Morality must be based on the well-being of a class of organisms, morality must be based on our common biology. Society, civilization, is founded on a compassion for like organisms, like biologies. This must be a common purpose, for if one is to abide by a common biology-based morality one cannot at the same time, claim to be autonomous. Organisms form into these groupings in reaction to what is felt perhaps subjectively as an indifferent nature, an environment sometimes experienced as hostile to the continuation of life. Whereas a community is felt to be supportive of the life of the individual.

To have compassion for ones fellows one must identity with, for it is upon this that compassion arises. It is if you like, an expansion of the concept of self, perceived differences tend to make this identification more difficult, more abstract you might say. It is upon this reality, that one culture builds its ethical foundation as the glue holding the unit of society together. When one rules out morality and ethics founded on the supernatural, morality and ethics based upon our common biology is the only rational choice, which should have been realized in the first place.

One's goals, as well as most things about humanity are largely conditioned, context defines you might say. The goals of a free agent in nature to would be defined by context, thus giving over time the agents nature. So, society defines us, but we in identifying with others in this synthetic environment have violate the very nature or foundation of all things, the natural world. Civilization in context. Your thoughts?

Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark

Expand and elaborate please. — TheMadFool

Your thoughts? — boagie

I agree with almost everything you said, but I don't think that there is a distinction between what you call the synthetic and natural environment as you call them. What you call the synthetic environment comes from the natural environment, and is a part of it because it cannot exist without it.

Good point, your thinking personal achievement, as apposed to being functional in a given context?

What I meant to say was we call our community home, its comfortable, and we often forget the natural world that supports it. Unawareness is similar in its effects as indifference, and here, it has been deprimental to the natural world.

So you mean to respect the rights of others. But the pursuit of happiness being one of those rights you have listed, then I don't think we really disagree with each other don't you think ? — Hello Human

I still think we disagree. Pursuing happiness just means living life as you think is best. I've committed to respecting other's right to do that. I don't see that has anything to do with goals or purpose.

Your title and hence your topic "An Attempt at Establishing and Developing an Ethical Theory" contains the following flaws:
1) There are enough philosophical theories/systems, some of them well established. Why should one attempt to develop a new one?
2) First you develop something and then you establish it. (Re: Establishing and Developing)
3) You cannot develop an ethical system just like that (in a discussion). You can only provide your views on the subject of ethics.
4) Establish an ethical system in what way? Make it permanently accepted? What, via a discussion forum?

I still think we disagree. Pursuing happiness just means living life as you think is best. I've committed to respecting other's right to do that. I don't see that has anything to do with goals or purpose — T Clark

Living life as you think is best implies living as you want to as long as it does not harm others. You have some ideal and you try to achieve it. That seems very much like a goal.

I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps

I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps — Hello Human

Yes. This is much better! :up:
(I'll come back to this with ... my views on the subject ! :smile:)

how do I change the discussion title ?

how do I change the discussion title ? — Hello Human

I just checked ... Go to the first page of your topic (discussion), click on the 3 dots at the end of the description and then on "Edit" (pencil). The title will appear within an input box at the top.

Since I have never edited a title of mine, and so I don't know if this actual works, if it doesn't, just add a note with the new title below it. (Most probably this won't be needed.)

Living life as you think is best implies living as you want to as long as it does not harm others. You have some ideal and you try to achieve it. That seems very much like a goal. — Hello Human

Seems like every time I disagree with your point, you just go around trying to streeeetch the meaning of "goal" and "purpose" to fit. I may have goals in my life, but that doesn't mean my life has a goal. Actually, the older I get, I find I don't really have any goals in my life either, but my point stands.

I have no objections to you having a goal for your life, but what's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. People are different.

I don't believe we have a purpose — T Clark

Your purpose is to be, and being includes doing. The doing comes from the being, and fulfills your beings purpose. When I move, look, and know, I'm fulfilling my supreme purpose. Fight yourself and you fight god. Know yourself and you know god.

Your purpose is to be — Miller

Sorry, just like I responded to @Hello Human above, you're just trying to jam additional meanings into the definitions of words.

you're just trying to jam additional meanings into the definitions of words. — T Clark

My explanations transcend words and intellect. You will only understand them when you are ready. Forest for the trees.

My explanations transcend words and intellect. You will only understand them when you are ready. — Miller

[joke]If I may translate "Because I said so."[/joke] Not a very convincing response.

Welcome to the forum.

Not a very convincing response. — T Clark

"Play stupid games and win stupid prizes"

The response was adequate to match your own

I may have goals in my life, but that doesn't mean my life has a goal. Actually, the older I get, I find I don't really have any goals in my life either, but my point stands. — T Clark

Let's say John has some life goal, becoming a famous singer. Now he uses his time in this world (his life), to achieve that goal, which means his life is an efficient cause towards a final end.

I have no objections to you having a goal for your life, but what's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. People are different. — T Clark

Which is why my views on morality are based on respect for others' happiness.

Let's say John has some life goal, becoming a famous singer. Now he uses his time in this world (his life), to achieve that goal, which means his life is an efficient cause towards a final end. — Hello Human

As I noted, I never said no one has life goals or that people shouldn't have them, only that I don't.

Which is why my views on morality are based on respect for others' happiness. — Hello Human

I see two parts to morality as we are discussing it 1) Respect for, not other people's happiness, but their right to pursue happiness in their own manner and 2) Compassion.

As I noted, I never said no one has life goals or that people shouldn't have them, only that I don't. — T Clark

Then I guess that flourishing is more about being in a fulfilling states of mind, and that it can be accomplished through life goals but not is not necessarily caused by it.

their right to pursue happiness in their own manner — T Clark

Unless their manner of pursuing happiness causes more suffering than happiness.

Unless their manner of pursuing happiness causes more suffering than happiness. — Hello Human

No. Unless their pursuit of happiness conflicts with someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If it does, something will have to be worked out. The Declaration goes on to say "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." According to our values, the government should be set up to deal with the conflicts that will always arise.

Kant observed that while a system of ethics might be arcane, obscure, and difficult to present, the sense of it in understanding and application had to be such that the "common" man could understand and apply it.

I suppose in keeping with that, one might (as well) start with four basic rules:
1) Do the right thing
2) Do the good thing
3) Don't do the wrong thing
4) Don't do the bad thing.

To which I'll add
5) If you cannot figure out what the good is, or the right, to distinguish it from the wrong and the bad, then do as little as possible unless you have to do something. And if you have to do something, then do the best you can.

Most of us, nearly all of us, know pretty much which is which. And most of us, nearly all of us, in practice fail even many times each day, there being so much room for improvement that recourse to arcane discussion of obscure problems is simply a waste of time. Which trolley track? When was the last time you faced such a problem (in real life)?

My own technique, my own solvent for problems, is simply to keep asking what the right and good and bad and wrong are for the given situation. The hammer chipping away error, almost a process of sculpting, looking to release the angel in the stone. Or the hammer breaks or the stone shatters. And if this latter, then what? Intention. And having started with Kant, end with him:

"Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL." (Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, chap. 1.)

No. Unless their pursuit of happiness conflicts with someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness — T Clark

Let's imagine a serial killer who pursues happiness through murder is chasing a victim. The victim uses a bat to hit the murderer. The victim effectively is conflicting with the murderer's pursuit of happiness. But in the same time, the murderer does that too. Now, who is most in the wrong here ? And how do we know who is most in the wrong ?

The Declaration goes on to say "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." According to our values, the government should be set up to deal with the conflicts that will always arise. — T Clark

And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? What are the indicators and information they should use ?

Now, who is most in the wrong here ? — Hello Human

This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me.

And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? — Hello Human

For us here in the US, it's called representative democracy corrupted by corporate influence. Not ideal, but that's what we've got.

Nice topic!

How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? — Hello Human

(Note: I will use the term "morality" as it is used in the description of the topic, although I personally prefer and normally use the term "ethics".)
Our personal purposes, that is, the purposes we have set and/or accepted in life for ourselves are indeed subjective and may be connected to our morality, but they cannot define or establish a general, objective morality, that is, one that can be applied to all human beings. We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival.

From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being.

Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity-- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference.

we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity. — Hello Human

Well, "measuring" becomes a little too specific and quite subjective. It is not easy even for the person to measure these things for himself. But of course, one can have a rough idea, say, "On a scale of 1 to 10 ..." (as we do for pain! :smile:)

Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation — Hello Human

Well, OK, but I don't think we need Kant's advice on that subject, although it's good to know his views ...

In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues. — Hello Human

Right. I already talked about "others" earlier.

I argue that human beings, and sentient beings in general have control over thir purpose. As Kant said, they are autonomous, which means they are self-law giving. This means that the purpose of a sentient being is subjective. — Hello Human

I would argue that because we are constrained by physical stimulation, such as pain or pleasure, we would not have full control over our purpose. Positive and negative stimulus gives us incentive to adjust our morality to align with more positive reinforcement, which is a form of control. However, this is not all bad; because there then would be objective reasoning as to why we perform moral tasks, it protects us from other subjective philosophical traditions such as nihilism(due to the intrinsic objective meaning that objectivity grants).

This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me. — T Clark

It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense.

So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival — Alkis Piskas

I agree, I think that the closest we can get to objective morality is intersubjectivity. But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. So doing whatever ensures that would be good. And we also like developing our talents, helping our neighbors, and a lot of other things.

I would argue that because we are constrained by physical stimulation, such as pain or pleasure, we would not have full control over our purpose. — john27

I think that physical stimulation informs our decisions, but does not necessarily restrict them. Sometimes we do painful things for long-term happiness, and we also do things for reasons that are not associated with physical pleasure for example.

We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival. — Alkis Piskas

This is all well and good, I guess, but what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess. First our children and families. Then our community members. Then eventually humanity at large. Compassion. I see that as the basis for morality. We are built to like each other.

I don't see that reason has anything to do with it to begin with. We can paint it up and make it pretty with reason when we have the time.

It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense. — Hello Human

It's not because his actions cause more harm. There's no comparison between the two people. The bad guy is trying to kill the other person with no justification.