I’d like to ask for permission to repost some or all of this on my website (giving you credit, of course, as well as a link to this post).

My website:
http://godriddance.com

You might also be interested in studying spontaneous order. Basically, spontaneous order, as the name implies, is a study of how order arises out of chaos. Take N rational, self-interested beings. Being self interested, they seek to maximize their own well-being. However, one being can’t do everything it would take to maximize happiness, so it is in one’s best interest to cooperate with others through trade and communication, which not only maximizes one’s own utility, but the other N-1 beings’ utilities as well. Common examples of spontaneous order are language and money, although a system of ethics and morality could also arise this way.

This works as long as there is parity in the society. Has human history proved that this not possible? If X, Y and/or Z ever feel slighted or desire more happiness than the Joneses the war is back on.

interesting NPR show that talks about “objective morality” check it out, it’s awesome! http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28

good post. i was with you most of the way.

I find a simpler system to work for me. If something prevents or reduces suffering it is moral. If something creates or increases suffering it is immoral.

That is how you choose to view it. But your view does not generate any moral obligations. You must prove that it follows from “X prevents or reduces suffering” that “one ought to X”. You can’t.

The alternative is some irrealist metaethics, such as expressivism or error theory. That’s the sensible view to take, the one that isn’t fuelled by myth and upbringing.

i think it was on plantetatheism i read the other day, someone referred to “bill and tedism” which is “be excellent to one another.”

Party on, dudes.

I find a simpler system to work for me. If something prevents or reduces suffering it is moral. If something creates or increases suffering it is immoral.

Writerdd, this is one I like a lot too, but there’s a big problem with using this as the utilitarian meterstick:wouldn’t the ultimate way to achieve that goal be the painless, instantaneous death of everyone? That would end all suffering, and actually all possibility of there ever being any suffering. This is clearly not the desired result of a moral system.

Yet, there ARE some circumstances in which I’d say death or non-existence is better than suffering. It’s a tricky call to make.

I’m not sure I can be completely satisfied by any moral system unless I could be sure that I understood it well enough to trust an AI to make decisions with it. There don’t seem to be any moral systems that i’ve seen that don’t break down when you try and take them to logical border cases.