've committed myself to writing clearly for the rest of my life, and I think the English definition of the verb is commonly understood. We know what it means for our garden to flourish.

The simplest dictionary definition is "to grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way."

And by the way, I think not only humans seek to flourish, but every life form. It's part of the logic of the universe.

Not sure why you believe this, Isaac — Thomas Quine

Your claim.

1. All moral systems aim to achieve X.
2. Science informs us about X.

A necessary corollary of your claim, therefore is that science informs us about that which all moral systems aim to achieve.

Divine command theory is a moral system.

Divine command theory aims at obedience to God's will.

Science cannot tell us about God's will.

Therefore some element if your claim is wrong.

Sounds like Aristotle, in many ways. Eudaimonia gets translated as "happiness," but flourishing is better. In that sense, human beings should strive for this and actions can be judged on its basis. However, that's not saying a whole lot -- what gets considered "flourishing" becomes an issue in itself, not to mention all the lies told to people by priests and authorities who want to simply promote a morality to enhance or maintain their power.

But overall I think it's a good start. Someone was making noises like this a while back; it may have been Sam Harris. Trying to link morality to human well-being, in the same sense as "health" in medicine, thus being able to open up a field in which we can study it scientifically. All interesting stuff.

Trying to link morality to human well-being, in the same sense as "health" in medicine, thus being able to open up a field in which we can study it scientifically. All interesting stuff. — Xtrix

Why would we need to link morality to human well-being in order to open up a field in which we can study it scientifically? Why don't we just study human well-being?

Why would we need to link morality to human well-being in order to open up a field in which we can study it scientifically? Why don't we just study human well-being? — Isaac

By "it" I was there referring to morality. The argument is that there is no fact/value or is/ought distinction, and that morality can be based in science if we simply accept a concept of "well-being" as we accept "health" in medicine.

By "it" I was there referring to morality. The argument is that there is no fact/value or is/ought distinction, and that morality can be based in science if we simply accept a concept of "well-being" as we accept "health" in medicine. — Xtrix

Yes, I understood that, I was wondering why you'd want to do that. We can already study human well-being and carry out any activities that such a study might reveal as benefitting human well-being. What's the advantage in equating such behaviours with 'morality'?

Divine command theory is a moral system.

Divine command theory aims at obedience to God's will.

Science cannot tell us about God's will.

Therefore some element if your claim is wrong. — Isaac

Science tells us there is no evidence of God, also that people tell all kinds of stories about Gods and winged beasts and Cyclops and so on throughout history and the likeliest explanation is that the whole thing is just made up.

Now the fact that it was all made up by human beings doesn't make everything about it wrong, stories can tell us a lot. Also I think "Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty good moral rule of thumb, although obviously not valid in all circumstances.

We can already study human well-being and carry out any activities that such a study might reveal as benefitting human well-being. What's the advantage in equating such behaviours with 'morality'? — Isaac

Well-being usually refers to a brain state and thus is a subjective measure and a measure of how well an individual is doing. Morality operates at a societal scale and is concerned with not only what is good for the individual but for society and for all humanity.

In your view, if flourishing has to be the intention of a moral action, then how should moral intentionality be determined?

Well-being usually refers to a brain state and thus is a subjective measure and a measure of how well an individual is doing. — Thomas Quine

It’s not entirely subjective, for instance, there ways to physically measure stress and serotonin levels, which correlate to mental well-being.

The modern urban lifestyle is typically regarded as being high stress, incidentally, which would be odd if the foundation of morality were human flourishing, or it’s an indication that the modern lifestyle is generally immoral?

The modern urban lifestyle is typically regarded as being high stress, incidentally, which would be odd if the foundation of morality were human flourishing, or it’s an indication that the modern lifestyle is generally immoral? — praxis

If you were to follow the anarcho-primitivist, you would say that the modern lifestyle is immoral, based as it is on private property and exploitation of "human resources". On that account we are all immoral insofar as we can hardly avoid buying products whose production relies somewhere along the line on slave labour.

And if it is true, as is often claimed, that the modern lifestyle actually decreases general human (and obviously others species' and environmental) flourishing then it is immoral on that count as well.

The problem with your argument here is that it fails to recognize that the Christian notion of flourishing is an eternalist, not a temporalist, one. Obviously science can tell us nothing about that. The best it can do is to show that there are no empirical grounds for believing in such a thing. But then the Christian moralist can simply retort that they don't accept "empirical grounds" but rather accept revelatory ones.

It is not generally regarded as immoral though. The so called American Dream, for example, is highly praised by much of the world.

if you accept that there is a fact of the matter regarding well-being, and it's true that Americans are among those with the greatest lack of well-being then that opinion, regardless of its prevalence, would be wrong.

I doubt anyone would claim that Americans are among those with the greatest lack of well-being, at least not in the material sense. Millions of children die of malnutrition each year in other parts of the world. Basic needs come before grand eudaemonic schemes.

Is it because human flourishing is the foundation of morality that makes it so easy to turn a blind eye to human suffering? We are moral, aren’t we?

Basic needs should be fulfilled for all wherever possible. But there are practical, and not merely moral or political impediments to bringing that about. If there were a way to organize it, morally speaking we should all accept a diminution of our prosperity if that would afford equal prosperity to all others. But we are not sufficiently morally motivated. I would say most of us only care about what affects, or would be likely to significantly affect, themselves and those they may be more or less intimately involved with.

To say that the logical basis of morality is concern for others, for their flourishing or well-being or whatever way you want to say it, is not to say that everyone considers all others to be worthy of consideration in any way other than perhaps paying lip service to the idea. In other words I think the logic is the same, regardless of how widely it is applied, in principle and, not always the same, in practice.

You and I have both made the point that the logic should be applied to other species, to the whole biosphere; that we should endeavour to transcend anthropocentric moral thinking. Just what that would entail for questions about eating meat is another question. I think it's inevitable that we will privilege humans, at least somewhat, over other species, the practicalities of life seem to demand at least that much. I doubt we could all live as Jains, for example.

Is it moral to entertain negative thoughts which inhibit the flourishing of others, or even your own flourishing?

Whether God is real or not has no bearing on my argument. Even if a moral system aimed at something which was not real, that still defeats your claim that all moral systems aim at some constant. They don't. They aim at different things. Divine command theory aims at obedience to god which is a different thing from maximal happiness (ordinary utilitarianism) which is a different thing to rationally universalisable maxims (Kantian deontology), which is a different thing to lack of harm (negative utilitarianism)...

Well-being usually refers to a brain state and thus is a subjective measure and a measure of how well an individual is doing. Morality operates at a societal scale and is concerned with not only what is good for the individual but for society and for all humanity. — Thomas Quine

We can already study which societies flourish, or even how well humanity is doing by whatever measures we like. Still not seeing the link to 'morality'.

The problem with your argument here is that it fails to recognize that the Christian notion of flourishing is an eternalist, not a temporalist, one. Obviously science can tell us nothing about that. — Janus

That's exactly what I just said. I don't understand how that's a problem with my argument, it sounds like just a repeat of it.

That's exactly what I just said. I don't understand how that's a problem with my argument, it sounds like just a repeat of it. — Isaac

The problem with your argument is that the two Xs, different ideas of flourishing, are not the same. The fact that one of them is not subject to empirical investigation does not refute the claim that all moral thought is concerned with flourishing.

In any case to support the claim that science can be used to assess claims about flourishing the OP can say, as I already suggested, that the notion of eternal flourishing is groundless, and merely a matter of faith, with no inter-subjective power to convince anyone but those who have already accepted the idea.

the two Xs, different ideas of flourishing, are not the same. — Janus

all moral thought is concerned with flourishing. — Janus

How can you reconcile both these statements? If the two Xs (that which moral systems aim at) are not the same, then it is de facto false that "all moral thought is concerned with flourishing". It can't be, we've just established that the two Xs are different.

One cannot sustain both claims (that all moral systems are concerned with flourishing and that science tells us about flourishing) without equivocating over the term 'flourishing'. I the first claim it's taken to mean something wide enough to include eternal afterlife, yet the second claim is only true if it's taken in a much narrower sense.

Rather, if you force others in the grand old pursuit of the game of flourishing, and in doing so, force unnecessary harm and challenges on another person because you deem this worthy, or you would feel pain if you did not force this situation on another, that may be immoral.

My argument is that Divine Command Theory is one of many moral theories that attempt to lay down sets of rules that the proponents believe will help humanity to flourish.

Those who promote Divine Command Theory say explicitly, over and over, that if we only follow God's law, humanity will flourish, if not in this life, then in the next.

Let X be any moral theory.

Let "flourishing" be a constant.

My argument is, "All X are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" "

Therefore, to use Issac's words, Divine Command Theory is a moral theory that aims at obedience to God's Will, and is an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?"

The way to defeat this argument is not by changing my constant into a variable. It would be by proving that the intention of Divine Command Theory is not actually to serve human flourishing.

Rather, if you force others in the grand old pursuit of the game of flourishing, and in doing so, force unnecessary harm and challenges on another person because you deem this worthy, or you would feel pain if you did not force this situation on another, that may be immoral. — schopenhauer1

I am saying no one has to force human beings to seek to flourish, by and large, for the most part, they do this on their own. (Note that trying to find the best way to flourish is not the same as actually flourishing.)

Nowhere have I said that seeking to flourish as individuals and as a community is what we ought to do, only that it is what we actually do.

I then argue that if this is what we actually are seeking to do, then science can help us find the best way.

Back to Divine Command Theory, I was struck by reading that the tiny nation of Finland, 5.5 million people, and one of the least religious nations on earth, has a record of scientific, economic, and educational achievement greater than the entire Muslim world, population almost 2.5 billion, which includes most of the nations on earth with the highest levels of poverty and violence. This I take as evidence of the failure of Divine Command Theory. It may deliver the goods in the afterlife, and good luck with that, but it sure does not deliver the goods in this life...

My argument is that Divine Command Theory is one of many moral theories that attempt to lay down sets of rules that the proponents believe will help humanity to flourish. — Thomas Quine

Well then that's wrong from the outset. Divine command theory aims to obey God. If God aimed to make humanity miserable, then that would be the morally right thing to aim for because God said so. It has nothing ti do with human flourishing in the sense you've been using.

Those who promote Divine Command Theory say explicitly, over and over, that if we only follow God's law, humanity will flourish — Thomas Quine

Who says this?

Divine Command Theory is a moral theory that aims at obedience to God's Will, and is an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" — Thomas Quine

No it doesn't.if God demanded something which caused humanity to suffer, that would still be morally right according to divine command theorists.

The way to defeat this argument is not by changing my constant into a variable. It would be by proving that the intention of Divine Command Theory is not actually to serve human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

I then argue that if this is what we actually are seeking to do, then science can help us find the best way. — Thomas Quine

Just to get off DCT for a minute. How far into the future does your "All moral theories are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" go, and is there an equally constant degree of hyperbolic discounting?

Say science tells us an action could benefit a thousand people now, but carries a 60% risk of harming 10,000 people in 100 year's time. Science can't tell us what weighting to give to the risk. Are you suggesting that all moral theories apply the same risk weighting? If not, then aren't we just back to square one with irresolvable disputes over all the really complicated questions?

... morally speaking we should all accept a diminution of our prosperity if that would afford equal prosperity to all others. But we are not sufficiently morally motivated. I would say most of us only care about what affects, or would be likely to significantly affect, themselves and those they may be more or less intimately involved with. — Janus

Closer to home and therefore more likely to share genes. This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing.

The fact that we must learn and practice well-being, and that it requires discipline, also indicates that it’s rather against the grain of our base nature.

Yes, I understood that, I was wondering why you'd want to do that. We can already study human well-being and carry out any activities that such a study might reveal as benefitting human well-being. What's the advantage in equating such behaviours with 'morality'? — Isaac

I don't really understand what you mean. I'm not equating behavior with morality. Morality as judgment of "good" and "bad," or "right" and "wrong" applied to behavior (actions) is done all the time. We're constantly making those judgments. The question is "What is good?" If we say happiness (in terms of flourishing or well-being) is "good," then science can certainly help us discern "right" from "wrong."