Secular morality part 2

So this is part 2 of my discussion on secular morality/ethics (though I'm going to say that ethics is implied from now on).

Just as a quick side note, this is not something that is based on atheism or has anything to do with atheism. Atheism says nothing about right and wrong. Though I could be described as an atheist, my moral ideas have nothing to do with atheism and more than it has something to do that I'm also a fisherman.

There seems to be an intense amount of contention on the subject of secular morality, not just between Theists and non-Theists, but more importantly (IMO) between those that don't subscribe to religious based morality. Now I'm not suggesting a strict doctrine of belief, but it seems that secularists should be able to at least create a viable foundation upon which to discuss morality.

It's not my intention to prove that Theists are wrong per-se, though my ideas are clearly incompatible with most religion based ideas of morality and they are welcome to join the conversation, my goal is to challenge those that don't base their ideas on a god or religious teachings when determining right and wrong can come to any sort of consensus whatsoever on how to ground morality in the real world of thoughts and ideas. If we can't, this may explain the staying power of religious morality and why it's so difficult to argue against it.

I think a lot of people understand right on wrong based on the consequences, but few are willing to ground those consequences in moral principles, ideas that are at the foundation of why certain actions or idea lead to bad consequences and why others lead to good consequences. How can anyone say that something is wrong, what is it about an particular action that makes it wrong without simply appealing to intuition?

So before I begin, I think it's important to define a few terms.

Put simply, morality is concerned with "right" and "wrong" behavior.

So if stealing is wrong, what is it about stealing that makes it wrong? What do we look for in an action so that we can diagnose it as right/wrong?

What do all morally right deeds have in common that differentiate them from morally wrong deeds?

So, as I've argued:

A particular choice is morally right when it minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering and maximizes happiness, well-being and/or health or does both.

Notice how there is nothing subjective or relativistic about this statement. The fact that murder causes harm or saving a life minimizes it, is true independent of what I think about it.

Harm, pain, suffering, these are real things that can be objectively measured right now, even with the limited technology we have, thus they are very real.

So if punching a person in the face without the other persons consent is wrong, it is wrong because it causes the other person pain and results in unnecessary suffering. It wouldn't matter of I didn't agree that you getting punched in the faced hurt, for it to hurt and ultimately be wrong.

Therefore, I hold that it is self-evident the healthy people (of mind and body) would at the very least like to avoid suffering and at most would also favor maximizing happiness, health and well-being.

But wait, what if the person being harmed, isn't in fact, suffering? Maybe they can't feel pain, perhaps their brains are wired wrong and what most would cause pain actually gives them pleasure? Now I'm surprised that I've received this objection in the past, but ultimately if health is something that sane, rational people desire then choices that run contrary to that goal, that is, cause sickness or harm to the body, can be said to be objectively wrong, even if the person experiences subjective pleasure.

It seems that there is a disconnect between the subjective words or combination of words we use to describe a particular definitions we assign and the objective phenomena that actually fit the definition once it has been established.

That is to say when asking if, sayyyyy, rape is objectively wrong? (now imagine a stupefied look on my face at those that ponder this question) OF COURSE! Because, by definition it objectively causes unnecessary harm and suffering and diminishes health and well-being.

Anyone that enjoys rape, isn't in fact being raped assuming they aren't under the effect of some external influence (like drugs ect).

Moving on...

Morality implicitly implies choice, choice implies action and actions have consequences.

So good/right choices manifest in desirable outcomes.

Bad/wrong choices fail to actualize desirable outcomes.

So all moral and ethical decisions are really about achieving certain goals.

I hope that we can agree that a coherent concept of moral behavior must revolve around some notion of social interaction.

So:

Right and wrong are measured by the consequences of our action with respect to the goals we wish to achieve.

If minimizing pain and suffering and maximizing happiness is a worthy goal we can agree on, then when we look at moral actions and measure them against this goal, the answer should be fairly easy to determine.

Which brings me to the is/ ought....

If we agree that health and well-being are something to value, then when raising a child, one ought not torture their child.

Again, morality means nothing unless we identify some moral goal we wish to achieve. Morality is not some nebulous concept that exists external to us as all values are dependent on agent desire or preference. What would morality be if not measured against some outcome that we could contrast against some desirable goal.

So where does society fit in?

Simple, societies where the majority value the minimization of suffering and maximization of happiness and see these ideas as worthy goals worth achieving will make choices based on values that actualize these goals.

Societies can value the wrong things, one only has to look at societies all over the world that believe that it's ok to subjugate women, punish apostates with death and cut of the clitorises of young girls. WHY???

Because they don't value the minimization of suffering and maximization of happiness and well-being. I mean unless someone can demonstrate how those behaviors accomplish that goal, then I can objectively say that those actions are wrong.

There are lots of nuances to morality and some places where the desired goals when measured against the ideas of health. well-being and pain and suffering aren't as clear. That don't negate the ideas I've put forth, It just means that not every moral and ethical question has easy answers. Some ideas may need to be revised and ultimately the best morality is one that can adapt to new information that can change accepted action/s with respect to moral goals and values.

If you object to my post, and more importantly the idea of minimization of suffering or maximization of happiness. Think about you're own morality. How does that idea conflict with it? What moral goals does your own morality try to achieve? Upon what values do you base your own morality?