It all boils down to what most people think is "good" versus "bad", which you could argue further boils down to what helps a group of people survive and grow as a group versus what damages it.

what about incest, there was incest in the families where there were kings because they wanted to keep the family blood pure, this is not good because it makes mutations on the babys that are born and disabilities but on the other hand most people back in that day thought it was okay for the royals to commit incest and that it made sense, in the modern world apparently there is still incest amongst some people, the people committing incest would probs think its okay for whatever reason otherwise why would that do it. but on the other hand many people in the modern age feel that it is a very disgusting and wrong thing to do. Did i get the question right??

These both describe subjective scenarios still. What people "think" depends on the person. The question asks for an objective morality.

Bush did 9 11 :)

That’s not subjective. That’s objective to the human condition regadless of what anyone may believe. Utilitarian purposes are objective by nature. Survival and growth are necessary to humanity to exist. Any morals derived from that could be said to be objective.

Can you explain how this relates to the OP?


What?


What?


What?

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

Uh what? I'll try to reply but what you've said seems to me to be very vague/unclear, can you try to explain in more detail?

"Utilitarian purposes are objective by nature. Survival and growth are necessary to humanity to exist. Any morals derived from that could be said to be objective."
Why must humanity exist or grow? There is no base truth that proves this. You may desire this, others may not, thus it's subjective and not absolute.

Example: I prefer the continuation of our universe over the continuation of humanity, humanity pollutes, contributes to the every increasing entropy of the universe, is imperfect, humanity should cease to exist, so we won't bring war into space, we should let ourselves die out, so that we will end this bad influence on the universe.

What you said is no more right than what I said, yet contradictory, if you're going to reply with, "we should value our species/our life and it's continuation", I'd ask "why?" Try as you might, you cannot answer with anything that is objectively true, thus your inference is also not objectively true.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

Except your example is based off of your own values, your own beliefs about the universe, rather than something programmed into us as a species. The will to survive is independent of whatever values anyone holds, therefore if morals are derived from what makes survival easier - what makes humans succeed - those are objective morals.

It's why people in established industrial nations and people who live in tribes in the jungle who have never seen other civilizations have morals in common. It's why when a dog sees a person hit its owner that person is treated as a threat.

You should look up and read about utilitarianism, it should refute your original claim and all this will make more sense to you.

If you continue down the path of utilitarianism, the objective morals derived thereof devolve into what subjectively, most people would say is "bad". Basically, utility is objective and efficient at the expense of morality, but you can still derive morals from utility.

Here - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1959090?se ... b_contents

Why is it good when humans make survival easier? Can your utilitarianism prove this (outside the context of it's own philosophy)? Rather than it being your opinion that it is good for humans to make their survival easier?

You seem to fail to understand the underlying question, you cannot prove "utility is objective and efficient" as universal (good, in this case I would assume), utilitarianism does so only in the context of it's philosophy, based on the assumption that one should maximize utility.

ex. General Relativity is an absolute, it can be empirically falsified. How can you possibly say the same for utilitarianism, it's still an ethical philosophy.

Also to what original claim are you referring?

Bonus: (in recognizing there is no absolute morality, and illustrating the point)
Why should I value what is programmed into me over my own values?

Also if we move past this I have some possible issues with utilitarianism as your moral philosophy we can discuss.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

Clearly you didn't look up utilitarianism and/or have not gotten to the topic yet in your supposed "course". Done in this thread, later.