>>1376447
Wrong.
Pleasure and pain are complex survival mechanism which are constantly changing as you do.

How can they be the judge of what is objectively right and wrong? When those feelings are entirley subjective. This is where you are going wrong, you cannot make everyone happy. Everyone is so extremley different making one person happy makes another just as unhappy.

In order to live an objectivley good life (in my opinion) is to do what ever you will without willingly causing malicious intent to others.

Pre simple.

Universal is not the same as objective, and "universal" meaning common to all cultures is not the same as actually universal.

>>1376447
>morality not based on group membership
Ahahah, no.

>>1376471
I'm not saying that individual acts are inherently good or bad- I'm saying that depends on the individuals involved, and whether they experience pleasure or pain from those acts.
Whipping someone who wants it is moral, whipping someone who doesn't, isn't.

AND, I'm saying that what makes people happy CAN be judged as 'right' or 'wrong' based on the ratio of pleasure-displeasure it causes, and to whom.
Causing oneself displeasure for the sake of another's pleasure, (selflessness), is a universal good.
While the opposite is a universal evil.

>>1376489
What could be more objective than something which is *inherently recognized* by all sufficiently-cognizant, (though genetically-disparate), creatures on this planet?
Parrots, people, elephants, chimps, all living things which have the brain power for it can recognize when they've been wronged.
When something isn't fair.

>>1376542
>Causing oneself displeasure for the sake of another's pleasure, (selflessness), is a universal good.
This is literally wrong. You are misunderstanding me.

There is NO SUCH THING as a universal good. How the fuck is some alien going to subscribe to this idea? A dog for instance? It's applicable to very few humans out there.

You are saying your subjective opinion is objective.

It's wrong. I don't even understand how you came to this conclusion when the historical evidence suggests 'might is right'.

You need to differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity and come to the conclusion there is no objective correct way to live your life, all you can do is hope you don't fuck around too many people.

I mean at the end of the day you cannot validate anyone elses existence but your own.

>objective morality

How can something be GOOD for the UNIVERSE? Good compared to WHAT?

>>1376542
>what could be more objective than something which is *inherently recognized*
Something that exists without the subjective act of recognition.

>>1376579

But how can there be any moral actions that exist without the subjective act of recognition?

Physical actions may take place, but not moral actions.

>>1376560
Look at the parrot in the OP or the chimps & monkeys in the video to see how aliens would subscribe to this as well.
I'm saying that the boundaries of 'fair' and what causes pleasure/pain are entirely subjective.
But that pleasure & pain themselves are immutable, 'objective' principles all life bases its morality on, and that fairness, or the ratio between personal & other's pleasure & pain, can be used to judge the objective good or evil of individual actions between specific entities.

That, irregardless of a culture's definition of fairness & the individuals' definition of pleasure or pain, an entity taking on an unfair amount of displeasure in order to give others an unfair amount of pleasure is a universal good.

>>1376579
How do you know something exists without recognizing it?
You need eyes to see the sun. A telescope to spot asteroids.
Does that make them subjective?

>>1376622
>irregardless
Fuck, pretend I didn't say that.
I meant regardless.

>>1376622
You understand there are medical conditions which stop people from feeling the emotions you are basing your 'objective morality' on?

>there are passive animals on this planet therefore if there are aliens out there they are also goinjg to be passive
Are you retarded? You have literally no way to back up what you are saying, it's entirley SUBJECTIVE. Not one thing you have said is objective becasue for the 50th fucking time, objectivity in morality does not fucking exist.

Take this into account. It's morally okay to kill people in China if the cost of their treatment outweighs their survival chances.

That is why if you see a injured child, people will go out of their way to kill said child, as a bonus for the community they live.

Is that morally acceptable to YOU? Fuck no, it is to them though.

Go away with your childish ideals and read some actual philsophy/think for your god dam self for a change.

>>1376622
Confirming whether or not they exist and their actual existence are two separate beasts. If all subjective beings were to die out tomorrow, the sun would likely continue to exist. Would selflessness?

>>1376632

Irregardless what you think, irregardless can be used correctly in a sentence.

>>1376645
>irregardless can be used correctly in a sentence.
If you're an idiot who likes to use informal language.

>>1376635
>stop people from feeling emotions
Yes, and?

>no such thing
Proclaiming it doesn't exist isn't an argument.

>killing people
The only way this is 100% morally good is if the person who is dying wishes to die.
Otherwise, it is a grey, immoral action on behalf of all those who want to kill them, regardless of how much displeasure letting them live or treating them costs.
And the more displeasure this treatment would cause, the more immoral the child who wants treatment is for wanting it.

>read other people's ideas
>think for yourself
Pick one.
What do you think I'm doing with this thread?

>>1376643
Hmm, good question.
But if all matter were to disappear from the universe, would gravity cease to exist?

>>1376645
In informal settings sure.
But I'm trying to look professional here.

>>1376671
>Pick one.
>What do you think I'm doing with this thread?
So you are a fucking idiot? YOu understand reading what other people have thought gives you insight into your own thoughts, nowhere did I say adopt someones elses view on moralitiy.

>Proclaiming it doesn't exist isn't an argument.
Just because you said it exists doesn't mean it does. You have LITERALLY given a single example and proclaimed it as universal morality.

>The only way this is 100% morally good is if the person who is dying wishes to die.
Otherwise, it is a grey, immoral action on behalf of all those who want to kill them, regardless of how much displeasure letting them live or treating them costs.
And the more displeasure this treatment would cause, the more immoral the child who wants treatment is for wanting it.

Case in point. Your idea of moralitiy does not mesh with these other peoples ideas of morality. Whadda'ya know.

MORALITIY IS NOT FUCKING OBJECTIVE.
By god dam definition morallity cannot be objective as it's realtive to culture.

You're an idiot.

>>1376671
>Yes, and?
How are people who literally cannot feel the things you are basing your morallity on act morally? WHen you say this is a universal morallity?

How is a fucking alien meant to act morally if it cannot chemically feel pain or happiness or anger but things which we do not know?

>>1376447
1)Selfful and causing others pleasure = master of morality
2)Being selfness and causing others pleasure=cucked to death
3)being self ful and causing others displeasure=Evil bastard
4)Being selfless and causing others displeasure=Psycho mess bomb to be put out

>>1376671
>gravity cease to exist
Probably not. It's the shape of space.
Of course, at this point the question becomes "what if you took away space" but at that point you are talking about removing the universe itself and the question gets away from you.

>>1376471
>In order to live an objectivley good life (in my opinion) is to do what ever you will without willingly causing malicious intent to others.
So If my ancestors created an empire/society/social order/etc. that is thriving on the suffering of the underclass, I know this but dont participate but am exposed and dependent on the fruits of that system to survive and thrive am I willingly malicious?

>>1376675
How *strongly* I feel it is immoral is based on my culture, yes.
Different cultures weight the scales of selfishness vs selflessness differently through their expectations of fairness.
I'm saying that even if a culture with your hypothetical values were to exist, they'd view the child as a good moral person if it accepts its 'need' or expectation to die, and killing them as a necessary evil.

Meanwhile, observers can judge the value of their expectations of fairness by looking at the amount of pleasure & displeasure in the society, and comparing it to other societies with their own expectations of fairness & levels of pleasure vs displeasure.
As such, we could theoretically find an ideal set of expectations which maximizes pleasure/selflessness & minimizes displeasure/selfishness.

>>1376679
Simply, they can't.
They'll be stuck on one pole or the other, or essentially be robots- incapable of feeling pleasure or displeasure, and outside the realm of morality.

>>1376683
Hmm.
#s 1 & 4 are only possible with wildly differing perceptions of pleasure & pain.
Symbiotic interactions being the former, horrible, horrible misunderstandings being the latter. Neither of these are truly moral or immoral, as the actor's intent doesn't match the effect.
I see intent is important.


>>1376746
Well, I'm saying this is the shape of morality.

>>1376770
>morality
But then we return to the original problem. Does morality exist independent of subjective beings?

>>1376778
In practice, yes.
In truth, no.
If you are in a state of maximum entropy, it doesn't invalidate the second law of thermodynamics.
You just don't ever see it in action. It becomes null.

>>1376789
>In practice, yes.
>In truth, no.
That's fine. Effectively universally-recognized is different from actually universally objective, but not too different for practical purposes.

>>1376811
>>1376789
Wait.
No I fucked that up.

In practice, no, they do not exist independently of subjective beings, since subjective beings are needed for morality to (effectively) be a thing in the first place.
In truth, yes it is independent of subjective beings, because even if there are no beings capable of practicing it, it doesn't invalidate its theoretical existence.

If the universe goes dark, the laws governing light still exist, they just aren't observable. In effect, they stop existing. In truth, they do not.
They are independent of light itself.

You can often cause someone pleasure to their detriment and displeasure to their benefit.

If you gave somebody heroin it'd be pleasurable for them, but you would be harming their health and wellbeing. Likewise if you prevented somebody from indulging you would cause them displeasure, but it would positively impact their health and wellbeing.

>>1376769
>I know this but dont participate but am exposed and dependent on the fruits of that system to survive and thrive am I willingly malicious?
No. Why would it? You understand what it means to be willfully malicious?

>>1376770
>They'll be stuck on one pole or the other, or essentially be robots- incapable of feeling pleasure or displeasure, and outside the realm of morality.
So then how the fuck is this a concept of universal morallity when even you admit there are principals outside this morallitiy applicable TO HUMANS?

Your ideas simply do not work. You are also assuming a world where everyones pleasures and displeasures align in a nice manner. what kind of fantasy world are you living in? Apply some form of logic to your ideas next time.

>>1376769
See: anarchy

>>1376447
>Also, I posit they can be measured, compared, and ranked by their total pleasure-displeasure ratio.
>utilitarianism

Maximum fucking pleb.

>>1376879
>all utilitarianism is the same

>>1377342
Indeed it is, in that it's all garbage.

>>1376447
>morality
>universal/objective
"No". What makes either of these objectively right or wrong?

>>1376447
We pretty quickly run up against a very basic problem: being able to accurately measure the pleasure/suffering of others.

Being unable to know the degree to which your actions will cause joy or suffering, the argument of an objective and universal moral structure becomes an impossibility.

Also, since joy and suffering are defined by one another, and cannot exist without the other, it could be argued that causing one will inevitably lead to the experiencing of the other, further complicating the issue.

Presumably, the implied argument is that it is the intention of the action which determines its moral correctness, humans being limited in their knowledge of consequences. However, a strictly phenomenological approach would render all humans as equally causing of suffering and joy by their mere existence and interaction within a shared system on a long enough timeline.

By the way, the hyperutilitarian framework of calculating the pleasure-to-displeasure ratio was formulated by Jeremy Bentham (you may want to look him up, it's pretty interesting).

tl;dr; you forgot the dialectics of pleasure/suffering

>(unfairly giving of yourself)
>unfairly taking for yourself)

Arent you begging the question here by assuming an objective moral standard in your definitions?

Using this metric is killing someone when I don't want to and it causes psychological damage to me better than killing someone when I want to and gain something from it?