Then how do you expect to arrive to WISE conclusions about a biological by product?????
This is what I am talking about in all the threads of this forum.
People want to participate in these discussions without bringing any facts in these conversations but they demand others to respect their opinions.
This is not an accusation for you since you have been one of the most rational individuals I have interacted in here.
The problem is much bigger since most people hold strong beliefs on ideas that are unfounded in zero epistemology.

Scientifically we can hook individuals in brain scans and analyze their bloods and diagnose frustration or happiness or anxiety or being in love just by studying basic metrics that give away their current state and by knowing the goals set by our homeostasis, our drives and urges.
This is a Scientific topic, not a purely philosophical one.

So Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions(lack of trust) etc etc are not objective metrics of well being?????? — Nickolasgaspar

I suspect they probably are, but you'll find an increase in stress hormones in a child denied sweets, you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. You dismissed both as measures of well-being.

Do you even know what Homeostasis is? — Nickolasgaspar

I do indeed know what homeostasis is, I'm not sure what it has to do with our valuing well-being.

Do you really think that well being is a ''bubble" in our world without any connections to our biological nature? — Nickolasgaspar

No, I doubt that.

Actions affect our biology either physically or mentally and we can objectively measure the impact by observing our chemisty and brain function. — Nickolasgaspar

At the time we can, yes. How do you propose we measure the effects of our actions after a decade via observing our chemisty and brain function.

I suspect they probably are, but you'll find an increase in stress hormones in a child denied sweets, you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. You dismissed both as measures of well-being.
-Yes you will but this is why we use more than one metric .
i.e. the biology of a kid reacting to sugar intake shows similarities with other addictive substances.
So we need to "train" the behavior for ITS WELL BEING...not to just seek pleasure.
As I explained a prisoner is removed from a society because his actions affect the well being of its members. A prisoner is NO longer(for now or for ever)
— Isaac

I do indeed know what homeostasis is, I'm not sure what it has to do with our valuing well-being. — Isaac

Homeostasis drives our chemicals responsible for our emotions and feelings. Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being.

No, I doubt that. — Isaac

-We agree on that.

At the time we can, yes. How do you propose we measure the effects of our actions after a decade via observing our chemisty and brain function. — Isaac

-Why should we do that? We already know from our biology what we "should value". What we need to do is construct a society that servers those values (our well being).

There are probably many scenarios where wellbeing is not all that helpful and I think Issac's question of 'whose wellbeing' is a good one. When there is competing wellbeing, whose are we chiefly concerned with? — Tom Storm

This is why Secular Morality stresses the need that our moral laws SHOULD serve the wellbeing of all members and the society as a whole.
i.e. kids might like sweets, but we know we need to limit their pleasure because it has implications to other members of a society.(health expenses, changes in brain chemistry). Do you know that the consumption of junk food(sweets) has been used as an argument in the court for the defense of a crime? (Stanford Molecular biology- Robert Sapolsky).
So we need to understand since morality refers to the impact human behavior has on others our judgments on well being SHOULD never be limited to one individual's seek for pleasure.

Well, in that case, we could start from incontrovertible truths, these being hedonic judgments, in re morality, oui? Let's keep things simple and begin with nobody likes to be physically assaulted. To that one could add psychological pain e.g. insults. These are universal and true across the board. — Agent Smith

The quagmire I have with that line of thinking is as follows. We say it is an incontrovertible truth that people don;t like doing X. Nobody likes doing X.

Then we observe a person doing X. We observe a society doing X We observe a civilisation doing X

We can no longer simply dismiss it as an incontrovertible truth that people don't like X.

I'm suggesting incontrovertible truths about human nature are entirely dependant on our observation of human nature, and hence entirely dependent on the preferences, values, beliefs and actions of the individual humans.

I could only say that you are a victim of incorrectly attributing similarities where there shouldn't be. We are talking humans here. Let's get physics out of here. — L'éléphant

it is an analogy, and I think an apt one as I am asking whether there are objective facts about morality.

If you think it right to do X, and I think it is wrong, how do we proceed to show who is correct?

My theory, if you could call it that, is to not to be misled by the minority abd focus all our firepower on keeping the majority happy! How many masochists are there anyway? At some point, it should strike our addled brains that negligible is a concept that's perfectly serviceable. I dunno, mileage may vary.

My theory, if you could call it that, is to not to be misled by the minority abd focus all our firepower on keeping the majority happy! How many masochists are there anyway? At some point, it should strike our addled brains that negligible is a concept that's perfectly serviceable. I dunno, mileage may vary. — Agent Smith

If we are in search of objective facts of morality, then surely we can't simply dismiss the minority.

But the bigger problem for me is the majority thinking and minority thinking vary between cultures and across eras, hence pushing me towards cultural relativism ( I may be using that term loosely).

And happiness is subjective is it not? If you were unhappy in a certain situation, I cannot decree that you be happy as you are living the good life. The very fact that you are subjectively not happy, means you are not happy regardless of what I think you should be. Hence we can't escape subjective values.

If you were happy punching new born babies, I can't decree that you are not happy because it is incontrovertibly against human nature to be happy punching new born babies. The very fact that you are happy shows that it is in human nature, at least for you, to be happy punching human babies.

Hidden order!

An act is moral when it promotes the well being of the society and its individual members.
Here are two statements that might help us leave those two arguments behind.

The act of keeping kids from satisfying their opioid rewarding mechanisms in their brains doesn't qualify as an act against their Well Being.

The act of isolating people (prisoners) who acted against the well being of their society is moral. Whether our methods of correcting are moral or not is irrelevant(an additional discussion). After all their well being is not linked to the well being of the society any more.

Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being. — Nickolasgaspar

It can't, for the reasons I've given - 1) Underdetermination - there are too many uncontrolled-for factors for us to say which one caused the change in homeostasis, and 2) Timescale - some activities (like exercise) cause a negative change in homeostasis in the short term but lower the rate of such changes in the long term as the body adapts, so the valence of most factors cannot be determined by immediate assessment of the impact on biochemistry.

We already know from our biology what we "should value". What we need to do is construct a society that servers those values (our well being). — Nickolasgaspar

We know nothing of the sort. Our 'biology' can only tell us that something in the entire current and recent past environment as caused a biochemical response which we, at the time, describe as a negative one.

It does not tell us which factor in that environment was responsible for the change in biochemistry, nor can it tell us how to value that change at the time compared to the value we might place on it afterwards. and none of that is even touching yet on the degree of construction between the lower level models interpreting bodily signals and the higher level models responsible for responses such as expressing negative emotions.

The act of keeping kids from satisfying their opioid rewarding mechanisms in their brains doesn't qualify as an act against their Well Being. — Nickolasgaspar

You said well-being was measurable by...

Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions — Nickolasgaspar

You will see spikes in those chemicals when you deny a child sweets. So are you now saying that's not how we measure well-being? In which case you'll need to revise your answer to that question.

their well being is not linked to the well being of the society any more. — Nickolasgaspar

Says who? I thought you were arguing all this was objective. Where's the scientific fact that tells us a prisoner's well-being is no longer tied to the well-being of society?

It can't, for the reasons I've given - 1) Underdetermination - there are too many uncontrolled-for factors for us to say which one caused the change in homeostasis, and 2) Timescale - some activities (like exercise) cause a negative change in homeostasis in the short term but lower the rate of such changes in the long term as the body adapts, so the valence of most factors cannot be determined by immediate assessment of the impact on biochemistry. — Isaac

-what? nobody talked about what causes change in homeostasis. The argument is that changes in homeostasis drive behavior so that an organism can attend and "correct" those changes. Its time now to hear arguments that chemical do not drive behavior...because of Underdetermination...lol

2. Your comment is irrelevant to the matter in hand. Homeostasis is a desirable state that our organism strives to sustain.
The same is true for other desirable states like states free of pain, stress , anxiety etc.
Seeking states that promote our wellbeing means that our system is free from secretions of deleterious hormones like glucocorticoids, catecholamines which are the main cause of pathology and health issues in general.
So what we understand as well being is not arbitrary and subjective, it has strong biological (empirical) grounds. The actions that "ruffle" those fragile chemical balances can be evaluated. Again this doesn't mean that any action that affects the desire for pleasure of a kid qualify as immoral. As we have established in previous comments well being is more than pleasure and social rules.

We know nothing of the sort. Our 'biology' can only tell us that something in the entire current and recent past environment as caused a biochemical response which we, at the time, describe as a negative one. — Isaac

-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans.

Says who? I thought you were arguing all this was objective. Where's the scientific fact that tells us a prisoner's well-being is no longer tied to the well-being of society? — Isaac

Says our action to remove them from our society for a necessary period of time. Do you think that its not an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions?
Sure its an other ethical question how our systems treat our prisoners and we do have efforts, mainly in European countries to address their well being but you need to understand that there is a disconnection between those two population's well being for practical reasons.(economical).

I won't disagree with you on this one. Maybe the disconnection from our society and our inability to understand human biology has justified immoral practices against prisoners for far too long.
But again the principle of well being reigns supreme and can help us see what we do wrong.

-what? nobody talked about what causes change in homeostasis. — Nickolasgaspar

You argued that Immoral actions were those which caused a disruption in well-being which could be measured by a change in certain biochemicals. Changes in biochemicals away from base levels is a change in homeostasis.

The actions that "ruffle" those fragile chemical balances can be evaluated. Again this doesn't mean that any action that affects the desire for pleasure of a kid qualify as immoral. As we have established in previous comments well being is more than pleasure and social rules. — Nickolasgaspar

We haven't established that at all. I asked you for a definition of well-being which excluded a child being denied sweets and so far you've only provided me with a definition which includes such a response.

-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans. — Nickolasgaspar

Right. So how do we establish, with the scientific rigour you're after, which of the many potential 'blows' was responsible for the chemical changes you're claiming as a measure of well-being?

Says our action to remove them from our society for a necessary period of time. — Nickolasgaspar

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts.

Do you think that its not an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. I just think that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions.

You argued that Immoral actions were those which caused a disruption in well-being which could be measured by a change in certain biochemicals. Changes in biochemicals away from base levels is a change in homeostasis. — Isaac

-Let me clarify. You and Tom asked reasons why Well Being qualifies as an objective criterion in our moral evaluations. I argued there are objective ways to demonstrate that our basic biological drives, urges and setup have evolved to ensure the well being of our organisms and moral behavior happens to add on that. By quantifying specific metrics of our biology we see that conditions that favor our well being are promoted by moral behavior from our peers and us.

We haven't established that at all. I asked you for a definition of well-being which excluded a child being denied sweets and so far you've only provided me with a definition which includes such a response. — Isaac

-Of course we have. Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. His parents will have to pay for his teeth, his insulin shots, his larger clothes and witness his unhappiness when his reaches the age of dating etc et. So monitoring sugar intake in children is a promoter of well being for kids,parents and society(healthy members) and we only reduce some experiences of pleasure.

Right. So how do we establish, with the scientific rigour you're after, which of the many potential 'blows' was responsible for the chemical changes you're claiming as a measure of well-being? — Isaac

that is an irrelevant discussion IMHO. I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve.

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac

I don't understand your question, can you elaborate?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. I just think that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. — Isaac

So you don't think that it is objectively good for the society to remove a threat for their children and try to retrain that individual so he won't be a threat in the future?

it is an analogy, and I think an apt one as I am asking whether there are objective facts about morality. — PhilosophyRunner

Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics.

By quantifying specific metrics of our biology we see that conditions that favor our well being are promoted by moral behavior from our peers and us. — Nickolasgaspar

What metrics?

Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. — Nickolasgaspar

OK, so to test whether some behaviour is moral we have to put all the members of the society it effects into fMRI scanners, test for cortisol, oxytocin, in every one (or a stratified sample?). Then what? Do we average the results, use consensus? What's the threshold above which an action is immoral? How much of these chemicals is worth individual autonomy? what a rise in oxytocin coupled with a rise in cortisol, how do handle such a complex reactions as that? What about temporary spike in stress response followed by a subsequent drop in the long term?

And finally, when we've got all these measures. Ought we follow them? Another round of tests I assume...?

I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm aware of your intentions, but the effort failed as you've failed to show that we have any such ability, nor that moral acts reinforce those metrics. For every metric you mention it seems moral acts reinforce some and worsen others depending entirely on subjective choices about long-term gains and the relative value of individual autonomy vs the rest of society.

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac


I don't understand your question, can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

You're saying that some moral acts actually harm the well-being of individuals - sometime temporarily (as in the child denied sweets), sometimes in exchange for the well-being of society (as in the prisoner). It is then a subjective choice. Weighing short term loss against long term gain, weighing individual autonomy against societal harms. These are (as things stand in your theory) still completely subjective. You've offered no objective algorithm for deciding them.

If we find (using you biochemical metrics) that individual A doing activity X causes a massive rise in his 'well-being-o-meter', but a tiny drop in the 'well-being-o-meter' of the whole of society, is activity X now immoral? Does A's freedom to do X count for nothing? If not, then how much does it count and what biochemicals tell us what weight to give it?

If we find (using you biochemical metrics) that individual A doing activity X causes a small rise in his 'well-being-o-meter' now, but a large drop in his 'well-being-o-meter' in ten years, is denying him activity X now moral? Does A's personal hyperbolic discounting count for nothing? If not, then how much does it count and what biochemicals tell us what weight to give it?

And finally, when we've got all these measures. Ought we follow them? Another round of tests I assume...? — Isaac

Indeed. This is where the ethics begins.

OK, so to test whether some behaviour is moral we have to put all the members of the society it effects into fMRI scanners, test for cortisol, oxytocin, in every one (or a stratified sample?). Then what? Do we average the results, use consensus? What's the threshold above which an action is immoral? How much of these chemicals is worth individual autonomy? what a rise in oxytocin coupled with a rise in cortisol, how do handle such a complex reactions as that? What about temporary spike in stress response followed by a subsequent drop in the long term? — Isaac

No man! Why is this so difficult for you. Again as I told you many times,those biological metrics only verify to us that well being is an important principle for morality. Well being is contingent to those biological metrics. We know that our physical and mental health depends on specific values for those metrics.
We don't need to scan people in order to do a moral evaluation...lol
The only thing we need to do is study those metrics, understand why well being is linked to those metrics(why i.e. forcing the productions of glucocorticoids by putting people under stressful situations(immoral acts) is linked to documented pathodology) and use well being as principle for our moral judgments.

I'm aware of your intentions, but the effort failed as you've failed to show that we have any such ability, nor that moral acts reinforce those metrics. — Isaac

First of all Its not my job to show anything. Its everyone's obligation to learn about basic human biology IF his intention is to talk about a biological byproduct of human behavior and be in the position to judge people's arguments. No matter what I "show" if one lacks relevant epistemic foundations my efforts will be a waste of time.
The best source on the topic (online) is the work done by Robert Sapolsky on stress, human behavior and biology. His first book "why zebras don't get ulcers" is a great introduction on stress in social species and their hierarchical societies. His monumental work "BEHAVE" is a book that contains all our knowledge (and our ignorance) on human biology. You will find his lectures at Stanford and his talks on the subject on youtube and other places.
Of course he isn't the only source on the topic, but its a good starting point.

For every metric you mention it seems moral acts reinforce some and worsen others depending entirely on subjective choices about long-term gains and the relative value of individual autonomy vs the rest of society. — Isaac

-No it doesn't, why must I keep repeating the same things. Those metrics just stress the importance of well being, they are not "tools" for individual moral evaluations.
In order to understand what well being is you will need to grasp the differences between Happiness and Pleasure.
Societies are a necessary evil in many aspects since they increase our chances of survival (Being-to be/stay alive) and morality is there to address our wellness ....this make up the term well being.
In societies we need to follow specific rules so that our well being won't be on the expense of other people's well being.
This is why in Secular morality we stress the importance of the well being of individuals in relation to the well being of the whole society. Those ups and downs you mentioned are inevitable but the well being of the whole society (not in the expense of the few) rewards everyone.

So striving for the well being of every individual and our society as a whole is an effort based on objective grounds and principles. It a work in progress for sure,way to many things to figure out but at least we have a point to start and a principle to make objective moral judgments.

As I explained to Issac, those metrics are how we confirm well being as an important principle and criterion in our moral evaluations.
i.e. we know that stress related pathology is the No 1 threat in human and social animal groups. If an act inflicts suffering and increases the chances of death then we can list which acts have this affect on human condition and evaluate them as good or bad(moral or immoral).
Since such acts affect our wellness and our ability to "be" (survive) we are able to identify a connection between well being and morality.

See if this helps you understand what is going on here:

Sam Harris is wrong about science and morality

thanks for the link! I will provide my feedback when I get through with it.
To be honest I can not see how an Analytic and systematic way of gathering and analyzing facts can NOT be the proper way to inform our moral evaluations but I do like any critique on Harris's ideas....because I disagree with many things he has to say (especially politics).

This is more sympathetic: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris

I see that I go a step further compared to Harris.
I point out specific biological metrics that render well being an objective principle for our moral evaluations.

Either way ...Even if we agree that Well being is a subjective standard for morality, from the moment we decide to use it as such we can arrive to objective judgments.
Its like the goal we assume in a game.
I will argue that the goal of a game, lets pick chess, is to win. You might argue that is to have fun or whatever.
So Winning can be a subjective principles(among other candidates) in a game of chess. From the moment we both accept that winning is the goal,we then can make Objective judgments on what moves favor a win or a loss.
Now I can argue that winning adds to the element of fun and that fun is contingent to the element of winning. I can point to personal experiences with siblings and friends or professional sports or challenges in a bar or at home, the established need of clear rules and officials that overview the process and how fun goes out of the window when people are exposed for cheating to win . The excitement is multiplied by the prospect of the outcome (the goal of winning).

The same is true for well being. We can say that Well being is a subjective goal but the moment we accept it we are able to produce objective judgments on which acts support or not that goal.
I go a step further and point out that Well being is also a "goal" for specific human biological metrics and social behavior.
Since immoral or moral acts affect those metrics, we are forced to link those two.(morality and well being). Acts with moral value promote beneficial states of our biology.
So science can "determine human values” or “tell us what’s objectively true about morality” or “give us answers about right and wrong,” by offering to our philosophy the facts needed to make those determinations.
In reality science doesn't decide what is moral or not. THe term being (being(surviving) and well(flouring) address two "goals" that our biological drives and urges serve.
Our drives "force" us to Survive (by emotions like hunger, thirst), to flourish(increase safety and meet energy demands, cooperate) and to procreate(sexual and social drives).
Seeking Happiness and avoiding pain are qualities that depend on our moral actions.

So the claim of the author "Here’s the problem. Premise (1) is a philosophical premise. It’s not a fact of science, it’s not a fact of nature ". is wrong.
(premise 1 1. Morality is “all about” improving the well-being of conscious creatures.)

Its a sound philosophical argument supported by the above facts. but again as I pointed out, even if it was a subjective declaration,by accepting it we can arrive to objective conclusions on what acts promote our well being and what doesn't.

You are still skipping the evaluation, or are pretending it isn't there.

what evaluation am I skipping?

your short responses are an indication that you avoid diving in and challenging your preconceptions on the topic.
Again my argument on the objective nature of well being would be falsified only if you were able to point out cases where well being isn't contingent to those biological metrics.(Pathology and stress)
It would also help your case identifying immoral acts that can promote the well being of members and their society as a whole.

Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.

I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"?

Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics — L'éléphant

The method of observing anything and formulating a theory based on that is the same.

-Observe X
-Create a theory matching my observations - "X happens" theory
-Observe X only happening some of the time, Y some of the time
-Update the theory to match the observation - "X and Y happens" theory

With morality, instead of updating their theory to reflect the observations in step 4 above, people sometimes maintain that the theory in step 2 is correct and that in 4 is wrong because Y is against human nature.

But the very fact that Y was observed in humans in step 3 shows that it is a part of human nature.

So the part of morality where we tell others what they should or ought to do, can't come from observing human nature, because if we see someone doing something we consider immoral, the very fact they are doing it shows it is human nature to do it.

We can't see someone committing murder and then say murder is wrong because it is against human nature. We have just seen that is in human nature.

Maybe there are better arguments for objective morality that avoid the above pitfall, but I am fairly new to the topic so have only just started reading about it.