A definition of morality

The professor of the only philosophy course I ever took in college was a Hedonist.

This professor made a good case that Hedonism-- the belief that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good-- is the only logical basis for a system of ethics.

A search for pleasure leads to a completely reasonable set of ethics. First, you can easily arrive at the point that you would sacrifice short term pleasure for a greater long term pleasure-- so the ethics of hard work and sacrifice are valid.

You can say that my faithfulness to my wife, my kind treatment of my kids and the fact I treat my neighbors well are all because my relationship with my family and community bring me lots of pleasure.

I am not sure if I completely buy it, but it beats the all-knowing judge model of morality.

I haven't found anything else even close to logical system of ethics.

I don't make that assumption, i just prefer the notion.

Because a social contract gives the power of constraint to the people, and removes it from the hands of priests and demagogues.

Moralists not only wish to prohibit the "wrong," the "amoral," the "evil"--they seek to promote the "right," the "moral" and the "good."

Working from a definition of "harm," one is not necessarily obliged to construct a false dichotomy of harm/benefit. One can simply prohibit that which is deemed harmful, without foisting off onto others prescriptions for their "right" behavior.

What i have read in history suggests to me that for all the flaws of democratic governments, they far and away excel in comparison to oligarchy, monarchy or theocracy--and especially as oligarchy and monarchy are often priest-ridden institutions.

Why do you assume that i am somehow constrained to adhere to the views of Hobbes or Locke?

That's good because, in fact, i am relying upon my own idea of a social conract, which i have been articulating here.

That you may not think much of it is a matter of indifference to me.

My views are informed by Hobbes, Locke, Montaigne and Rousseau's Le Contrat social and his essay Sur l'origine de l'inégalité--but are not exclusively restricted to what is to be found in those works.

Now let's all take a seventh inning stretch, and join Harry in a rousing chorus of Take Me Out to the Ballgame.

'Harm' is less abstract than good/evil/right/wrong, since it can only refer to something that can be harmed (in the definition above, human beings, I'd extend that to anything that can feel pain). So while good/evil/right/wrong could refer to abstracts such as a belief or an act, harm, in this sense, cannot.

You seem to be trying to limit the definition (of harm) to physical pain but let me offer this - Would you see it as moral for me to accuse you of commiting a crime that results in the loss of your spouse, children and your own personal freedom even though I may know full well that you weren't involved in the crime in any way?

Based on what you've expressed in the thread thusfar, that would be a morally acceptable behavior since I wasn't directly responsible for you feeling physical pain.

djbt-

What do you do about different people having different ideas about what all these words mean.

To take a very simple example-it was common practice in the 16th,17th centuries for powerful men to take 13 year old girls as wives. Another one was the practice of torturing people to death in public.

Under your definitions both these practices were morally good at that time.Now they are considered morally bad.

If you want some more difficult examples you will find plenty in Mailer's books and those of many other people.

Is the gratuitous consumption of fossil fuels morally good or bad?

Your ideas are a trifle wooly for a www philosophy thread I'm afraid.

Just stumbled across a definition/description of 'morality', that put it a way which made it rather less abstract that in definitions I'd heard before. It was:

[i]The Non-existence of God[/i], p.248, Nicholas Everitt wrote:

Morality is a way (the best way we have so far found) of limiting the colossal harm which people can do to each other.

Unlike 'a system of morals', and 'a system of beliefs concerning right and wrong and/or good and evil', this definition does not have the somewhat circular requirement of agreement on what 'morals', 'right', 'wrong', 'good' or 'evil' mean. It only require that we agree on what 'harm' means.

So, if this definition were accepted, and 'harm' defined adequately, could we move towards an non-theistic objective morality?

I do not see how you reach that conclusion. I expect that in this situation I would definitely consider myself harmed, which would make the act immoral, if the aim of morality is to minimise harm. I would have been harmed, in that I would experience sadness, loneliness, frustration, boredom, etc.

But, to be honest, it seems to me now that Everitt's definition is basically just a utilitarian definition phrased in a different way, which is probably why I was attracted to it in the first place.

Talking of which, I don't think utilitarianism took much, if any, damage in its thread. joefromchicago, you disappeared from it... I'd love to revive it, if anyone has any thoughts...