|
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Are they so clear that you'd expect widespread consensus agreement from all people?
Or is tyranny of the majority enough?
Is tyranny of the majority moral?
If so, by what argument? (Recall: majorities have decided that slavery is moral, genocide is moral, etc.)
Absolutely not, I definitely wouldn't ask people or trust their moral compasses. Slavery and genocide are great examples of why not. The whole point is to not ask anyone but base morals on neutral data. I don't mean using statistics to find out which morals are most popular, but find out what's "right", the collective best outcome for everyone and everything.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I.e. that guy thinks murdering humans is a fundamental human right, and necessary to the growth of human cultures. Is it morally OK to disregard his position on this?
If it can be proven that murdering creates less suffering and more happiness than not murdering, no.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is it morally OK for a majority to assert moral dominance on others simply because they outnumber them?
For the criminal, see above. Is tyranny of the majority an acceptable way to determine which moral argument is "really moral."
Not automatically. If option a creates x amount of suffering for 1 person and option b x amount of suffering for 5 people, option a should be taken every time. Not because more people are affected, but because of less total suffering created.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
For the war, similar problem. The problem is that the people you're warring with have congruent arguments about why it is YOU who is the morally corrupt aggressor, while they are the righteous defenders of their cultural and traditional way of life.
If you're starting a war, it's only moral to do so if starting it will minimize suffering and maximize happiness (ms&mh from now on) for everyone, also the people you're warring with, or more generally everyone involved. Morals should have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, geography or other arbitrary and irrelevant things. If someone else is starting a war against you, it probably wouldn't and shouldn't be morally acceptable to start fighting back, unless it would ms&mh compared to surrendering.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That's fair, but not at the same time. You assert this should be possible, but you have no idea how to make it happen.
This is certainly worth exploring and noting that you are not the first to posit this idea. It's worth examining how and why other similar suggestions have failed to yet yield any fruit.
Oh I absolutely am not, I just happened to watch Sam Harris's Ted talk on the subject a few years back and it resonated.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris...w_what_s_right
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I assert that this is a common human feeling / reaction to this topic, and that when you dig past what seems moral in one culture seeming immoral in other cultures, and neither has any convincing reason for their opinions, it becomes less clear. I.e. I assert that it seems simple when you assume that what is moral in your local area is the only working moral framework.
I by no means think my local or even my own moral framework is right. Rather, I would posit no one's is, that's exactly why we'd need an impartial neutral judge. Morals are just about what's right and wrong, they should not at their core be up for debate but objective clear facts. The only reason it gets murky is that our personal experiences vary, feelings are subjective. Still, I see that just as a challenge (maybe in some cases a limitation), not as an immovable barrier. Or, I guess, maybe there could be some things in this that could be solved by statistical surveys, such as metrics for perceived suffering and happiness.
|