1/2
Bear with me here /his/
Wouldn't it be right to say that each and every healthy human being has an end that guides each one of his actions?
that end can be called many different things but the most common is happiness, and if happiness is a state of mind that can be achieved by being the best possible version of you, shaping and honing your virtue's which can be defined as Aristotle define them as the states of mind which concern man and which also warrant praise, such as bravery, temperance, liberality etc, dictated by our common ability to empathize and reason, and also the Buddhist concept of happiness that suggests peace and clearness of mind as the basic requirement for a state of true happiness to manifest itself in the human soul, if we can define that happiness is the wholesome and natural state each human strive to reach and have such detailed and clear formulas as to how to achieve it, wouldn't it be true to say that happiness = good and as such to an extent morality is objective?
sure I'd argue that humans as subjective beings can understand their reality and situations from many different points of view, for example consider that I am a 40 year old infertile lady and I'm visiting my nephew's 7th birthday party, I see him smiling and from one point of view I can feel very sad that I'd never had children of my own and if that's the state of mind I choose to give meaning to, that will also be the reality I experience,but if I go outside of my ego, and choose to empathize and feel the happiness of seeing my nephew smiling and give that meaning wouldn't it be a good? wouldn't it be an objectively better state of mind and reality to experience as per the values we have set above?
so my point is that we have an incredible power to give meaning to different concepts and thoughts that make up our internal subjective reality and filter the input of information we get from the outside world in either(to simplify it):
a positive way
a negative way
2/2
so couldn't it be said that, knowing all of this, objective morality truly does exists?
sure we can argue about it to no end like the solipsism vs realism argument of 2+2=5 or 4,but if for all practical reasons it equals 4 every time we test it against our experience of reality it equals 4 isn't it objective enough to be considered true?
I'll go even one step further and suggest that if each and every person would dictate to himself a healthy code of ethics, no bad to the extent we have today(wars, poverty,homicide, etc) would exist in the world and we will live in a much more stable environment, in other words if humans would seek harmony within themselves, without even trying they will find it outside of them, it's truly sad that the formula for a good, beautiful and wholesome life was invented as long as thousands of years ago but we are still enslaved to ignorance.
>>1191267
>Wouldn't it be right to say that each and every healthy human being has an end that guides each one of his actions?
No.
>>1191300
why than do you wake up from your bed at morning?
why don't you kill yourself?
obviously you must have a certain end which drive to do your actions throughout the day, that's relative to your idea of happiness.
>shameless bump
>>1191317
>obviously you must have a certain end which drive to do your actions throughout the day, that's relative to your idea of happiness
Not necessarily. Rather than having a certain end in mind, most people are instead incentivized towards some goal, not all of which are about happiness.
>>1193084
>incentivized towards some goal
Some choice, I mean to say. The goal may or may not exist, and can be retroactively formed to justify a choice.
>>1191267
The end is the goal which is measured by utility which is gotten by your brain crunching things and messing with chemicals
Also you can't find objective morals
The fact that you handwaved it all instead of just saying it proves it
And no one should trust a person who says they speak for every human being
>>1194700
so you didn't understand what I've said at all.
calling subjective feelings chemicals doesn't make them any less subjectively experienced, sure your brain thinks and you choose what seems best, but what you feel effects what you choose before you reason it, eventually as humans we experience everything in an emotional way, even reason and thinking makes people feel subjective emotions that are inherent in the action itself and the association one have to it and effects your choices.
>>1193084
but that goal that incentivized them is relative to their idea of happiness, they may not clearly define happiness as their end but eventually they choose what seems to them like the best choice.
and I didn't say you can find a 100% objective morality but as objective as 2+2=4,which is objective enough.
