4 ms·
> We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. Your "axiom" will also have to define
by roca 7y ago
> We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized.
Your "axiom" will also have to define what "universal wellbeing" and "suffering" actually mean, and how these maxima/minima are to be computed, etc. That is not simple at all.
Having done that, you have to admit that your decision is arbitrary (except, hopefully, it aligns modestly well with the evolved/cultural preferences of some set of brains). I hope you won't lapse into dishonesty and tell brains that reach different conclusions from their evolved/cultural preferences that your decision is "right" or "wrong" in any sense similar to the "right" and "wrong" of scientific truth. Unfortunately I have never yet met anyone who is able to resist that temptation.
- chousuke 7y agoOf course it is arbitrary, just like every other moral compass out there ultimately is (as far as has been demonstrated). Practically, we already have a decent idea what "wellbeing" and "suffering" mean. That means we can use them as our axiom even if the understanding is not perfect. If you waited for perfection, you'd be stuck doing nothing forever for the fear that it's immoral. We can still use science to examine where our axioms lead, and see if we still agree with the projected outcomes. Then we may have a reason to modify the arbitrary starting point.