So what scientific model would you be using to tell whether individual liberty or mandatory mask-wearing is more important to long-term human flourishing? — Isaac

This global pandemic is hell everywhere, but compare places where the pandemic is raging out of control at least in part because of a libertarian resistance to mask-wearing and quarantine with those places which at least partly contained the virus by restricting individual liberty. This from today's NYT: https://nyti.ms/3hGIME2

I'm not sure all Americans realize how shocking the U.S. response to the pandemic looks to the rest of the world. This video is worth watching to the end, only a couple of minutes long. https://nyti.ms/3fciI1S

It seems pretty clear that draconian measures, which American libertarians describe as "trampling" on rights and liberties, such as those implemented by China, South Korea, New Zealand, and other countries, are the most effective at both reducing deaths and permitting early partial economic re-opening.

Other countries such as Germany and the Scandinavian countries, and Canada, rely more on appeal to good citizenship, widespread testing, and contact tracing, than to harsh mandates.

Where I live in British Columbia, Canada, population four million, we had 26 new cases yesterday. Across the whole province, only nine people with COVID are in hospital. Two deaths all week. Meanwhile, my brother-in-law, who lives in Alabama, has just yesterday been admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, so forgive me if I get a little agitated. Economy is devastated here as elsewhere but most businesses are functioning with social distancing. We live in fear of opening the border to the U.S. and joke about the need for "a big, beautiful wall".

Meanwhile the U.S. has seen drastic, truly devastating downturns in every measure of human flourishing you could come up with. A downturn from which America's standing in the world may never recover.

This I take as compelling scientific evidence that the primarily American ideology of libertarianism, of which Trump is at least partly an expression, is a failed moral system, failed because it does not serve human flourishing.

You're such a pussycat!

What is your position regarding moral intention, moral freedom, moral responsibility and moral competency? How are these things definable and measurable? — sime

These questions are related to the free will question. I have heard some people argue that there is no such thing as free will, since our actions are determined by all that has happened to us in the past. Most of our actions seem to take place without the intervention of conscious thought, or happen too quickly, as in the case of speech, for conscious thought to physically occur.

This is plausible, but it fails to account for the fact that we program ourselves for future actions, and we are responsible for that. If I park illegally and get a ticket, I tell myself, I'd better not park there again. And I consciously or unconsciously avoid parking there, and if I do, I should get another ticket, in other words, I should be held responsible.

In the course of reflecting on the ticket, it may occur to me that if everyone parked illegally it would be a royal mess. Because I don't want to have to deal with that kind of mess in future, I make a decision partly out of self-interest, wanting to both avoid a mess and a ticket, and partly out of concern for others. I am responsible for this decision, it is an expression of who I am, in this sense I have the freedom to choose to act morally or not and should be held accountable because of that.

Either way I can trace a decision to obey a rule or not to obey it to a decision about whether such a rule serves human flourishing or not. The best rules are those that pretty much everyone agrees are in the common interest, such as stopping at a red light. The tricky problems are those where there are two rational opinions about what actually serves human flourishing.

There is a big debate in the U.S. about mask-wearing. Those who argue that mask-wearing is moral behavior when in close contact with others during a pandemic, believe that reducing the risk of contagion is more important to human flourishing than the temporary discomfort of wearing a mask.

Those who argue that to mandate mask-wearing is immoral believe that individual liberty and personal choice is more important to human flourishing.

Science can tell us who is right.

Like Aristotle I think virtue is a habit. But it is a habit you have developed through a combination of your life experience and your rational reflection.

I used to volunteer at a maximum security youth correctional facility. A high proportion of the kids were chronic liars, they lied about everything. An experienced worker told me they do this because they are trained all their young lives to do so. They were raised in chaotic environments with inconsistent parents or care-givers, and they found the best way to cope - to grow and develop - was to lie yourself out of every situation. And where there is no stability it's hard to think about future consequences. The criminal mind is always in the moment.

In this sense we can see how there are extenuating circumstances that have shaped the behavior of these kids.

Some will figure out that the best way to flourish as individuals is to tell the truth and stay out of trouble. But some will not. I am also listening to a great podcast true crime series from Pushkin about an FBI agent who infiltrated motorcycle gangs. It is clear there are people out there who deal with conflict through intimidation, violence, and even murder, who deal with sexual desire through rape, and so on. These people are the products of the same sorts of chaotic childhoods, they were probably abused and became themselves abusers. They have chimp morality: might makes right.

Similarly there are serial pedophiles who are repeat offenders. Possibly they were also the product of abusive homes.

There are psychopaths and sociopaths. Possibly their behavior was genetically influenced.

Punishment does not work to change these sorts of behaviors, but society needs to be protected from these types. In my view as someone who has worked both in prisons and in law firms, the only legitimate reason to put someone in jail is to protect society from the harm they are likely to cause. So I do think all people should be treated humanely, but some people need to be put away for life.

Sorry, I have gone on too long and touched on these issues only superficially, gotta go now, what do you think? We can continue the discussion later...

Praxis, I think you are underestimating the importance of the healthy flourishing of the host organism to the successful reproduction of the gene.

A little string of protein, a complex molecule like DNA or RNA, a gene, can't survive on its own. It requires a living "host" to reproduce, (although I don't like the notion that genetic material is somehow like a parasite. It is integral to who we are.).

Genes reproduce themselves with tiny random mutations, and if they help the organism to adapt and survive, these mutations may persist through time to the next generation. A mutation might turn a bear's coat white, and this in turn might help the bear to hunt in the snow, and if it prospers and has many healthy bear cubs as a result, a new subspecies or species might evolve and white fur might turn into a permanent feature.

The secret to the gene's success is not that it reproduces itself exactly, but that it throws out the occasional mutation randomly. It produces genes that are like itself, but occasionally just a little tweak different.

Many biologists have criticized the notion of a "selfish gene" on the grounds that it seems to anthropomorphize what is basically an unconscious mechanical algorithm. But I am comfortable with saying that genetic material has a built-in purpose, and that is to reproduce itself. It is "selfish" in the sense that once you have passed it on to a new generation it does not care that you die. If the gene had a viewpoint, it would be that the only thing that matters is that it survives and reproduces.

I have personally reconciled myself to my own death, but the death of any of my four children would shatter me, the destruction of my community is even much more horrifying to contemplate, and the end of the human species would be tragic beyond measure. I think I feel this way because my genes have coded me to care about the future of my genetic material.

My genes have passed on to me a kind of mental program module that says, if you care for your children, if you help them to flourish, your genes will survive. If I behave in a way that almost every culture considers to be moral, my genes will survive to future generations.

If we look at the natural world, there are many different strategies for flourishing, and some of them involve pro-social behaviors that cannot be described as selfish. "Selfish" genes can produce altruistic behavior, and they can even produce species who puzzle over the universal grounding of moral behavior.

But I want to stress that the mutations in genetic material that survive are those that help the organism to flourish. Therefore genes will reliably turn up new mutations that help the organism to flourish, or the organism will eventually go extinct, and its genetic material with it, like 99.99% of anything that has ever lived.

As a result of this evolutionary process, the motivation to flourish is baked in to all life forms. Its in the DNA.

So when you approve of a moral precept, you count it as evidence for your thesis (never mind how you figured out that it does in fact promote human flourishing). — SophistiCat

Are you asking me to prove scientifically here in the forum that theft; murder; sexual abuse; pedophilia; breaking contracts; lying; corruption; slavery, etc. are harmful to human flourishing? I did not pull these examples out of my imagination, nor are they expressions of my personal prejudices and biases. I chose them because most people consider them to be immoral, and they do so because they are objectively harmful to human flourishing. If you doubt the harm they cause, there is a lot of evidence to be found moments away on the Internet.

My goal in this exercise is to support moral precepts that can be shown scientifically to support human flourishing, and to deprecate those that hinder it or are useless. I don't need to reproduce the good science that is already out there...

Science. What's that got to do with morality? — Isaac

If morality is an attempt to advance the cause of human flourishing, it needs to look to science for better answers. Not holy books, not convoluted philosophical thought experiments, but science. And by science I mean real-world evidence that some things work and others do not.

This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing. — praxis

Selfish genes seek to reproduce into the next generation. They do this by helping to create species that flourish.

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

Hi sime, sorry, did not understand the question, can you restate in a different form? Thanks!

...aren't we just back to square one with irresolvable disputes over all the really complicated questions? — Isaac

I am saying that all moral theories attempt to provide rules that if followed will serve human flourishing. Religion follows that up with threats and bullying to obtain compliance.

Science also attempts to solve the problem of human flourishing. Science doesn't always get it right, but it seems a whole lot more reliable than what religion tells us.

Mohammed tells us for example that one should say prayers when using public toilets, because genies inhabit dirty places. (https://bit.ly/2CZdqK2). Well when using a dirty public toilet in the eighth century, prayers might be your only protection.

But science tells us that proper sanitation can reduce the risk of diseases like cholera caused by dirty toilets. (https://bit.ly/39zBUWh).

Which is more effective, religion or science?

Who says this? — Isaac

The Quran tells us: 

"...those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads. With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. And for them are whips of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be  turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning. (22:19-22)"

There are more than 500 references to what awaits you in hell if you do not obey Allah in the Quran. Does it seem like you will flourish if you do not submit to Allah?

"The inmates of hell will also be punished by having to eat fire (2:174), or they will drink boiling water (6:70), or melted brass, or their drink will be bitter cold, unclean, full of pus (Gwynne 2002:416a). Their food will be the heads of devils that hang from the evil tree Zaqq" (https://bit.ly/2X0Vo0L) 

The Quran also tells us that paradise awaits those who submit to Allah:

"The Quran gives an idyllic description of Jannah. It says that each person that goes to Jannah is greeted by angels from every gate with the words, "Peace be with you, that you persevered in patience! Now how excellent is the final home!" (13:24) Each person lives near to the Lord in a garden (3:15) of perpetual bliss (13:23), with flowing springs (88:10–16), and flowing rivers (5:119) of incorruptible water and unchangeable milk (47:15). Each garden is the width of the whole heavens and earth (3:133).In each garden is a mansion (9:72), a high throne (88:10–16) of dignity (52:20) in a grove of cool shade (36:56–57), an adorned couch (18:31), rows of cushions (88:10–16), rich carpets spread out (88:10–16), a cup (88:10–16) full of wine (52:23), and every meat (52:22) and fruit (36:56–57) that is like the food on Earth (2:25). Each person is adorned in golden and pearl bracelets (35:33) and green garments of fine silk and brocade (18:31).Each man is married to a beautiful woman (52:20), accompanied by any children that did not go to Jahannam (52:21), and attended to by servant-boys (52:24). The Quran does not specify any specific rewards for women, however." (https://bit.ly/330t5DG) 

Does that sound like flourishing awaits if you submit to Allah?

What about here on earth?

"Sawāb or Thawāb (Arabic: ثواب‎) is an Arabic term meaning "reward". Specifically, in the context of an Islamic worldview, thawab refers to spiritual merit or reward that accrues from the performance of good deeds and piety.[1]"

"Usually any and all good acts are considered to contribute towards earning sawab, but for a Muslim there are certain acts that are more rewarding than others. The primary contributing factor on the extent of the reward is based on one's intention in one's heart - the silent, unspoken one that God is aware of and not the expressed, articulated one. These may be one and the same, but the articulation is not required prior to performing the deed.The meritorious acts in Islam can be divided into categories - the spiritual good and the moral good. There cannot be moral good without the spiritual good. Or at least the moral good will not have a high bearing if not accompanied by the spiritual good.Spiritual good includes the acts of worship including Prayer (obligatory and supererogatory), remembrance of God in the aftermath of the prayer or at any other time, acts of prescribed charity (zakat), reading of the Quran, among others.The moral good comes from treating parents with love and affection, and not with disdain; visiting sick people, keeping ties of kinship, spending money wisely in charitable causes, giving family their due rights, etc." (https://bit.ly/39Ame4X) 

Are charity, filial piety, visiting sick people, spending money wisely, any and all good acts, the sorts of things that contribute to human flourishing?

Islam is the main proponent of Divine Command Theory. I could perform the same five-minute exercise for the other monotheistic religions, but I don't want to bore the readers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

the basic idea is that if the thesis can explain everything, then it explains nothing. — InPitzotl

Well here's what I think is the value of this approach. For the sake of argument, bear with me, let's accept the following as true:

1. Human beings are active, agentic creatures who seek to flourish both as individuals and in community.
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?
3. Science can tell us a lot about what best serves human flourishing.
4. Therefore, science can tell us what is moral and what is not.

If all that is true, and I await a cogent refutation, we have an objective basis for morality and right conduct.

If true, the thesis poses a moral challenge to religion, to policy-making, to the way business is done, to ideologies such as American exceptionalism and constitutional originalism, to law, justice, political regimes, etc. To all the ideologies, policies, laws, and regimes that hinder human flourishing.

Again, this can be attributed to violating a negative ethics of non-harm and non-force. — schopenhauer1

Don't know much about negative ethics, but at first glance it appears to be more of a thought experiment than a moral system that any culture has embraced.

There is a reason most people think suicide is immoral: our DNA tells us we should be instead trying to survive and flourish.

You are kind of all over the place in terms of posing the question, which is the single most important thing in philosophy. — SophistiCat

Here is the question: "Is there a universal grounding for morality?"

I look at the things that most people consider immoral:

Theft; murder; sexual abuse; pedophilia; breaking contracts; lying; corruption; slavery; you name it.

I ask, "What do all these have in common?" My answer is, they all are detrimental to human flourishing. Who am I to say? How do I know this? I consult the evidence from the available science.

I look at the things most people consider moral:

Kindness; charity; courtesy; honor; honesty; keeping promises; being a good parent; you name it.

I ask, "What do all these have in common?" My answer is, they all are helpful to human flourishing. Who am I to say? How do I know this? I consult the evidence from the available science.

I therefore suggest there might be a universal grounding for morality. We consider something to be moral if it we believe it serves human flourishing, and to be immoral if hinders it.

Of course people disagree about what best serves human flourishing, and therefore different cultures and subcultures have different moral standards. Some cultures and subcultures have believed or do believe things like racism, human sacrifice, killing infidels, acts of terror against innocent civilians, praying to your favorite God, etc are moral because they are in the best interests of human flourishing.

How can we tell who is right? Consult the available science.

That makes flourishing of a different character than any specific moral value or system then, no? — fdrake

Yes, to flourish is not a moral system, it is the objective of a moral system.

My argument is that science can tell us how to flourish, therefore science can tell us what is moral and what is not by seeking answers to the question, "What helps humanity to flourish and what does not?"

Science tells us how to cure disease, what we need for nutrition, how to raise healthy children, etc. Social science seeks answers to questions like how to reduce crime, what causes violence, how to achieve political stability, how a society should respond to a pandemic, whether or not slavery is a viable societal or economic system, and so on.

To apply this approach to moral questions, ask in any situation, "What would best serve human flourishing?" To find the best answer, consult the available science.

So if we take 'flourishing' to be a variable x (some thing), then your statement "all moral systems aim at human flourishing" becomes "all moral systems aim at something", which seems just trivially true - hence the confusion. — Isaac

"Flourishing" is the constant, not the variable. The variable is the variety of moral systems seeking to achieve human flourishing; the constant is that all the varieties seek the same end: human flourishing.

My argument is that there is a grounding to all these varieties; they all are attempts to solve the same problem.

All moral systems say the same thing: "If we all just do X, we will flourish as a result."

For X insert any moral precept.

Because if it doesn't then your claim that "alk moral systems are about human flourishing" is flat out wrong. Some moral systems are clearly aimed at achieving something which you would not define as 'flourishing'. — Isaac

I thought I made it pretty clear that there are many different, even contradictory views about what best serves human flourishing. It does not matter to religious people how I define flourishing, they have their own definition. They believe that following God's law is the way to achieve what is best for humanity. I believe we need to consult science to determine what best serves human flourishing. Why do you think that I agree with the religious people?

ISIS wanted to create a new Caliphate in the Middle East because they believed that strict Islamic fundamentalism was the path to human flourishing, in this life and the next. Do I have to agree with them, just because I make that observation? It seems to me it led to a bloody nightmare for everyone involved. Does this change the fact that their motivation was to create a better world?

I try to distinguish between people's intentions and the outcomes of their actions. The road to hell and all that.

If we agree with your system, then your system is the best? OK. — Isaac

If you don't agree with my system, then I would love to hear why not. That's why I came to this board, to hear a solid critique from people who think a lot about these sorts of things. Thanks for your help with this.

Divine command theory is a moral systems, so it must be included in your set {all moral systems}, thus your definition of 'flourishing' must included the type of flourishing envisioned in divine command theory (otherwise your first statement is false). — Isaac

Isaac, let me try to explain once again.

My claim is that all moral systems are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?"

Not all attempts to answer this question turn out to be correct. I don't think following the commands in the Holy Books written by an imaginary God is more conducive to human flourishing than following the advice of science. But lots of people do.

Why should my definition of flourishing align with those of religious people, as you suggest?

I am saying, there is a great deal of disagreement about what is considered moral and what is not. If we agree that the problem morality is trying to solve is how best to flourish, my position is that learning from science is your best bet.

Let me give you an example of how science can tell us what is moral and what is not.

1. This pandemic is harmful to the project of human flourishing
2. The moral thing to do is to try to stop the spread of infection
3. Wearing masks around others and social distancing will reduce the risk of infection
4. Therefore the moral thing to do is to practice social distancing and wear masks around others.

What Holy Book can tell you that?

Did you see the video of the woman in the Walmart calling the curse of God upon staff asking her to wear a mask, calling them Satanists, and so on? Is it an accident that the most God-fearing of Americans are also those least likely to wear a mask?

The problem for those who believe whatever Holy Book has all the answers about morality, and Muslims are the most fervent in this regard, is that what is moral and what is not changes almost from hour to hour while the Holy Book does not. But what does not change is the grounding behind our moral considerations.

Another example: Last semester a girl in one of my classes had bronchitis, and loudly coughed her lungs out every class, three times a week for at least three weeks, always apologizing profusely, to the point where I told her, that's OK, don't worry about it, doesn't bother me, I know you don't want to miss class, etc.

Now if she showed up for class coughing like that in September, I think most people would regard her actions as irresponsible and immoral. The act of coughing didn't change - what changed was our moral perceptions. What didn't change was the fact that we ultimately base our moral judgments on what we consider to be in the best interests of humanity at that point in time.

Now a separate question is whether religion has at times helped human communities to flourish, and although I am an atheist and consider religion today to be a brake on human progress, I have to admit that at times religion has played a positive role - otherwise, from a Darwinian point of view, it would have disappeared long ago.

It helps societies to prosper if they have rules such as "Thou shalt not kill", if they practice charity toward the poor and sick and elderly, if they have social cohesion, if they do unto others as they would have done unto them, etc. None of this requires a supernatural being to figure out, but it is one of the benefits of religion that has allowed it to survive.

So, where are we to place our moral priorities if a conflict of interest concerning the flourishing of present humans vs the flourishing of future humans, other species and ecosystems is encountered? — Janus

I think what the science is telling us is that there is no conflict of interest between human flourishing and a healthy environment, you can't sacrifice the latter and expect to get the former. We need to stop thinking there's a legitimate trade-off.

Every day is a freak-out with Trump in the White House, but what I am freaked out about most today is the plight of climate change refugees...

https://nyti.ms/301dWA2

I see the prevention of harm as more important than causing flourishing to take place. — schopenhauer1

I think causing unnecessary suffering is not in the best interests of human flourishing, but I am quite comfortable with causing justifiable harm to those who are responsible for actions which are destructive to the project of human flourishing. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a just war, or killing in self-defense, or locking up serial rapists, and so on.

Why isn’t morality based on the flourishing of all life? Given that human life is inextricably dependent on other life, that would seem to be a wiser perspective. — praxis

I think its pretty clear that human flourishing depends on a flourishing ecosystem. Thus it is I think morally imperative that we care for the health of our planet.

What about divine command theory? To express that in terms of human flourishing, then you'd have to include flourishing in the afterlife as part of 'flourishing'. If that's the case, then science cannot be used to tell us how best to achieve it. — Isaac

Many cultures believe that the way to flourish is to follow God's commands. I think we stand a better chance by basing our decisions, including our moral decisions, on the available science.

The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Well-Being (2016), in the article called "Eudaimonism", says that "eudaimonia" used to be translated as "happiness" but today based on a deeper reading of Aristotle, scholars prefer the term "flourishing". (p. 187).

I was inspired by Aristotle's eudaimonism, and do consider "flourishing" to be "the Good that is served by all other Goods". But I don't use eudaimonia, because Aristotle was not familiar with evolutionary theory, so I see my use of the term "flourishing" as an evolutionary adaptation of Aristotle's original concept.

...you don't understand the first thing about ethical theory. — Wayfarer

Hi Wayfarer, you are right, I dislike the current state of ethical theory and I want to kick over the whole gameboard.

But let me address the issue of whether animals have morals and whether some of our morals are instinctual.

Note that I never claimed than we are "instinctively moral". But I will argue that some of our moral instincts are the result of evolutionary adaptation, such as the mothering instinct, and I will argue that the grounding of all morality - the motivation to go forth in the world and flourish - is the result of evolutionary adaptation, is instinctual, and is embedded in the code of life.

Now of course every species has its own manner of flourishing and therefore its own instinctual understanding of what is right and what is wrong for a member of that species. I once had someone argue to me that animals had no morals, because, for example, lions will murder hyenas, and murder is immoral. Now you may think morality exists only for humans and not for other animals, and that human morality is the only morality, but bear with me for a moment and imagine such a thing as lion morality.

From the point of view of the lion, murdering hyenas and wild dogs and crocs and anything else that might be a rival for food or game serves lion flourishing, and therefore the ethical lion should do so at every opportunity. Lions would gladly commit genocide of all hyenas if they could. (I would gladly commit genocide of all mosquitoes, screwworms, bedbugs, coronaviruses, etc. if I could, these things inhibit human flourishing.)

Other things lions will do that we would consider immoral in human beings is kill rival lions to take possession of their pride. And when they do this they will often systematically kill all the kittens, so as to bring the lionesses sooner into estrus. This is common in social mammals, and has even been documented in wild domestic cats.

When chimps take over a troupe from an old alpha male, if they don't kill him outright, they will at least bite off his testicles, thus ensuring his genes will no longer go forth into the next generation. They will then often kill and sometimes eat his younger offspring.

Evolutionary theory explains this by suggesting that the species grows stronger if the genes of its strongest members dominate the next generation.

All this sounds horrific from a human point of view, but take a look at what is called the "Cinderella Effect" (https://bit.ly/32Wrv5Q), the tragic fact that stepchildren are abused and/or murdered at a rate far higher than that of biological children. We clearly have some ugly instincts that are vestiges of our evolutionary history that no longer serve the common good. We have, it seems, inherited some chimp morality. Just look at some of our contemporary politicians (or sports heroes), who seem driven to humiliate and vanquish their rivals and take all the beautiful women for themselves...

Now, also as a result of our evolutionary history, we have developed the sorts of brains that can adapt to all sorts of different environments and lifestyles. Animal brains are like screwdrivers, they are built to serve a very limited purpose. Our brains are multipurpose. Our brains take in the environment and figure out how we can flourish in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, and we adapt accordingly. Part of that is adapting to moral norms, and contributing to the development of ethical standards. We are capable of figuring out that biting off the testicles of our rivals is maybe not the best way for our community to flourish, as much as we might sometimes wish to do so...

All of which is to argue once again that the grounding of morality is not something we get from God or make up out of our own imaginations, but is grounded in the instinctual desire to flourish. And the reason we have disagreements about what is moral and what is not is that our flexible brains come up with different solutions to the problem. All I am saying is whatever the solutions offered, they are all propositions for solving the same problem...

Only humans can weigh things up, make choices, act better or worse. — Wayfarer

Have you never owned a dog?

it ought to be abundantly clear that humans are not necessarily instinctively moral (otherwise, why the need for a legal code or police?) — Wayfarer

Most mothers don't need the police or the law to tell them they should take care of their babies - they know to do so instinctively. But some do, instincts can obviously be overridden.

I’m fine with using population as a metric to assess this, as you suggested, but by doing so you have to agree that intentionally reducing one’s population is not pursuing flourishing. — Pinprick

When I say "population metrics" I am not referring simply to the size of a population, but to ways of measuring how well a society is doing by using statistical data derived from large-scale studies of the population.

Population size is not always a good way to measure how well a society is doing. Obviously there are times when reducing population might help a society to better flourish.

First, let's make a distinction between human beings and societies: the former are moral agents, the latter are not. — SophistiCat

I disagree, societies create cultures, morality is part of culture, societies are therefore moral agents. Some societies act in ways we consider moral and some in ways we consider immoral.

Species are also moral agents. We would agree I think that it is moral for a mother to care for her infant. That behavior is hard-wired into the DNA not only of humanity but really of any species in which mothers care for their young.This kind of moral behavior is part of deep species-learning. It is moral because it serves species-flourishing.

I think an interesting question to ask ourselves here is whether this flourishing is more aimed towards the community (or mankind as a whole) or with the individual? — BitconnectCarlos

People generally start in childhood with a focus on their own needs, because infants are needy and it is right that they should be self-interested above the needs of others who they could not help if they tried.

But over time they learn empathy (sometimes even in their teens), and by the time they are adults they recognize that their own personal fortunes are inextricably tied to the good will and well-being of others, and they adjust their behavior accordingly.

As a person experiences moral growth their sphere of moral concern for others grows wider, to their family, to their community, to their culture, to their nation, often to the whole of humanity.

Individuals seek to flourish, and as social animals we learn that we flourish best when we help others to flourish. Doing that requires adapting to the culture's ethical systems.

Just as a market is an emerging property of a society of individuals buying and selling in service of their own individual needs and interests, so morality is an emergent property of a society of individuals trying to get along together peaceably and in such a way that they can achieve some of their personal goals.

So to my mind the concept of flourishing lies on a continuum of progressively larger social spheres, starting from a desire to help oneself, to help one's family to do well, to behaving in such a way as to help one's community to do well, to serving one's country as a good citizen, perhaps even to finding ways to serve humanity and make the world a better place.

No species can be said to be flourishing unless the individuals within it are themselves flourishing. It is the process of a multitude of individuals out there all seeking to do well for themselves that lays the groundwork for a flourishing society.

Or more precisely, when the carriers produce viable offspring. Quality of life, which is what we usually associate with "flourishing," does not enter the equation. — SophistiCat

Without quality of life the production of viable offspring is challenged, therefore evolution produces species that seek to flourish. The evidence for this is that every species is full of individuals whose motivation is to stay safe, to find adequate sustenance, to find a hospitable environment, to reproduce, in short, to go forth and flourish.

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. — praxis

Well no, different species have different strategies for passing on genetic material, and social species develop complex systems of interaction that create the conditions for successful reproduction, not simply of individuals but of the species.

Human beings have developed highly complex societies and highly complex methods of raising our children to adulthood, and mere survival is the least of it. As a result we are the dominant species on the planet.

If the species does not flourish the process of passing genetic material from generation to generation is set back or ceases altogether. Therefore Dawkins' "selfish gene" hard-wires the species that carries it to go out and find a way to flourish.

Don't worry, you are telegraphing the standard is-ought move loud and clear. — SophistiCat

The IS-OUGHT distinction is important, we want to avoid the naturalistic fallacy, but it is also important to keep in mind that all moral claims ultimately derive their "ought" from an "is".

For example:

It IS the case that the holy book tells us X, therefore we OUGHT to do X.

It IS the case that human beings are governed by the desire to experience pleasure and avoid pain, therefore it OUGHT to be our guiding moral principle to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering..

It IS the case that human beings seek life, liberty, and happiness as primary goals, therefore we OUGHT to enshrine the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in the constitution.

It IS the case that laws and rules facilitate human interactions, therefore we OUGHT to obey laws and rules.

It IS the case that actions have moral consequences, therefore we OUGHT to judge an act by its consequences.

etc.

John Stuart Mill helps us through the IS/OUGHT problem when he argues that only human reason can tell us what our goals and objectives ought to be, but once we have decided on a course of action, we OUGHT to rely on science to tell us how to achieve it.

For example, it is our choice whether or not to fix the loose board on the picnic table with a nail or a screw, or to just kick back with a beer in the sun. However, there is a developed science of tool design, and if it IS the case that we have decided to drive a nail to secure a loose board, science tells us that we OUGHT to use a hammer. And if it IS the case that we have chosen to drive a screw, we OUGHT to use a screwdriver.

Of course, we could try to drive the screw with a hammer, or try to drive the nail with a convenient rock. We should not confuse the word "OUGHT" with the word "MUST". Science is authoritative, not authoritarian. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legitimate to derive an OUGHT from an IS where one has a clearly defined objective to accomplish.Mill gives us a simple summary of how science does its work. This understanding is compatible with Pragmatism, and one of the reasons I like it so much. It's also one of the reasons William James dedicated "On Pragmatism" to J.S. Mill.

So my thesis is that all moral systems are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" (I look forward eagerly to a refutation of this empirical observation.) And if it IS the case that humanity seeks to flourish as a species, then we OUGHT to use science to tell us how best to achieve that. There should be nothing controversial about this claim.

But the implications are huge, because they mean science can tell us what is moral and what is not.

you could interpret just about any moral attitude to be a confirmation of your thesis. You could assert that human flourishing is the hidden motive, even when it is nowhere in evidence. (I think I see you already engaging in such creative interpretation in this discussion.) But then if anything fits your thesis, your thesis is vacuous. — SophistiCat

Are you arguing that "it is nowhere in evidence" that human beings and the societies they create seek to flourish and prosper? As a human motivation, it hardly seems "hidden"...

I think the strength of the approach is that it explains a lot. Evolutionary theory also explains a lot, including my thesis, pretty much everything we know about the natural world fits the broad evolutionary thesis, does that automatically make evolutionary theory vacuous?

That's just manifestly not true. I think you would be hard-pressed to come up with more than a few and recent literary or documentary examples of such reasoning behind moral attitudes. No one thinks about "human flourishing" when they demonstrate a proper filial attitude towards their parents, for example - they do it because it's the right thing to do, period. — SophistiCat

Arguing for a moral claim "because it's the right thing to do, period," avoids the challenge of uncovering the grounds for making the claim. I thank you all for helping me to dig a little deeper in the search for such a grounding.

Confucius wrote a lot about filial piety and explicitly argued that it was essential to a properly functioning society, i.e., to human flourishing. He furthermore claimed that his ideas were nothing new, but that he was simply restating the wisdom of the ancients. The average Chinese might not be familiar with Confucius' arguments but they know instinctively or through cultural osmosis that filial piety is moral because the parent/child bond is the starting point of love and respect for others. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity make the same point in various ways, and most people in most cultures, without being familiar with the philosophical arguments, know that it's the right thing to do, period, but the grounding for this claim is that love and respect for others is essential to human flourishing.

I suggest that you read Dawkins or the like. — praxis

Yes, genes propagate when the species that carry them flourish.

For a great book on chimp politics check out "Alpha God" by Hector A. Garcia, highly recommended. There was also a great documentary by the BBC and Attenborough: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06mvpsw