2

We all make assumptions, but there are assumptions that we are forced to make if we want to interact with any part of reality. The first is that the universe exists. The second is that the universe is intelligible. The third is that models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability. These three assumptions may seem odd to think of as assumptions, but currently there isn’t a way for us to determine the validity of them. We assume them because it is practical to do so. Now the scientific method is what we use to determine specific and general characteristics about the universe, but even before we can use that, we must make three more assumptions. The first assumption of science is that there are natural causes for things that happen in the universe. The second is that evidence from the universe can be used to learn about those causes. The third is that there is consistency in the causes that operate in the universe. After making these six assumptions, you can begin to figure out the going-ons of our universe.

Morality is especially not objective. Your current morals are probably based solely on empathy and the influences of the environment you grew up in. So naturally, morality will be different from person to person. With that being said, I’m going to propose a moral code. Given that the first six assumptions I mentioned are true, I can make this assumption about morality. If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer. The reason why this assumptions requires the first six assumptions to be true is that suffering itself can and is determined by science. Scientists understand how we feel pain fairly well. It’s not until we look at animals, that we share a very distant relative with, do we start becoming unsure on whether they experience suffering of any kind. For example, we don’t know if insects can suffer, but we’re convinced that mammals can. As for the part about suffering that is in the best interest of the sufferer, there are many aspects of life where we are forced to do things we do not want to do. Going to school as a child and paying taxes as an adult would be examples of this. You’re being forced to do something that may cause you to suffer, but it is still in your best interest to do it. Last but not least, you can lose the seventh assumption right if you cause something to suffer, where that something doesn’t benefit from the suffering. This allows for self defence and the defence of others.

“If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer.”

This assumption is an odd addition to the other pragmatic assumptions, but in order to establish any form of a morality we need to, at least, make one more assumption on top of the other assumptions. This is my attempt at establishing an objective morality.

This morality doesn’t define what is good, but what is bad. It defines bad as suffering that is not in the best interest of the sufferer or senseless suffering. The reasoning behind this is that senseless suffering can be either physical or psychological damage.These damages cause stress to the thing experiencing it. That stress leads to even more health issues. It is scientifically detrimental, to the well being of anything, to senselessly suffer, thus a universe that doesn't contain senseless suffering is better, in terms of well being, than a universe that does.

“If something possesses the ability to suffer” is the first portion of this morality. In the scientific community, suffering is mainly observed through changes in behavior and comparing the anatomy that controls human pain to other animals. Like intelligence, we can’t quite quantify varying levels of suffering, but we can establish that certain things can suffer. This morality only honors rights to those who can suffer.

“and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer” is the second portion of this morality. This portion establishes a way to lose the right essentially through cause senseless suffering to something else. This allows the sufferer to defend itself even through means of more suffering. In a case where excessive force is reached with self defense, the roles would become reversed. So you have to not be currently trying to cause senseless suffering.

“it possess the right to live free of suffering” is the third portion of this morality. This is where the right is actually applied. If the something meets the first two criteria, it possess the right to live free of senseless suffering.

“unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer” is the fourth and final portion of this morality. This allows suffering to be cause as long as it is in the best interest of the one suffering. Forcing a child to go to school is an example of this. As is being forced to pay taxes as an adult. Once again, science should be used as an indication of what something’s best interests are. We can observe that people who don’t finish or even attend school lead worse lives. Not only financially, but in terms of safety, independence and overall quality.

The very foundation of this morality is an assumption. A blind assumption that is made only if the first six assumptions are true. We can’t test or verify any of them, but living your life becomes extremely difficult and impractical if they are not assumed. I argue, in terms of morality, that the same is true of the seventh assumption.

closed as off-topic by Dave, Cort Ammon, virmaior, Keelan, James Kingsbery Mar 5 '15 at 18:41

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – Dave, Cort Ammon, virmaior, Keelan, James Kingsbery
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    This question is, unfortunately, not in a good form for StackExchange. The philosophy stack exchange has a policy of closing questions which push a personal view point. While your title is a question, the rest of the body has a form more similar to an argument. That issue aside, I'd like to point out that science allows for "the unknown" in the form of random variables. You may find it easier to pick away at your final assumption if you keep in mind science's assumptions allow for reality beyond its ability to model. – Cort Ammon Mar 5 '15 at 14:56
  • I've downvoted this because you're not asking a question, you're pushing a particular view about the nature of morality. And not a particularly good one either. For instance, you say that "given that the first six assumptions I mentioned are true, I can make this assumption about morality." But you haven't explained why the first six assumptions warrant your assumption about morality. Similarly, your main assumption about morality begs a whole host of normative ethical questions, which you don't even address. Why should we favour your assumption over another one? – possibleWorld Mar 5 '15 at 18:27
1

I suggest starting with my Are there laws which govern minds?, which I asked after my How could 'objective morality' be known/investigated? stalled out. You'll need to take this a lot more slowly than you are.

The first is that the universe exists.

Not clear; see WP: Idealism.

The second is that the universe is intelligible.

Not clear; from Stephen Toulmin's Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity:

In 1590, skeptics still doubted whether humans can find universal regularities in nature; by 1640, nature was in irremediable decay: but, by 1700, the changeover to the "law-governed" picture of a stable cosmos was complete. (110)

(The question is not binary: the universe could be a tiny bit intelligible, extremely intelligible, or anywhere in between. Whether or not it is 100% intelligible is an interesting question; perhaps Hegel explored this?)

The third is that models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability.

A study of the precise change spurred by Francis Bacon and Galileo Galilei is in order, here. There appear to be multiple, drastically different ways of doing this "predictive capability"; it is not clear that what you're talking about allows for the variety that exists. I suggest a read of Alasdair MacIntyre's 1977 Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative and the Philosophy Of Science, where he talks about the advance of science and how intelligibility is the link of continuity through Kuhn's paradigm shifts.

Morality is especially not objective.

This is simply not agreed upon. Kant thought he discovered an objective reality with his categorical imperative. Alasdair MacIntyre argues that morality is related to a telos, in After Virtue. But it could easily be the case that what is "rational" is likewise relative; see Ian Hacking's essay in Rationality and Relativism, where he worries that all rationality is merely relative to some way of investigating reality, and is only valid "in that realm", as it were. Perhaps going beyond what he said, I would surmise that he worries that rationality is nothing other than intelligibility.

Your current morals are probably based solely on empathy and the influences of the environment you grew up in.

MacIntyre calls this Emotivism, and argues that post-Enlightenment "tools for thinking" reduce all Enlightenment-dependent morality to it, because of the discarding of teleology, of final causation.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.