Hedonism, Objective Morality, and Utilitarianism

[r0ckyreed]

I posted this in the wrong thread!  This is supposed to be in the philosophy, self-actualization section of the forum.  Thanks. Sorry for inconvenience.

Hear me out.

I have been contemplating the nature of Value Theory, which tries to answer the question: "What is the Good Life, and how can I live it?"  I have also been contemplating morality since living a Good Life is linked to the goodness and standards of conduct we bring to our communities.

Please note that this here is the result of my contemplations on the subject.  In no way is this absolute truth or any of that BS.  I would encourage you all to contribute and expand/elaborate on my ideas here to tackle the issue of Value Theory and Morality.  Thanks! 

To start, there are several theories in philosophy on what the Good Life is.  There is hedonism, eudaemonia, desire satisfaction theory, and many more.  I will focus on mainly these theories here.  

What is a Good Life

So what does a Good Life boil down to?  I mean what is it really that you want out of life?  What do you really want?  Cars?  Sex? Drugs?  Spiritual mindgasms?  Here is my perspective, what you really want out of life is a feeling.  That is what I find that it boils down to.  What you really want is not a college degree or to travel the world, or to make millions of dollars.  That is all material.  What you really want is the immaterial.  What you ultimately want is a feeling, the feeling of true happiness and bliss.  This is related to my other post on how "Discipline is Ratshit - The Art of Blissipline."  Blissipline is about being a disciple of your highest bliss in life.  Whereas discipline is more commonly thought of as working your ass off and grinding even though it might not bring intrinsic happiness.  Blissipline is more focused on intrinsic happiness (immediate bliss), whereas discipline is focused more on instrumental happiness (future, long-term happiness).

Value Theories: Hedonism, Eudaemonia, Desire Satisfaction Theory

Here is where hedonism comes in.  What you really want is a feeling of bliss, of feeling content, excited, happy, and complete.  Hedonism is the view that happiness is the ultimate good in that what a Good Life really is, is one that is lived happily.  Most people misunderstand hedonism to be the pursuit of pleasure, but this is not true hedonism.  Hedonism believes that happiness is most essential to live a good life, but happiness is not what we think.  Sit down and contemplate what happiness is.  For me, happiness is not a dopamine hit from sitting in a pleasurable hot tub.  Although, that could be a form of happiness, I find that happiness for me means to be completely high on life itself - To be completely satisfied with the present moment and living true Heaven on earth.  With true happiness, there is nothing to pursue because happiness is about being and not doing.  All pursuits come from an implicit assumption that happiness needs to be chased.  This of course implies that the chaser does not have happiness unless they reach a goal.  But this is folly.  Happiness is what is left when there is nothing left to do.  The film Christopher Robin highlights this beautifully when Christopher and Winnie the Pooh say "Doing Nothing very often leads to very best of something."  What this means is that "doing" is the chasing.  When you stop "doing" and start "being," you are in alignment with your higher self and your deepest Blissiplines in life.  

All of this aligns with what true Hedonism is.  Eudaemonia and desire satisfaction are closely related to hedonism, but they are distinct.  For instance, Eudaemonia suggests that meaning is the center of life, and a Good Life is one that is meaningful.  Desire satisfaction theory suggests that a Good Life is measured by getting what we want and desire.  Eudaemonia is a good theory, but I think it boils down to hedonism.  Why is meaning in life important?  Also, who is it that is judging what a Good Life is and what a Good Life is not?  If we look at someone else, we may say they lived a Good Life if we believed that they accomplished their goals and did something meaningful with their lives instead of wobbling around the Hundred Acre Woods all day.  This is why the framing of the question of what a Good Life is essential.  Eudaemonia seems appealing because our society is focused on productivity, goal-orientation, and less focused on recreation, leisure, and playfulness.  But ultimately, if a person has a meaningful life, but they are not happy, did they really have a Good Life?  I mean from our perspective, they appear to have a Good Life.  Robin Williams comes to mind for someone I thought had a Good Life because I believe that his life was meaningful.  But from Robin Williams' perspective, his life was probably a nightmare.  I do not know this for certain, as I am guessing his point of view at this point, but if we take this thought experiment to heart, we can see that living the Good Life ultimately boils down to how happy you are and if you are following your heart and highest blisses in life.  

Difference between Hedonism and Desire Satisfaction Theory

With desire satisfaction theory, I think this is more like how most people view hedonism.  I think it is really easy to confuse desire satisfaction theory with hedonism, but here is the difference.  Hedonism is believes happiness is essential to living the Good Life, whereas desire satisfaction theory (DST) states that a Good Life is one that where a person gets what they want.  DST believes that desire is most important for living a good life.  The issue with DST is that desire is always future-oriented.  This is the common conflation between hedonism and DST.  Hedonism is more about intrinsic happiness, where as DST is about instrumental pleasure and meeting our desires.  The problem with DST is that most of the time, we don't know what we really want.  Sometimes, we desire for something that does not really bring us true happiness in the end.  For instance, you may have desired for a college degree, to be a video game designer for Ubisoft, to have millions of mansions and women, but we later find out when we have all of our desires that something else is missing.  A lot of people end up having more desires and goals to chase - trying to get even more money and even more status, while not realizing that what you desire is not always what you really want.  As Morgan Freeman says in Bruce Almightly: "Since when do people know what they want?"  Think about that one. 

Morality

I go back and forth on the nature or metaethics of morality.  Metaethics tries to understand what the nature of morality is.  Is morality objective? Absolute? Relative?  Etc.?  I have gone back and forth between moral objectivism and moral relativism.  Moral objectivism suggests that morality is objective.  This means that there are true and false, or right and wrong ways to act in the world.  Moral relativism suggests that morality is ultimately relative, which means that there is no right or wrong, or true or false when it comes to moral conduct.  The moral conduct according to relativists is subjective to individuals and collective cultures/societies.  No society is more right or wrong than another.  However, moral objectivism states that this is false.  They state that morality has correct answers that are independent from sociocultural contexts and people's opinions.  For instance, there is a right and wrong answer to if a certain mushroom is poisonous or healthy.  This is how a moral objectivist views morality.  They view morality as having right or wrong answers that are independent to what we may believe.  The earth is appears to be a sphere from the perspective of being in outer space despite a flat earther's opinion.  Also, beating a child is also wrong regardless of what we believe because the act of beating a child is not the healthiest way to build a society, nor is that act selfless.  Morality is really all about a community and about selflessness.  If morality is not based on selflessness, of living in harmony as a community, then the community cannot function.  Morality is like the water to the garden.  Without morality, the garden dies.  There are right and wrong ways to grow a healthy garden if that is what we want.  When a relativist says that "well who says that living healthy and selfless matters?"  Well, it really doesn't in the ultimate degree in the same way that it does not matter what plant you eat in the jungle.  However, there are right and wrong ways to be selfless, loving, and healthy relative to how we define them.  The plant is poisonous or edible regardless of what you or I believe.  I, as the moral objectivist say that there is a right or wrong in that the plant is either poisonous or it isn't.  But you as the relativist may say that the plant is poisonous relative to your human organism but maybe not to some other creature.  This is true.  But this does not dismiss the fact that relative to human organism, and relative to building a selfless society, there are right and wrong ways to do that.  It isn't just its all opinion.  If you care about survival (which you mostly likely do), morality will be important if you want to live in harmony with others and contribute in a positive way to the world.  Of course, survival itself is relative, but relative to how you want to survive and your values, there are right and wrong ways to go about them.  If you value well-being (however you define that), there will be right and wrong ways in how you go about that.  Of course, there are multiple factors like well-being relative to you or to society? and etc.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the view of how to act morally.  Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that suggests that the most moral action is one in which brings about the most happiness to the world for the greater good.  Utilitarianism also operates from the notion of hedonism, which I already defined as viewing a Good Life as being in harmony with one's bliss and happiness.  In the same way, utilitarianism is correct because all morality I think boils down to how conscious a society is.  The more conscious a society is, the more blissful and happy they will be.  Today, our society lives in fear and in prejudice, etc.  True utilitarianism wants to do the best actions to raise the consciousness of humanity.  They want to maximize consciousness and happiness for the world.  This theory of morality is true because if morality isn't based on what a Good Life is, then what is the function of morality?  The function of morality number 1 is to survive in a community setting.  The next function of morality is justice and promote social harmony for communities to live together.  With social harmony, there are right and wrong ways to go about that.  A relativist may argue that "Well my definition of social harmony could be to blow up the world in the name of my God."  But if you think about that deeper, you just create more terror and more fear in both the short-term and long-term.  The utilitarian is focused on consequences of actions, but a true utilitarian cares about both.  Our actions can inspire others to follow, which if we led good actions, we lead good lives for the community at large.  Remember utilitarianism is tied with hedonism.  What we really are after is a feeling.  True hedonists live in the present moment and strive to be happy now.  The classic objection against utilitarianism is the it is subjective in that people can have the "ends justify the means" in that they care about the future of the world and consequences of actions.  But a utilitarian devoid of the effects of their present actions is not a true utilitarian.  Our karma is our actions tied to consequences.  If we do something bad now to get something good later, we are fooling ourselves because how we act now attracts what we will get in the future.

Anyways, these are my thoughts on all of this.  You are encouraged to contribute to these ideas here or disagree.  I would appreciate to hear your thoughts on what you think about Value Theory and Morality.

"The flower doesn't dream of the bee, it blossoms and the bees come!" - David Lion

Thanks!  

Edited December 11, 2021 by r0ckyreed

[Mason Riggle]

@r0ckyreed cool post.  I enjoyed the distinctions you made between hedonism and Eudaemonia. 

I think this kind of dualist view on Morality, that you flawlessly play both sides of the fence on  (This is perhaps called being spiritually grounded?) is transcended in light of 'lack of self' or 'lack of doership' realizations, or other realizations that illuminate the non dual nature of reality. 

It's very difficult for me to do anything right or wrong, if the only thing I'm ever doing is 'being myself' and I never have to try to do it. Being myself is effortless, because Im not doing it, you see? Trying to be myself, or trying not to be myself are the same thing. They are both 'what I am doing', whichever one I do. Either is always just more me 'effortlessly being myself'.  I always do exactly what I want, because the only way to do anything else would be to want to do that other thing more, which would just be more doing exactly what I want. 

 

 

[r0ckyreed]

Thanks for your response and insight! 

34 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

I think this kind of dualist view on Morality

Morality is dualistic in nature when talking about how a self relates to an other.

34 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

It's very difficult for me to do anything right or wrong, if the only thing I'm ever doing is 'being myself' and I never have to try to do it. Being myself is effortless, because Im not doing it, you see? Trying to be myself, or trying not to be myself are the same thing. They are both 'what I am doing', whichever one I do. Either is always just more me 'effortlessly being myself'.  I always do exactly what I want, because the only way to do anything else would be to want to do that other thing more, which would just be more doing exactly what I want. 

Amen. 
 

“The flower doesn’t dream of the bee, it blossoms and the bees come.”

All you have to do is shine and water the garden of the world with consciousness and love.

Morality is a complex topic that I feel does not get its share of light when compared to metaphysics and epistemology. Without morality, our metaphysics and epistemologies won’t be as strong because morality is like the foundation of our hierarchy of needs. Yet, it is surprising that morality is less discussed. I feel like people morality is dismissed a lot and deemed as unimportant to explore because “it is relative.” I mean of course it is relative. Everything is relative to something, but why does that mean that we ignore moral questions. I still think there is some objective component to how morality is acted out relative to the rules and principles we create as individuals and collective. Conversations about morality may spark disagreement, but that is a way for our minds to grow and be open to more perspectives to help us build a stronger morality. Moral objectivists who do not consider the perspective of moral relativists fall into ethnocentrism, and the moral relativists who do not consider the perspective of moral objectivists are also missing out on the investigation of deeper complex moral issues.

Edited December 11, 2021 by r0ckyreed

[Mason Riggle]

Any type of prescriptive Morality just makes one huge assumption.. that if there's anything worth caring about, it's the quality of experience. 

If we care about that, there are objectively better ways than others to go about improving the quality of our experience. 

It's like, should I go to the store? That's relative. What's your goal? Trying to sleep? Then, no, you shouldn't, but if you need milk then you should... But once you establish that getting milk is a worthwhile goal, there are objectively better ways to get to the store than others. 

[r0ckyreed]

9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

Any type of prescriptive Morality just makes one huge assumption.. that if there's anything worth caring about, it's the quality of experience. 

If we care about that, there are objectively better ways than others to go about improving the quality of our experience. 

It's like, should I go to the store? That's relative. What's your goal? Trying to sleep? Then, no, you shouldn't, but if you need milk then you should... But once you establish that getting milk is a worthwhile goal, there are objectively better ways to get to the store than others. 

Yup! That’s exactly what I’m talking about! 
If our goal is to survive, there are certain foods we can eat and certain ones we can’t. If we want equality then there are ways to get it and ways to not, but concepts of survival and equality are arbitrary and relative to people and cultures. But it doesn’t means that morality should be ignored.

I think Deontology is really interesting, and I think it is similar to utilitarianism. But deontology cares more about universal rules than it does about maximizing happiness and bliss for all involved.

What I like about Deontology is that they care more about their actions than consequences. This morality is more geared towards the present moment of rightness and wrongness. The rightness and wrongness of actions are determined by how they hold up with our rules than with the consequences of our actions. However, this theory does not focus on happiness, bliss, and well-being as the foundation, and it focuses more on how our actions hold up to universalizable rules. One thing about deontology is that they treat people as ends rather than as means. I think a true utilitarian would be a little more like a Deontologist in this regard because our action are bound by karmic law, and wrong actions to get right results is a big flaw for utilitarians.
 

Maybe I should change my title? Lol. I find problems with all of these moral theories. 
 

If I were to create my own moral theory, it would be a combination of deontology and utilitarianism. But I think rule utilitarians are closest to this combination. 
 

My moral theory would be to “act in such a way to bring about the most bliss and happiness to the world through universalizable actions.” With this theory, it assumes that if you focus on the process, then you won’t need to worry about the outcome. The process is about taking the path following your bliss and to inspire and raise the consciousness of others through your actions towards following your heart and higher self. It is about maximizing happiness and consciousness in the present moment through our actions and not through consequences per se. This theory will need more work of course. But the basic idea is that each moral action we take is in alignment with our higher self. It is a combination of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. To be the most moral is to be most conscious.

[vizual]

But you don't know what brings about the most "bliss" in other people. Maybe you can know which actions to take to bring about the best feeling in yourself, but why would your pursuit of this bliss be good to others and the community? 

How is this any different from a dystopian society where everyone is being given drugs to make them feel good so that society can be controlled and make sure everyone is in 'bliss'? You can argue that this is a noble position from the people who enforce it.

[Zigzag Idiot]

Re: To be the most moral is to be most conscious.

I like that notion. It would fit with the concept that Mercy is the best we can do for giving it the value of being the highest law. 

Another notion that I'm fond of is that awakened conscience is the same in everyone and is the intelligence of the universe juxtaposed with our conditioned morality which gets handed down and forced upon us.

The following I copied from an old post in my journal and is from a 12th century Egyptian Sufi named Dzou'l Noun. To me,  it contains a whole world of meaning having to do with Conscience and the consequences of being awake in a culture that is asleep.

All men are dead, except those who know.

All those who know are dead, except those who practice.

All those who practice are dead, except those who act.

All those who act are lost, except those who act with righteous intent.

And All those who act with righteous intent are all in grave danger.

[DocWatts]

Value arises from having a sense of meaning and purpose. For happiness to be sustainable it has to be connected to what that person finds meaningful about thier life.

Human beings can tolerate many things, but they won't tolerate for very long not having a meaningful answer to why it is they get up in the morning and go do whatever it is they do throughout the day.

As to ethics, I wouldn't say it's a neglected part of philosophy so much as its often something that most people's understanding of is implicit rather than explicit. It's something that becomes embodied and expressed in various ideologies and worldviews.

Of the three major philosophical schools on ethics (consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics), virtue ethics seems to me to be the most sensible of the three.

Deontology is too restrictive and not practical for the ambiguities of every day life. Consequentialism is easily abused and can be dehumanizing if not applied with a great deal of care.

Virtue ethics seems to jibe with whatd we understand about human psychology and development. It's implicit in wisdom traditions such as Buddhism, and for a good reason.

 It's better suited for the ambiguities of every day life since it's not always practical or possible to run a cost benefit analysis on every decision. Or develop and apply rules that are universally applicable across the wide degree of contexts that decisions need to be made in.

Edited December 11, 2021 by DocWatts

[vizual]

@DocWatts  The problem with virtue ethics is that your personal subjective ethics will not be the same as mine, thus there will be a clash. So there will be clusters of people with the same subjective ethics that will try to devalue and deconstruct the value of the other groups. At its core it means there is no objective value, It's majority rule. The problem of this is that one group can come in and claim that the lives of other people are worthless based on their own subjective value, and destroy the other group. Like in Nazi Germany and China for example.

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, vizual said:

But you don't know what brings about the most "bliss" in other people.

Correct. Nobody can truly know. But knowing does not need to happen to deliver the most value to the world. The best way to be of service and bring the most bliss to the world is to yourself be a model of higher consciousness and love.

 

1 hour ago, vizual said:

Maybe you can know which actions to take to bring about the best feeling in yourself, but why would your pursuit of this bliss be good to others and the community? 

Look at my quote in my first post. “The flower doesn’t dream of the bee, it blossoms and the bees come.” What this means is that when you act on your highest inspirations and you grow yourself and develop to the highest version of yourself, you are able to serve others and help society raise their consciousness from that perspective. If you are at a low vibration you aren’t living up to full potential. If you were at a high vibration, can you see how this would be of the highest service to all involved?

 

1 hour ago, vizual said:

How is this any different from a dystopian society where everyone is being given drugs to make them feel good so that society can be controlled and make sure everyone is in 'bliss'? You can argue that this is a noble position from the people who enforce it.

You can argue about anything, but it doesn’t make it true. The use of drugs automatically shows the kind of state of mind a person or society is at. Think of the most conscious person and one who really embodied their bliss. Would they really need drugs to escape their feelings and live in bliss? Remember, drugs don’t make one blissful. They are a temporary distraction and an escape from pain. A person who embodies their highest bliss has developed deep positive relationships with all parts of themselves. Drugs imply that this experience right now isn’t good enough. At least that’s how I see it. I have never needed drugs because I am high on life. That’s what true bliss means to me. The most conscious society is one that is high on life and on living to become the best versions of themselves. Following your highest bliss and blossoming into your best version of yourself are identical to me. This is identical as well to building a conscious society.

”Be the change you wish to see in the world.” -Gandhi

[vizual]

@r0ckyreed  I know what you say comes from a good place, but that also, does not make it true.

Hitler thought thought that the Aryans were of a higher consciousness and value than the Jews. So in his mind, exterminating the Jews was his subjective expression of love and his highest act of service he could provide for the good of Germany. Of course, I'm not in favor of Hitler. But by your philosophy, Hitler could have justified himself for his actions to be righteous. The problem with your thesis is that the level of consciousness is not an objective measure, it's totally subjective. Who knows if the Jews or the Nazi's had a higher consciousness?

And tell a person who works full time at McDonald's, with no degree, little possibilities, to just 'raise his vibration'. And as a result of that he will just 'attract the bees'. Is this a likely outcome when applying your philosophy for people who work at McDonald's?

And yes, of course, everyone wants to be in bliss all the time. But is your philosophy a gueranteed way of getting to this bliss? How many people in the world have achieved this state in their lives? You have to have some method to get people into that state if you want to 'build a conscious society'.

[r0ckyreed]

4 minutes ago, vizual said:

The problem with virtue ethics is that your personal subjective ethics will not be the same as mine, thus there will be a clash.

Unfortunately, this is a problem with all of morality. 

 

51 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

As to ethics, I wouldn't say it's a neglected part of philosophy

I feel like morality is neglected in spiritual circles. I don’t hear Leo or Sadhguru talk about morality too often, especially moral theories like utilitarianism, etc.

 

53 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Value arises from having a sense of meaning and purpose. For happiness to be sustainable it has to be connected to what that person finds meaningful about thier life.

I feel like happiness, meaning, and fulfillment go together. A truly happy life is one that is filled with joy, gratitude, and a sense of purpose. I think happiness can be more fundamental than meaning/purpose because meaning/person is something we develop over time. Think of a young child. I feel like that a child is not focused on purpose/meaning. They are focused on playing, having fun, imagination, and pure joy. I guess you could say those activities are meaningful to them, but I guess we have to clarify what then we really mean by meaning/purpose. What is the meaning of playing and having fun? A child has fun for its own sake and not for some purpose, mission, or destiny that want to accomplish. But i don’t know, I could be wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, vizual said:

Hitler thought thought that the Aryans were of a higher consciousness and value than the Jews. So in his mind, exterminating the Jews was his subjective expression of love and his highest act of service he could provide for the good of Germany.

Hitler’s view was distorted and biased and very limited. It was very low conscious, and this was a reflection of Hitler’s consciousness, not very high. 

 

9 minutes ago, vizual said:

Hitler could have justified himself for his actions to be righteous.

High conscious actions need no justifications. Higher consciousness is always inclusive and closer to selflessness and love. What Hitler did was selfish for the collective ego of Germany. Higher consciousness goes beyond the iceberg of Germany and merges to become one with Ocean. Hitler was in ego mode and not God mode as it was apparent by his actions.

 

12 minutes ago, vizual said:

The problem with your thesis is that the level of consciousness is not an objective measure, it's totally subjective.

It’s a mixture of both I think. Consciousness is subjective but is also objective. It is subjective in the sense that we can create whatever kind of world we want. But it is objective in the sense that there are higher and lower ways to be in the world. For instance, life has no meaning. That is purely subjective. But if you want to live life and survive, there are objective ways to do that. A plant can be poisonous or it can be edible. It doesn’t matter what you believe about the plant. You can believe the poisonous plant is healthy. But you would be incorrect. That is the same as Hitler. He thought exterminating Jews was the highest good. But his views of good and bad, heathy and poisonous were flawed.

 

19 minutes ago, vizual said:

Who knows if the Jews or the Nazi's had a higher consciousness?

Only a person of higher consciousness than another can know. Higher consciousness is relative to lower consciousness. Jewish people had higher consciousness because their consciousness was more inclusive of people whereas the Nazis was more violent and exclusive. It’s not hard for us to tell because we are of higher consciousness than Nazis (at least I hope lol). But then again, through conformity and manipulation, our consciousness can lower if we are not careful with what we are exposed to. The conspiracy theories of today show how much our consciousness can be lower and skewed.

 

23 minutes ago, vizual said:

And tell a person who works full time at McDonald's, with no degree, little possibilities, to just 'raise his vibration'. And as a result of that he will just 'attract the bees'. Is this a likely outcome when applying your philosophy for people who work at McDonald's?

The employee will have a much harder time if their vibration is lower. The best way for employee to get out of wage slavery is by raising their vibrations. The actions and choices you make are a reflection of your emotional state. You can raise it or lower it. It’s up to you and the employee. When you become a disciple to what you love, you will find that that is the highest way to live.

 

26 minutes ago, vizual said:

And yes, of course, everyone wants to be in bliss all the time.

You actually don’t want to be in bliss all the time. You want to experience the whole range of emotions. But being in bliss is more about being in alignment with your heart and intuition.

 

27 minutes ago, vizual said:

But is your philosophy a gueranteed way of getting to this bliss? How many people in the world have achieved this state in their lives? You have to have some method to get people into that state if you want to 'build a conscious society'.

There is no mathematical proof for bliss. The only method is by finding out what you love most about life and doing more of that. But if you want something close to a mathematical proof for bliss, it is this: Inspiration + Action = Magic, or Be + Do = Have. But again the flaw with this is that emotions are being placed into a logical box. But that right there is as close as you will get to a method for bliss.

Thank you so much for your contribution to this post and to my own personal growth. You are helping me to think and formulate my thoughts. May Peace be with you.

[DocWatts]

4 hours ago, vizual said:

@DocWatts  The problem with virtue ethics is that your personal subjective ethics will not be the same as mine, thus there will be a clash. So there will be clusters of people with the same subjective ethics that will try to devalue and deconstruct the value of the other groups. At its core it means there is no objective value, It's majority rule. The problem of this is that one group can come in and claim that the lives of other people are worthless based on their own subjective value, and destroy the other group. Like in Nazi Germany and China for example.

That's a fair critique, but at the same time these same problems plague every other system of ethics.

And this includes universalist ethics because if everyone in the world agreed on what a universal ethic should be, we wouldn't need a philosophy of ethics.

Radically different contexts are always going to be incommensurable to some degree.

Any ethical system (whether it's consequentialist, deontological, or virtue based) can only work when there's enough of a shared context for certain underlying assumptions to be taken at face value as a starting point.

Also, I feel that I should point out that virtue ethics need not necessarily be radically relativistic either. Contexts for human beings aren't so boundless that some broad principles can't be used as a starting point for the assumptions underlying a particular virtue ethic; things like honesty, compassion, etc.

Edited December 11, 2021 by DocWatts

[r0ckyreed]

Here’s a mind screwer. If morality is relative and not objective, then why spend any ounce of time in arguing that it is relative? Lol. Relativists debating is an oxymoron because if there is no truth value to moral claims, then your relativism is done, and even if there is truth value to Relativists claims, then it wouldn’t be relative. See that?

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

Here’s a mind screwer. If morality is relative and not objective, then why spend any ounce of time in arguing that it is relative? Lol. Relativists debating is an oxymoron because if there is no truth value to moral claims, then your relativism is done, and even if there is truth value to Relativists claims, then it wouldn’t be relative. See that?

My own perspective is that questions of whether or not ethics is either relative or universalist (a binary), seems like the wrong of way of framing the issue.

A better way of framing it is to consider relativism and universalism as a sliding scale, with the question of how relativistic should a workable system of ethics be?

Edited December 11, 2021 by DocWatts

[Mason Riggle]

17 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Here’s a mind screwer. If morality is relative and not objective, then why spend any ounce of time in arguing that it is relative?

When you say, 'morality is relative', do you mean it objectively is relative, or relative to my subjective experience? 

The paradox is that all objective 'truths' only exist subjectively (relative to my experience). And my 'subjective experience' objectively exists... It's the only thing that does. 

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

When you say, 'morality is relative', do you mean it objectively is relative, or relative to my subjective experience? 

Good question. I don’t know what relativists really mean when they say “morality is relative.” They seem to imply both that it is objective truth that morality is relative, which is an oxymoron, and it is also the case that morality is relative to subjective experience since like you said, all we have of reality is our subjective experience of it. Anything objective is couched with subjective experience, which paradoxically suggests that it is objective truth that objective truths occur within subjective experience. It is a mind bender that I’m still trying to understand.

[Mason Riggle]

@r0ckyreed transcend it. 

Recognise that if there's no 'doer', and 'nothing to do', then it doesn't matter which it is. You always do exactly what you think you should. You're already doing it, efforltlessly.. or rather, it's happening, and you're not doing it. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Mason Riggle