The ultimate ideal of human flourishing is merely a necessary one in order for any conception of morality to cognitively make sense. Whether or not we place different stock in different methods of reaching such a position is irrelevant to the existence of moral facts.

For instance, anti-natalism isn't about the negation of flourishing. It's about the impossibility of flourishing, and the best form of flourishing being the complete negation of life. For instance, zero net flourishing is mathematically superior to negative-one-hundred flourishing.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 27, 2015, 07:10:48 PM

The ultimate ideal of human flourishing is merely a necessary one in order for any conception of morality to cognitively make sense. Whether or not we place different stock in different methods of reaching such a position is irrelevant to the existence of moral facts.

For instance, anti-natalism isn't about the negation of flourishing. It's about the impossibility of flourishing, and the best form of flourishing being the complete negation of life. For instance, zero net flourishing is mathematically superior to negative-one-hundred flourishing.

And is morality something we should follow or something that exists? Do we need to follow morality? Does morality need to exist?

Morality is merely a guideline on how one ought to exist. There's a distinction between how people should act, and then how they act. A lot of scientists and men of considerable intelligence have behaved in ways which could be considered immoral, even if they thought they were doing the right thing.

I'm not sure what you're driving at by asking if it 'exists' either. It's clearly not a material entity; it's a set of propositions that relate to the well-being of agents which can experience the world, which should inform our behaviour.

What exactly happens if we encounter another intelligent species? Would morality then change to account how humans should behave towards them? Or will it always be about humans rather than consciousness?

It would depend on the experiential capacity of those aliens. They could have less, equal or more moral worth than us based on their capacity as conscious agents to experience and interact with reality.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 27, 2015, 07:31:18 PM

Quote from: Dustin' on January 27, 2015, 07:27:16 PM

What exactly happens if we encounter another intelligent species? Would morality then change to account how humans should behave towards them? Or will it always be about humans rather than consciousness?

It would depend on the experiential capacity of those aliens. They could have less, equal or more moral worth than us based on their capacity as conscious agents to experience and interact with reality.

So if they have less consciousness than us, they're irrelevant. But if they have more, does that mean humans are irrelevant? That wouldn't make any sense if morality is supposed to tell us how we should act.

It wouldn't make us irrelevant, per se, just secondary on the order of moral considerations. It isn't a nice fact, and I know I certainly wouldn't act in such a moral way when confronted with such a situation because all of my intuitions and instincts would be against it.

But it seems factually sound to say that a system of morality necessarily based around conscious experience creates magnitudes of moral operation for different beings, and that higher magnitudes in comparison to humans can be occupied by aliens.

It's much the same way in that we consider cows more important than ants.

Is it bad if people only cared about themselves?

Not completely.

This sort of 'bias of immediacy' towards our selves is pretty foundational to the stability of society. If you're a murderous psychopath, however, like Ted Bundy then you probably are acting in an immoral way--even if it largely isn't your fault.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 27, 2015, 07:43:57 PM

Quote from: Dustin' on January 27, 2015, 07:41:08 PM

Is it bad if people only cared about themselves?

Not completely.

This sort of 'bias of immediacy' towards our selves is pretty foundational to the stability of society. If you're a murderous psychopath, however, like Ted Bundy then you probably are acting in an immoral way--even if it largely isn't your fault.

'Morality exists because it ultimately benefits everyone's conscious.' Is that a good way of seeing why morality ought to exist?

I wouldn't categorise it as why morality exists, it's just that any rational conception of morality must relate to benefiting conscious creatures. It's the same with medicine and health; health isn't why medicine exists, but any rational conception of medicine simply has to relate to a notion of health.