Morality

[Dill]

(06-11-2021, 02:00 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've always been extremely intrigued by the topic of morality: from where people believe their moral compass is derived, the notion of objective morality absent a subjective starting point and societal differences in terms of moral standards / ethical applications.

I am a firm proponent of the idea that all moral judgements are completely and necessarily subjective until a foundation can be agreed upon to act as the guide for moral questions and dilemmas. Only after agreeing on a subjective foundation that takes all people into account, can objective moral truths be proclaimed.

In my opinion, the best and most inclusive foundation is the overall well-being of our species.

I have many thoughts on the subject of morality and hope to discuss further with anyone willing to have the conversation and offer their opinions on the matter.

Have you read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics?  I don't think he would have considered an "inclusive foundation" of the sort that "takes all people into account" as an important goal, if at all.  

Even though he wasn't Athenian, living in Athens as a "metic" (foreign resident unable to participate in the city's politics), he seems to think ethics--the blue print for morality--was pretty much the concern of male citizens, but not women or slaves. He also doesn't think discussion of ethics is suited for the young.

Further, it was a "practical" pursuit, not really to be deduced from first principles and the like. The good is determined from observation, agreement about the "virtue" of things/humans and actions appropriate to them, to the purposes for which they were designed. The ultimate goal was "happiness" and fulfilment of (free Greek male) humans' highest purpose, which involved political deliberation, which in turn required a polis, the highest form of human organization, which fostered such life. Well that's a clumsy late-night summary, but his ethics ends with a transition to his Politics, which is about creating the conditions for that ultimate good. Whether non-Greeks liked or agreed with what Greeks thought "good" was of no interest to Aristotle. Barbarians. Yet I find his argument compelling on many points--except the exclusion of non-Greek male humanity.

Seems to me you are heading in a Kantian direction*--an act is ethical, good, when it is the kind of act which would be good for everyone, if applied to anyone, a variation of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"--i.e, an act is morally good if it could be done to or for anyone, regardless of who, and without any ulterior motive, like money or favors or tribal affiliation. And he thinks we, as rational creatures, are duty bound to do such acts. 

Your "agreement" criterion will raise some interesting questions, since people from different classes, cultures, ethnic histories and the like are not likely to agree on a subjective foundation.  Kant, I think, was trying to get over that hump.

*Despite your Nietzschean signature.