The Moral Landscape Challenge

[WhoBobWhatPants]

I thought I might post this here since many of you do not subscribe to morality in the sense that Sam Harris talks about in his books and speeches. Sam Harris is offering a public challenge, and a chance to win $2000 or $20 000 by submitting a short paper (under 1000 words) that challenges the central thesis of his book 'The Moral Landscape.'http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1

 

Central Argument:"Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life."

[dsayers]

Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life."

 

By definition, values, culture, and "what they deem" are subjective. Presumably, his use of the word "right" means best conforms with objective reality. This would be an objective measure which cannot be applied to subjective items.

 

On a lesser note, I would like to see a clarification of consciousness as the only measure for morality. The case could be made that a horse is conscious. However, it is his inability to reason (contemplate an ideal, compare behaviors to this ideal, and consider consequences of behaviors) that makes him ineligible for moral agent status.

[Wuzzums]

By definition, values, culture, and "what they deem" are subjective. Presumably, his use of the word "right" means best conforms with objective reality. This would be an objective measure which cannot be applied to subjective items.

 

Why not? Isn't this what FDR is all about, applying objective standards to reality so it doesn't get skewed by beliefs and culture?

[Josh F]

My reply:Without universal preferences, there would be no difference between morality and aesthetics.  So what is morality?  Morality and values depend on the universal preferences of conscious minds.Any system which puts morality in a consequentialist framework, by limiting morality to the subjective suffering of people, are in opposition to objective principles.  Your thesis is incorrect because it is making objective claims about subjective experiences.  Your next thesis that science is the only tool capable of discerning right from wrong is also incorrect.  Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies.  1+1=2 by definition, you don't need to test this theory out in the real world.  Similarly, by definition, there are universally preferable behaviors.  Murder is wrong, not because you can scientifically calculate the consequences of murder, but because by definition murder is a behavior which can not be universally preferable.  That is to say, the minute you want to be "murdered" it is no longer murder, but assisted suicide.  By definition, murder is an act you don't prefer, and no one can ever prefer, and is thus immoral.When it comes to public policy, you may be able to use the scientific method to demonstrate that, with all likelihood, the consequences of an action will be positive or negative to the majority of those effected.  This positive or negative outcome has nothing to do with morality, though.  Morality is about universal, or objective, human preferences.In the classic Utilitarian argument, where you can choose to save the lives of 10 people or 100 people, it is said to be morally good to save 100 people over the 10.  However, both acts are fundamentally good and moral.  The top-down morality that is employed by governments and intellectuals is based on placing people in almost god like rolls as they determine the outcome for millions of people.  This unnatural (and fundamentally immoral) perspective is not about human action, but about social policy.  To your last point, no cultural value is moral or can be, cultural values by their definition are things which can't be universalized.  Murder is wrong under all conditions regardless of culture.In short, you can't have an objective theory of morality based solely on subjective experiences.  Additionally a subjective theory of morality would be akin to aesthetics.  "I like HipHop" is not a moral argument.  "Hot Dogs make my stomach hurt" does not make hot dogs bad or wrong or immoral.  The subjective feelings of individuals suffering is not something you can universalize.  And if it can't be universal, then it isn't always true (again, by definition).  And well, if it isn't always true, then it isn't a particularly useful framework for morality.-Your Neighborhood ObjectivistJosh Fuchssend me yo monah!

[WhoBobWhatPants]

By definition, values, culture, and "what they deem" are subjective. Presumably, his use of the word "right" means best conforms with objective reality. This would be an objective measure which cannot be applied to subjective items.

 

On a lesser note, I would like to see a clarification of consciousness as the only measure for morality. The case could be made that a horse is conscious. However, it is his inability to reason (contemplate an ideal, compare behaviors to this ideal, and consider consequences of behaviors) that makes him ineligible for moral agent status.

Yes you can say that the horse is incapable of moral responsibility/agency. Nonetheless, an argument could still be made that it is immoral to torture the horse for fun for example since the horse is still capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Much like the horse, a human baby or a person with a severe mental illness or brain damage may be unable to "contemplate an ideal, compare behaviors to this ideal, and consider consequences of behaviors", but that doesn't mean that there aren't moral considerations to be made regarding the treatment of the baby or the mentally retarded person.

[dsayers]

Why not? Isn't this what FDR is all about, applying objective standards to reality so it doesn't get skewed by beliefs and culture?

 

We don't apply objective standards to reality, objectivity is derived from reality. Philosophy is used to determine the truth value of objective claims.

 

You used the words belief and culture, but those words denote a deviation from objective truth. We don't say, "I believe 2+2=4" or "We were raised as if 2+2=4" or "people from that part of the world put 4 after 2+2=". If it's an objective truth, belief never enters into it and it will be true throughout the world. If it can be described as a belief or culture, it is not objective nor a truth claim. "I believe unicorns exist." That's fine, it just doesn't conform to the real world.

 

Yes you can say that the horse is incapable of moral responsibility/agency. Nonetheless, an argument could still be made that it is immoral to torture the horse for fun for example since the horse is still capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

 

A case could be made that it is sadistic to torture a horse, but there is no moral component. If I kept you in a stable, you were only able to eat what I gave you to eat, and I used you as transportation or for work that your body could produce, this would be highly immoral. We do not consider identical behaviors towards a horse to even be torturous. This is why I identified that a clarification was necessary.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

A case could be made that it is sadistic to torture a horse, but there is no moral component. If I kept you in a stable, you were only able to eat what I gave you to eat, and I used you as transportation or for work that your body could produce, this would be highly immoral. We do not consider identical behaviors towards a horse to even be torturous. This is why I identified that a clarification was necessary.

The moral component has to do with causing unecessary suffering to a being capable of experiencing such in this case. I don't see why an action would have to be bad for both horse and man in order to be immoral.

[Wuzzums]

@dsayers

 

I think we're in disagreement because of different definitions of terms.

 

We don't apply objective standards to reality, objectivity is derived from reality. Philosophy is used to determine the truth value of objective claims.

 

I completely agree with the first part, I misspoke in the last post. Second part for me is a tautology, I see "objective" and "truth" as interchangeable.

[WorBlux]

  ...Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies.  ...-Your Neighborhood ObjectivistJosh Fuchssend me yo monah!

 

 

Logic and reason are within science, and they are forever guiding the interpretation of empirical data.

We might differentiate modern science as the systematic application of logic to a systematic framework of observation such that the principles and properties of the thing might be understood in a rigorous and formal way.

 

And note that UPB was not put forth as a moral theory, but as a means sanity-check moral theories. If the data lead to a conclusion that murder is okay, then that result is absurd enough to lead a person to believe that some part of that theory is wrong.

 

Morality can be said because we are one sort of thing and not any thing with contrary principles or properties to that thing.  And I do think it's perfectly plausible that empircal data can help to reveal just what sort of thing that is.

 

I don't think his central argument is wrong even though perhaps incomplete. For instance take the early American Christian sects that taught all sexual activity was evil. They pretty much went extinct because they had very low birth rates.  Procreation and the raising of children has a big role in what it means to be human.  This is not to say everyone must have children, but that cultures that do no place a large value on raising children is a less moral one.

[Josh F]

Logic and reason are within science, and they are forever guiding the interpretation of empirical data.

This sentence is a contradiction, right?  How can something guide you, but also be contained within?  Like if I used a dictionary to guide me while reading a book, you can say the book uses language, but not that a dictionary was in the book.

 

So yes, science definitely has to use logic, but no logic is not "within" science.  Science or the scientific method specifically refers to empiricism, the second best way to determine the truth of something.

 

And note that UPB was not put forth as a moral theory, but as a means sanity-check moral theories. If the data lead to a conclusion that murder is okay, then that result is absurd enough to lead a person to believe that some part of that theory is wrong.

I am not sure what the difference is between a way to determine if something is moral, and a moral theory.  I think you're incorrect on this as well.

[dsayers]

The moral component has to do with causing unecessary suffering to a being capable of experiencing such in this case. I don't see why an action would have to be bad for both horse and man in order to be immoral.

 

I never suggested it has to be "bad" for both parties. It just has to violate self-ownership, which a horse does not have specifically because of its inability to reason. If a horse had self-ownership, it would be immoral to own one, ride one, or do anything that the horse didn't consent to in advance.

 

Second part for me is a tautology, I see "objective" and "truth" as interchangeable.

 

Truth is objective, but not everything objective is true. If I say that gravity causes things to be repelled, I am making a claim that is independent of my consciousness (objective), but is objectively disprovable (false).

[Wuzzums]

This sentence is a contradiction, right?  How can something guide you, but also be contained within?  Like if I used a dictionary to guide me while reading a book, you can say the book uses language, but not that a dictionary was in the book.

So yes, science definitely has to use logic, but no logic is not "within" science.  Science or the scientific method specifically refers to empiricism, the second best way to determine the truth of something.

Science is a byproduct of logic. Whenever you're doing science the existence of logic is inferred, same way the existence of a dictionary (or a collection of words with definitions) is inferred when reading a book. Or how a printing press is inferred by the existence of a printed book. I see no fault in the phrasing "logic is within science" even if it may sound confusing, but by no means do I see it as a contradiction. It's a distinction that has no importance because science cannot exist without logic.

 

When Sam Harris says it should "fall within the purview of science" it implies it should fall in the purview of logic and reasoning, which you agree with.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

I never suggested it has to be "bad" for both parties. It just has to violate self-ownership, which a horse does not have specifically because of its inability to reason. If a horse had self-ownership, it would be immoral to own one, ride one, or do anything that the horse didn't consent to in advance.

Hrmm ok, I don't know why ability to reason would be a necessary condition for moral consideration. I think moral considerations fundamentally have to do with the fact that "minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering." Like I mentioned earlier, an infant or a person with mental handicap may lack the ability to reason but is still capable of experiencing well-being and suffering and thus actions which affect them positively or negatively can be judged morally.

[dsayers]

I don't know why ability to reason would be a necessary condition for moral consideration.

 

To be more precise, morality comes from property rights. Self-ownership (the root of property rights) requires reasoning. Children are transitional. They are incomplete and born into a guardianship.

 

Would it help to phrase it as morality requires an interaction involving two moral actors? A horse is not a moral actor. Nor is a psychopath. A child might not be, but we know that humans almost always are and they are underdeveloped humans. So while a child cannot enter into a binding contract for example, it would be immoral to assault one. It would not be immoral to apprehend a psychopath or eat a cow.

 

Please don't take my word for it. I am certainly open to correction.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

Ok so we're down to a fundamental disagreement on the nature of morality essentially. I believe morality has to do with the well being of sentient beings and you believe it has to do with self ownership. I'm not sure where to go from here or how we can agree on a definition of morality.

[WorBlux]

This sentence is a contradiction, right?  How can something guide you, but also be contained within?  Like if I used a dictionary to guide me while reading a book, you can say the book uses language, but not that a dictionary was in the book.

 

So yes, science definitely has to use logic, but no logic is not "within" science.  Science or the scientific method specifically refers to empiricism, the second best way to determine the truth of something.

I am not sure what the difference is between a way to determine if something is moral, and a moral theory.  I think you're incorrect on this as well.

In the same way kneading and baking are within the art of breadmaking.

 

According to The Philosophter (Aristotle, not our gracious host Stefan) "Science is the inquiry into the first principles and nature of a thing" (Metaphysics)

 

Descarte, Bayes, et. al, gave us some very formal tools to aid in the inquiry a.k.a. the scientific method, but that sort of empircism is not the whole of science, and is self-defeating if treated as such.

 

I have however repeatedly heard Stef make the claim UPB doesn't make specific moral claims. It was a very hot topic ont he call in show for months after the book was published.

 

I don't like UPB as an approach for a few reasons.. It does argue that there is such a thing as ethics,  and that some claims about ethics are not sound on thier face as ethical claims must be universal and about perferability of  type of act.  A moral theory on the other hand proposes some theory of what is good.  UPB kind of implicity slips in non-violence and truth when a person comes to argue against it, but that feels like a trick to me.  A good setup in a debate... but as a method of communication ... not so much at least in my experience.

 

Heres an old thread on my topic where I feel like I really nail down my objection.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/20721-ethics-upb-natural-law-and-valuation-a-chat/?hl=%2Bnatural+%2Blaw

 

Anyways that's a ways off the topic

[dsayers]

Ok so we're down to a fundamental disagreement on the nature of morality essentially. I believe morality has to do with the well being of sentient beings and you believe it has to do with self ownership. I'm not sure where to go from here or how we can agree on a definition of morality.

 

Could you offer a case for it? As I understand it, you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. As such, everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves (and therefore the effects of their actions), then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as the require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. In this context, moral evaluation requires choice and other people. Again people being moral actor/those who can reason.

 

Look, I'm against being a sadist towards animals. Plants sense injury, but you would never speak of plant torture, eh? I'm not saying that plants are animals are directly comparable in this regard. Just pointing out that in order for the abuse of animal to be immoral, it would have to be a moral actor. But if that were the case, owning, using, eating them, etc would also be immoral. Is that your position as well or do we disagree on that?

[Josh F]

In the same way kneading and baking are within the art of breadmaking.

 

According to The Philosophter (Aristotle, not our gracious host Stefan) "Science is the inquiry into the first principles and nature of a thing" (Metaphysics)

 

Descarte, Bayes, et. al, gave us some very formal tools to aid in the inquiry a.k.a. the scientific method, but that sort of empircism is not the whole of science, and is self-defeating if treated as such.

This point isn't particularly relevant to my argument.  If it makes more sense for you to add the word Method to the end of the instances where I say Science, that is fine.  Those points still stand, since the only aspect of science, as you define it, that is relevant to morality is the logic.  Making a distinction between those two things is much more useful than trying to blur them together.

 

To be really honest, on the topic of tricks, this argument is a trick.  The trick, or logical fallacy, is called equivocation.  It is where you try to blur the definition between two things.  The reason behind distinguishing between logic and science is the important part.  Do you see what I mean?

Science is a byproduct of logic. Whenever you're doing science the existence of logic is inferred, same way the existence of a dictionary (or a collection of words with definitions) is inferred when reading a book. Or how a printing press is inferred by the existence of a printed book. I see no fault in the phrasing "logic is within science" even if it may sound confusing, but by no means do I see it as a contradiction. It's a distinction that has no importance because science cannot exist without logic.

 

When Sam Harris says it should "fall within the purview of science" it implies it should fall in the purview of logic and reasoning, which you agree with.

Again, to quickly reiterate my above argument: trying to equivocate science with logic is not helpful for understanding my argument; which is that empiricism is irrelevant to moral claims.  Logic is the only tool for discerning the objective morality of a behavior.  If Sam Harris's definition of Science is both empiricism and logic, then he is only half right (wrong) to say that science is the best tool for evaluating a moral claim.

[Wuzzums]

Logic is the only tool for discerning the objective morality of a behavior.  If Sam Harris's definition of Science is both empiricism and logic, then he is only half right (wrong) to say that science is the best tool for evaluating a moral claim.

Can you have science without logic?

[dsayers]

empiricism is irrelevant to moral claims.  Logic is the only tool for discerning the objective morality of a behavior.

 

Moral claims are objective and therefor can be (dis)proven by way of empirical evidence. Logic is a way to interpret the empirical evidence, which I believe was what WorBlux was saying in the first place.

[Josh F]

I don't believe you guys are making a fair effort to understand my argument.  Repeating the same points without acknowledging the previous rebuttals tells me this conversation isn't about understanding the truth.  In that past that would have been frustrating for me, but instead I simply don't feel motivated to continue this particular discussion about the definition of science with you guys. Good luck!

[WorBlux]

This point isn't particularly relevant to my argument.  If it makes more sense for you to add the word Method to the end of the instances where I say Science, that is fine.  Those points still stand, since the only aspect of science, as you define it, that is relevant to morality is the logic.  Making a distinction between those two things is much more useful than trying to blur them together.

 

To be really honest, on the topic of tricks, this argument is a trick.  The trick, or logical fallacy, is called equivocation.  It is where you try to blur the definition between two things.  The reason behind distinguishing between logic and science is the important part.  Do you see what I mean?

Again, to quickly reiterate my above argument: trying to equivocate science with logic is not helpful for understanding my argument; which is that empiricism is irrelevant to moral claims.  Logic is the only tool for discerning the objective morality of a behavior.  If Sam Harris's definition of Science is both empiricism and logic, then he is only half right (wrong) to say that science is the best tool for evaluating a moral claim.

 

Is not economics the science of human action? Does it's core axioms requite empirical data carefully analyzed to  support?

 

Even if you were establshed that what Harris means science purley in the sense of empiricism (maybe he does, but being unfamiliar with the spcific work in question, I feel obligated to interpert the argument in the most charitable light possible) then there still remains a certain plausibility to the argument. If something is claimed as a moral good, but in practice has some really horrid results (e.g spanking) then we can reject those claims on empirical grounds as it's absurd to suppose a good act might consistently create bad results.  Harris then makes the next claim that all moral claims might in principle be subjected to such tests..

 

I don't think hard data per se can justify moral claims (and I don't see Harris making that argument in his summary) but that  itis often an indepsible tool in dialectial analysis of moral claims.

 

But you unjustifiably go beyond that position and say the empirical has no bearing on the understanding of the moral. The central tenant of morality is that good is to be done and persued.  If it turns out when we study an act and it consistently has bad results, then my claim is then such descover should inform our moral theory.

 

And I don't see where Harris makes the claim that empirical data is the best tool to formulate or evaluate moral claims, only that in principle it is competent to inform us about such matters.

[PatrickC]

UPB kind of implicity slips in non-violence and truth when a person comes to argue against it, but that feels like a trick to me.  A good setup in a debate..

 

This sounds like your making a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. Insofar as reason, logic and evidence can make objective observations everywhere else, except this one (UPB).

 

You would have to show where that 'implicitness' came from. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. Or mean it's a sleight of hand. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

[Ahrramin]

• Theory of General Morality
•  
• Morality means doing what is socially right, or good; immorality means doing what is socially wrong, or bad.
•  
• Individuals make subjective value judgments as to what they consider to be socially right, and what they consider to be socially wrong:
•  
• One person would consider a tattoo to be a work of art, and would be very grateful to have received one - they would consider the actions of the tattoo artist to be right, or moral; whilst another would consider it to be a scar and would be saddened to have received one - they would consider the actions of the tattoo artist to be wrong, or immoral.
•  
• For this reason we cannot be sure whether the actions we or others take are right: moral; or wrong: immoral, unless we ensure that consent is granted by the people whom those actions affect.
•  
• Consequently, whilst morality itself is subjective; and whilst morality -- actions judged to be right -- can occur without consent; the only way to ensure morality and prevent immorality is to prevent people from acting against others without consent.
•  
• This theory, therefore, is a rational justification for the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) –- which states that actions should not be taken against people and their property without consent: implied or explained -- being the objective foundation of a moral society.

 

I think the above theory is as objective as one can get in terms of morality.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

Could you offer a case for it? As I understand it, you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. As such, everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves (and therefore the effects of their actions), then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as the require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. In this context, moral evaluation requires choice and other people. Again people being moral actor/those who can reason.

 

Look, I'm against being a sadist towards animals. Plants sense injury, but you would never speak of plant torture, eh? I'm not saying that plants are animals are directly comparable in this regard. Just pointing out that in order for the abuse of animal to be immoral, it would have to be a moral actor. But if that were the case, owning, using, eating them, etc would also be immoral. Is that your position as well or do we disagree on that?

Morality is about good and bad. The various forms of well being and suffering are good and bad in and of themselves (intrinsically). Consciouss minds are able to experience various forms of well being and suffering. Therefore actions are good or bad insofar as they promote well being or cause unecessary suffering.

[PatrickC]

Both the last two posters highlight the problem that mankind has had with defining morality. People like to assign their own pet likes and dislikes accordingly to the term. UPB attempts to re-frame that into two parts from UPB to APA, by assigning universals where they exist (UPB) and aesthetics with the rest (APA).

 

You basically have to re-learn morality with UPB and only assign universals where they actually exist and not just where we would like them to exist.

[WorBlux]

This sounds like your making a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. Insofar as reason, logic and evidence can make objective observations everywhere else, except this one (UPB). You would have to show where that 'implicitness' came from. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. Or mean it's a sleight of hand. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

This implicitness is absolutely clear if you reference the text.From UPB p.34 Premise 4

If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.

Premise 7

Thus it is clear that any debate relies on the implicit premise that evidence, reason, truth and objectivity are the universally preferable methods of resolving disputes between individuals. It would be completely illogical to argue that differences of opinion should be resolved through the use of violence

And what exactly is the error you are accusing me of? I'm not saying UPB is mostly wrong, it's just that it's a roundabout and incomplete approach to ethics to address an objection that few people ever take seriiously.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

Both the last two posters highlight the problem that mankind has had with defining morality. People like to assign their own pet likes and dislikes accordingly to the term. UPB attempts to re-frame that into two parts from UPB to APA, by assigning universals where they exist (UPB) and aesthetics with the rest (APA).

 

You basically have to re-learn morality with UPB and only assign universals where they actually exist and not just where we would like them to exist.

I'm not assigning my own likes and dislikes. Stabbing someone in the eye for fun is objectively harmful and bad irrespective of my beliefs.

[PatrickC]

This implicitness is absolutely clear if you reference the text.From UPB p.34 Premise 4

Premise 7

 

Way to take a reference referring to 'implicit' out of context that had nothing to do with your own use of the term earlier.

I'm not assigning my own likes and dislikes. Stabbing someone in the eye is objectively harmful and bad irrespective of my beliefs.

 

So when an Ophthalmologist performs surgery on your eye with a scalpel or laser. Would you consider that harmful or helpful?

[WhoBobWhatPants]

Way to take a reference referring to 'implicit' out of context that had nothing to do with your own use of the term earlier.

 

So when an Ophthalmologist performs surgery on your eye with a scalpel or laser. Would you consider that harmful or helpful?

The net result would increase my well-being so it would be good. Likewise, having a rotten tooth extracted by the dentist might cause some temporary pain but the net result would be good.

[PatrickC]

Right, so you can see the problem with making some bold moral statements. They require context and importantly 'objectivity'.. AKA, UPB!

[dsayers]

Morality is about good and bad.

 

That's not helpful as it is subjective. Like in your stabbing in the eye vs stabbing in the eye, good and bad aren't relevant. Consent is. A person can choose to not consent to being stabbed in the eye even if the net benefit would be "good." A person can choose to consent to being stabbed in the eye even if the net benefit would be "bad." In order to know if the act is moral, immoral, or amoral, you have to look at whether or not property rights are being violated. Or in the case of amoral, if property rights are not part of the equation, such as keeping a horse captive and using him as transportation.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

If good and bad aren't relevant when discussiing morality then I have no idea what we're talking about.

 

I guess we could keep going around in circles each asserting that morality is about property rights or morality is about well-being.

 

"In order to know if the act is moral, immoral, or amoral, you have to look at whether or not well-being is being promoted or suffering is being caused."

[WorBlux]

Way to take a reference referring to 'implicit' out of context that had nothing to do with your own use of the term earlier.

 

On the contrary those passages are precisely the passages I had in mind with my first use.

 

Am I taking a whiff of sarcasm here? I may have been insuffeciently clear how I meant it, but in which case you'd get further simply asking me what I meant.

[dsayers]

If good and bad aren't relevant when discussiing morality then I have no idea what we're talking about.

 

I guess we could keep going around in circles each asserting that morality is about property rights or morality is about well-being.

 

"In order to know if the act is moral, immoral, or amoral, you have to look at whether or not well-being is being promoted or suffering is being caused."

 

You are ignoring that words like bad, good, and "well-being" are vague and subjective. Property rights are objective.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you accept self-ownership? I ask because "well-being" violates self-ownership. Your use of it after me making this point suggests clinging to a predetermination.