Ok, just thought for a bit, went out to eat lunch: I'm moving this section up to the top from the bottom, just because I like it enough that I'd prefer it to be the main focus of this post. I know this whole argument has been about "I don't hold a moral position", but honestly, by your definitions of what a moral position is, I do. My original statement was simply to say that there is no definite set of moral and immoral things. That's is what I meant when I said objective morality. I meant to say that you cannot, in good faith, simply argue that "we should do X because it is the moral thing to do". All arguments need to be larger in scope and have real points in them. Keep in mind that this was written everything after "THE ACTUAL POST", so if you want more context, read there. ___ This would likely best sum my view of the topic: ___ 1) An actor is any system which can be defined. If it exists, if we can name it, it is a moral actor. 2) A subjectively moral action is any action which, depending on the internal state of an actor, that actor would cause to happen. ___ Now, this is a very vague definition. All conclusions you can draw from it depend on what actor you are considering. You can draw that box around something that is inanimate, and call a leaf an "actor". If that leaf, depending on it's internal state, would move somewhere, then that movement is a moral action. However, if that leaf would not choose to do such a thing, but an external actor, such as wind, interacts with the leaf and makes it move, then the action is immoral. This is a bit more complex when you draw the box around a human (or sentient being), as external actors can act on human beings, while the scope of morality does not include them, and still be moral actions. A human can "want" to have a hundred dollars, and if you give that person a hundred dollars, and they would choose to have that happen if they could, then that action is moral. Say you draw that box around two humans. Now you have two sets of "wants", and creates many possibilities: a) (want want). Any action on that actor is moral b) (want unwant). The state of the actor becomes more like that of the leaf. If the two people in the box, despite their conflicting views, would take an action regardless (140 lb man and a 300 lb titan), then that action is moral. If an actor disturbs that balance, moving the system to a position it would not take on it's own, that action becomes immoral. If both disagree, and are of similar levels of power, then all actions are immoral, as no actions would be taken. c) (unwant unwant). The action is immoral. This idea scales up to as many humans, or conscious actors, as you would like. Say you draw a box so large that it includes all possible entities. The universe. By this measure, there can be no external actors, and as a result, all things that occur, all decisions, are the result of the internal state of the actor, and all actions are moral. Overall, if you can draw a "box" around an object, and that actor would result in an action, or would have the mindset required to set that action to occur, then that action can be called "subjectively moral". As you can draw a box around the universe, all actions are technically "subjectively moral". If you can draw a box around an object, and that actor would not result in an action, or would not have the mindset required to set that action to occur, then that action could be called "subjectively immoral". This category is more interesting, as there are things which will never happen, and even if you define the scope of the universe, these actions will never occur. By this idea, there are actions that are subjectively immoral, despite that all actions are subjectively moral. However, subjectively moral actions are actions which will never occur. All possible actions are subjectively moral. If you draw a box around an object, and that actor will either not encounter an event, or would be unable to take a position on the subject, then the action is not a moral one. This one is hard to simplify, as these things just do not exist when the scope is at "the universe", as a result, actions are only amoral when the scope is smaller than that of the whole universe, or the scope is limited. So this creates two classes of entities. One which can conceptualize events and ones which cannot. Sentient and non-sentient beings. A non-sentient being is one of which all external actions which effect it are immoral. A sentient being is one which an external action can be moral or immoral. It may be useful to get rid of "immoral" as a category entirely, and instead only consider actions to be "moral" or "not moral", or "I would cause this" and "I would not cause this". Perhaps it is better to say that an immoral action is "any action which a sentient being would work against", while actions which would not be caused by a being are simply "not moral". So you could, for any action, create a list of possible or obvious scopes, and define the morality when looking at any individual scope. Murder: Knife: Not-moral. I would not have moved. Self-Victim: Immoral. I do not want to be killed. Self-Murder: Moral. I want to kill System-Murderer-Victim: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Society: Immoral. Murder is illegal. System-Nature/biosphere: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Earth: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System Universe: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. It may be useful to remove all non-sentient, or non-decision-making, non-computing actors, which were not acted upon. Murder: Knife: Not-moral. I would not have moved. Self-Victim: Immoral. I do not want to be killed. Self-Murder: Moral. I want to kill System-Murderer-Victim: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Society: Immoral. Murder is illegal. Perhaps you could look at this and say "The moral action is the highest level moral action after the removal of non-decision making, non-computing actors, which were not acted upon". Utilitarianism. Perhaps you could look only from where you would be as an individual. The murder or the victim, and decide if you yourself would want such a thing to happen. Perhaps you could look at things from the universe standpoint, and consider all things moral. Perhaps you could look at things from the view of all those acted upon, the victim and the knife, and allow the least-moral consideration to take importance. Whatever view you take, you cannot deny that all the things I list are subjectively true. No matter what position you take the subject matter may be moral, immoral, or not-moral if you were to take a different position. There is no objective morality based on the definition I give above. Perhaps, then, there is a category of definite things where actions are truly moral? I hadn't considered it until now, but it's possible that, for any actor chosen, an action will always be moral. However, I believe such a thing to be unlikely. ___ ___ ___ ACTUAL POST: ___ ___ ___ I focus not of self gain, but of the satisfaction of those drives we are born with. We avoid pain, we seek pleasure. We avoid things that cause pain, and seek things that do not cause it. We have empathy, meaning that pain or pleasure we cause in others is felt in ourselves. These drives explain human action better than any other I am aware of. However, I say this not as a standard with which to judge how good an action is objectively. I can create three people. I can show each of these people a situation, and each can tell me, correctly, that this situation is moral, neutral, and immoral. I myself could be considered as one of those people. The point is, what is and isn't moral under my situation is not defined by anything but the system. You can create a being that seeks only pain and death, and to that being, pain and death are moral things. You can have a being that seeks only joy, and to that being joy is the only moral thing. In this way, morality is only "the state of a system that determines what that system attempts to change in the world". You cannot define it any further, as those states in a system vary highly depending on where and who you are. I am not saying my view is correct when I push humanity, free speech, and so on. I simply push my view. This is what I want, this is where I stand, I stand here because these positions benefit me in some way. It is objectively correct that I think it is moral to have the middle east follow my views. It is objectively correct that the middle east thinks it is immoral that I try to make them follow my views. Neither side is incorrect, both sides are equally "moral". Objectively, no statement or position is more immoral than another, ever. You can always change a view and shift the morality of a statement. When I speak, I speak my view, not the objective one. I am a human, I am an American. I push the views, the moral system that will benefit humans and/or Americans. This is good because this is what I believe is good, but that doesn't mean this is actually good, only that I think so. "the best solution is the most correct one" is either a tautology or a subjective definition, it cannot be false. This statement can't be used to prove anything. You can hold the view that neither side is more moral than the other, while still deciding to push and enforce your own view. Not because you believe your position is more moral, but because you are a selfish bastard who doesn't view the world through the eyes of others. I am well capable of thinking of something both from my subjective viewpoint, where I can say "this should happen", and realizing it is incorrect when viewed objectively.You believe that the aim of self gain is the best aim for a reason.
You therefore believe it to be the objectively correct aim by the logic that the best solution is the most correct one.
So the very fact that you choose one aim over another is you implicitly saying that your aim is the best of all possible ones.
Let's play that game and take a naturalistic approach.