That's just manifestly not true. I think you would be hard-pressed to come up with more than a few and recent literary or documentary examples of such reasoning behind moral attitudes. No one thinks about "human flourishing" when they demonstrate a proper filial attitude towards their parents, for example - they do it because it's the right thing to do, period. — SophistiCat

Arguing for a moral claim "because it's the right thing to do, period," avoids the challenge of uncovering the grounds for making the claim. I thank you all for helping me to dig a little deeper in the search for such a grounding.

Confucius wrote a lot about filial piety and explicitly argued that it was essential to a properly functioning society, i.e., to human flourishing. He furthermore claimed that his ideas were nothing new, but that he was simply restating the wisdom of the ancients. The average Chinese might not be familiar with Confucius' arguments but they know instinctively or through cultural osmosis that filial piety is moral because the parent/child bond is the starting point of love and respect for others. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity make the same point in various ways, and most people in most cultures, without being familiar with the philosophical arguments, know that it's the right thing to do, period, but the grounding for this claim is that love and respect for others is essential to human flourishing.

Yes, genes propagate when the species that carry them flourish. — Thomas Quine

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. Our species is a significant line differentiation, but it’s only one layer out of many possible distinctions. We’re naturally more concerned with human flourishing than that of chimps, and then closer to home, we’re more concerned with national flourishing, then perhaps regional, religious, or political party flourishing, and then family. Does anyone regard all of humanity as they do their own family? Maybe some do ideologically but when push comes to shove genes always win favor.

most people in most cultures, without being familiar with the philosophical arguments, know that it's the right thing to do, period, but the grounding for this claim is that love and respect for others is essential to human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

See, you are doing precisely what I suspected you of doing: you are working backwards from your thesis (that the foundation of morality is 'human flourishing') to retrospectively rationalize people's moral attitudes. But you also hold up people's moral attitudes as evidence for your thesis! This is a perfectly circular reasoning. (Alleging Confucius's justification as support is neither here nor there, because most people who believe they ought to honor their parents do not adopt that attitude for that reason, as you yourself admit.)

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. — praxis

Or more precisely, when the carriers produce viable offspring. Quality of life, which is what we usually associate with "flourishing," does not enter the equation.

you could interpret just about any moral attitude to be a confirmation of your thesis. You could assert that human flourishing is the hidden motive, even when it is nowhere in evidence. (I think I see you already engaging in such creative interpretation in this discussion.) But then if anything fits your thesis, your thesis is vacuous. — SophistiCat

Are you arguing that "it is nowhere in evidence" that human beings and the societies they create seek to flourish and prosper? As a human motivation, it hardly seems "hidden"...

I think the strength of the approach is that it explains a lot. Evolutionary theory also explains a lot, including my thesis, pretty much everything we know about the natural world fits the broad evolutionary thesis, does that automatically make evolutionary theory vacuous?

You will probably get more mileage out of arguing against or undermining the is-ought distinction explicitly, rather than trying to convince someone who strongly believes it that they secretly are in agreement with you.

There was a thread a while ago talking about Anscombe's essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" (linked in the thread) that takes one avenue of attacking is-ought. The rough picture of the argument (as I remember it):

There are two threads in it - a destructive/critical one relating to the is-ought problem, and a speculative/constructive one relating to the permeable boundaries between social facts, speech acts, norms and good conduct.

Thread 1:

(A1) Applying the is ought problem requires a framework of ethical reasoning in which "oughts" are applied to statements like divine commands or laws.
(A2) Our secular and skeptical age untethers the oughts of Gods and the oughts of laws from what we ought to do; there can be immoral laws and immoral alleged divine commands.
(A3) Because the influence of those two sources of moral authority has waned, it is not surprising that a problem that presupposes one or the other authority for its resolution finds anything it is applied to lacking.

Thread 2:
An analysis of speech acts like promising and buying stuff at a shop, if you wish to buy bread, you ought to pay for it. That sense of "ought" is entailed by institutional structure and felt intimately. Anscombe suggests that analysing the facts that institutional norms bring and our surrounding "moral psychology" will reinvigorate ethics away from the above pseudoproblem.

It's a starting point to getting around the is ought problem in a way amenable to virtue ethics anyway - focussing on "good conduct" in a socially contextualised manner, rather than trying to elevate "One ought not to kill" to the level of a divine command for its adequacy.

Don't worry, you are telegraphing the standard is-ought move loud and clear. — SophistiCat

The IS-OUGHT distinction is important, we want to avoid the naturalistic fallacy, but it is also important to keep in mind that all moral claims ultimately derive their "ought" from an "is".

For example:

It IS the case that the holy book tells us X, therefore we OUGHT to do X.

It IS the case that human beings are governed by the desire to experience pleasure and avoid pain, therefore it OUGHT to be our guiding moral principle to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering..

It IS the case that human beings seek life, liberty, and happiness as primary goals, therefore we OUGHT to enshrine the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in the constitution.

It IS the case that laws and rules facilitate human interactions, therefore we OUGHT to obey laws and rules.

It IS the case that actions have moral consequences, therefore we OUGHT to judge an act by its consequences.

etc.

John Stuart Mill helps us through the IS/OUGHT problem when he argues that only human reason can tell us what our goals and objectives ought to be, but once we have decided on a course of action, we OUGHT to rely on science to tell us how to achieve it.

For example, it is our choice whether or not to fix the loose board on the picnic table with a nail or a screw, or to just kick back with a beer in the sun. However, there is a developed science of tool design, and if it IS the case that we have decided to drive a nail to secure a loose board, science tells us that we OUGHT to use a hammer. And if it IS the case that we have chosen to drive a screw, we OUGHT to use a screwdriver.

Of course, we could try to drive the screw with a hammer, or try to drive the nail with a convenient rock. We should not confuse the word "OUGHT" with the word "MUST". Science is authoritative, not authoritarian. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legitimate to derive an OUGHT from an IS where one has a clearly defined objective to accomplish.Mill gives us a simple summary of how science does its work. This understanding is compatible with Pragmatism, and one of the reasons I like it so much. It's also one of the reasons William James dedicated "On Pragmatism" to J.S. Mill.

So my thesis is that all moral systems are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" (I look forward eagerly to a refutation of this empirical observation.) And if it IS the case that humanity seeks to flourish as a species, then we OUGHT to use science to tell us how best to achieve that. There should be nothing controversial about this claim.

But the implications are huge, because they mean science can tell us what is moral and what is not.

Am I wrong? Can anyone provide an example of a moral precept held by any community past or present who did not come to that position on the belief that it served human flourishing? — Thomas Quine

I think an interesting question to ask ourselves here is whether this flourishing is more aimed towards the community (or mankind as a whole) or with the individual?

If we're concerned chiefly with the flourishing of mankind in general we need to ask ourselves what's stopping us from picking up random, socially isolated homeless people off the streets and whisking them away in trucks to perform medical experiments on them, which if successful could save countless lives.

If we're more concerned with individual flourishing then I think we should largely be leaving individuals to decide that for themselves. It's still a tricky concept though: Someone with a personality disorder could perceive themselves as flourishing yet be insufferable to others around them. It's a good question whether "flourishing" should be defined in a more objective or subjective sense.

Are you arguing that "it is nowhere in evidence" that human beings and the societies they create do not seek to flourish and prosper? As a human motivation, it hardly seems "hidden"... — Thomas Quine

No. First, let's make a distinction between human beings and societies: the former are moral agents, the latter are not. Second, let's make a distinction between what one may wish for oneself or for people one cares about and what one may wish for "humanity." Third, the desire for flourishing does not analytically entail the adoption of certain moral norms (not without begging the question), and what I was pointing out was that you have not made a convincing argument that links the two.

Every community has its own understanding of what it means to flourish. The way to cut through relativism is through scientific analysis based on evidence. I can confidently argue that ISIS's project of a new Caliphate was wrong and immoral and contrary to human flourishing — Thomas Quine

Great. I’m just pointing out how it contradicts your broad generalisation in the OP. You now need to modify your statement to claim only a community of ideal rational thinkers can be sure of arriving at a morality based on human flourishing. And flourishing as you define it In terms of a quasi Human Development Index.

The claim becomes both more defensible and less general.

Well as I explained, just because a community truly believes they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of human flourishing, doesn't mean they are right... — Thomas Quine

I would say just because a community truly believes they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of human flourishing, doesn’t mean they are in fact pursuing human flourishing.

Just as in the natural world, diversity means some paths lead to the flourishing of the species, and some lead to extinction. — Thomas Quine

And it can be said that the paths that led to extinction were paths that did not pursue flourishing.

My next point is that we can actually determine what best serves human flourishing through science and reason. This means if we can agree on the common goal, we have an objective starting point for ethical considerations. — Thomas Quine

Only if you can pin down a more objective definition of flourishing. I’m fine with using population as a metric to assess this, as you suggested, but by doing so you have to agree that intentionally reducing one’s population is not pursuing flourishing. Otherwise, what would the opposite of flourishing consist of?

Yep. Morality is about caring for others.

What's surprising is that so many folk think otherwise. That it is about following universal rules or seeking happiness.

It's a bit of a puzzle.

Or indeed, we might ask how the bison herd contribute to the flourishing of Yellowstone as an ecosystem. But you seem to agree that it is right to ask about flourishing in that more generic biological context of life in general? — apokrisis

This seems to allude to what I think is a most important point. If a tribe thinks their actions which are detrimental to other tribes are morally justified because they contribute to the flourishing of humanity (humanity as narrowly defined by them as the tribe), then the broader view would be to consider the whole of humanity (the other tribes).

But that is not yet broad enough, so we really should be thinking in terms of the flourishing of all life if we want to escape the narrow anthropocentric perspective. I think this "escape" would ultimately be for the greatest benefit of humanity in any case. If we think only in terms of benefiting humanity considered as separate from the rest of nature, then ironically, we will fail to benefit humanity.

You seem to take the large social perspective on the origin of morality, as if there was once a lawgiver who could view a culture from above before that culture was even created and then introduce the measures that would make the system work on a grand scale.

But no one has ever been in any other position than you and me, born into a certain culture and taking part in it as an insignificant cogwheel. Have you ever asked yourself before acting, if your action would somehow contribute to the great product of human flourishing? I doubt it. We all operate on a microlevel, at best considering the direct consequence of the small act we are about to commit, or just behaving out of habit or from some preconceived principle.

Collective morality is formed by ongoing communal activity in a similar way to how a language is formed: No one controls it, and no one has any purpose that goes beyond the immediate act of communication. Only when we occasionally soar to a bird’s perspective in capacity of linguists or philosophers do we see a system and think it all makes sense. The language has grammar, and a culture has customs that make it all fit together into a whole contributing to its self-preservation. It looks like it is all there for the purpose of human flourishing, but that begs the question since you are already looking at a system, and any system necessarily works towards its own flourishing as far as it is a system. A system of human interaction, which is what a culture is, is no different.

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. — praxis

Well no, different species have different strategies for passing on genetic material, and social species develop complex systems of interaction that create the conditions for successful reproduction, not simply of individuals but of the species.

Human beings have developed highly complex societies and highly complex methods of raising our children to adulthood, and mere survival is the least of it. As a result we are the dominant species on the planet.

If the species does not flourish the process of passing genetic material from generation to generation is set back or ceases altogether. Therefore Dawkins' "selfish gene" hard-wires the species that carries it to go out and find a way to flourish.

Or more precisely, when the carriers produce viable offspring. Quality of life, which is what we usually associate with "flourishing," does not enter the equation. — SophistiCat

Without quality of life the production of viable offspring is challenged, therefore evolution produces species that seek to flourish. The evidence for this is that every species is full of individuals whose motivation is to stay safe, to find adequate sustenance, to find a hospitable environment, to reproduce, in short, to go forth and flourish.

Collective morality is formed by ongoing communal activity in a similar way to how a language is formed: No one controls it, and no one has any purpose that goes beyond the immediate act of communication. — Congau

As I see it the discussion is not about conscious individual purposes, but concerns the implicit logic of moral thinking.

Can anyone provide an example of a moral precept held by any community past or present who did not come to that position on the belief that it served human flourishing? — Thomas Quine

The philosophical difficulty is articulating principles which don't ultimately reduce to 'doing well' or 'getting along together', which in turn begins to sound very much like utilitarian ethics, 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.

Absent a soteriological goal - a doctrine of salvation - I think that is the best that can be hoped for.

every species is full of individuals whose motivation is to stay safe, to find adequate sustenance, to find a hospitable environment, to reproduce, in short, to go forth and flourish. — Thomas Quine

But most non-human animals, 'flourishing' really might just amount to surviving and breeding successfully. I mean, penguin colonies or beehives can be regarded as 'flourishing' but human cultures need many other elements in order to be considered flourishing - like cultural forms that support creative endeavour, social mechanisms to ensure equity, education, access to opportunity, and so on. And animal socities are also arguably not composed of social groups of individuals, in that non-human animals are overall (for better or worse) not possessed of a sense of individuality.

And then, look at totalitarian socieities, like the PRC - it's a 'flourishing' society in terms of economic growth and the number of people lifted out of subsistence farming in the last century. Yet disadvantaged minorities, like certain ethnic groups or social non-conformists might be excluded, imprisoned or persecuted despite the obvious economic growth of the culture. Even though 'the motherland' and 'the glorious Communist Party' no doubt trumpet the fact that 'the people' and their flourishing are their central concern, when any of 'the people' try to buck the party line, then their flourishing is not very likely.

So again, it ultimately comes down to a moral judgement - which in our cultural context is generally always understood as a matter of individual conscience. And that, in turn, is understood to be tacitly a personal matter, and therefore, a matter of opinion, rather than of fact. That's one of the binds of modernity.

I think an interesting question to ask ourselves here is whether this flourishing is more aimed towards the community (or mankind as a whole) or with the individual? — BitconnectCarlos

People generally start in childhood with a focus on their own needs, because infants are needy and it is right that they should be self-interested above the needs of others who they could not help if they tried.

But over time they learn empathy (sometimes even in their teens), and by the time they are adults they recognize that their own personal fortunes are inextricably tied to the good will and well-being of others, and they adjust their behavior accordingly.

As a person experiences moral growth their sphere of moral concern for others grows wider, to their family, to their community, to their culture, to their nation, often to the whole of humanity.

Individuals seek to flourish, and as social animals we learn that we flourish best when we help others to flourish. Doing that requires adapting to the culture's ethical systems.

Just as a market is an emerging property of a society of individuals buying and selling in service of their own individual needs and interests, so morality is an emergent property of a society of individuals trying to get along together peaceably and in such a way that they can achieve some of their personal goals.

So to my mind the concept of flourishing lies on a continuum of progressively larger social spheres, starting from a desire to help oneself, to help one's family to do well, to behaving in such a way as to help one's community to do well, to serving one's country as a good citizen, perhaps even to finding ways to serve humanity and make the world a better place.

No species can be said to be flourishing unless the individuals within it are themselves flourishing. It is the process of a multitude of individuals out there all seeking to do well for themselves that lays the groundwork for a flourishing society.

First, let's make a distinction between human beings and societies: the former are moral agents, the latter are not. — SophistiCat

I disagree, societies create cultures, morality is part of culture, societies are therefore moral agents. Some societies act in ways we consider moral and some in ways we consider immoral.

Species are also moral agents. We would agree I think that it is moral for a mother to care for her infant. That behavior is hard-wired into the DNA not only of humanity but really of any species in which mothers care for their young.This kind of moral behavior is part of deep species-learning. It is moral because it serves species-flourishing.

I’m fine with using population as a metric to assess this, as you suggested, but by doing so you have to agree that intentionally reducing one’s population is not pursuing flourishing. — Pinprick

When I say "population metrics" I am not referring simply to the size of a population, but to ways of measuring how well a society is doing by using statistical data derived from large-scale studies of the population.

Population size is not always a good way to measure how well a society is doing. Obviously there are times when reducing population might help a society to better flourish.

Yep. Morality is about caring for others.

What's surprising is that so many folk think otherwise. That it is about following universal rules or seeking happiness.

It's a bit of a puzzle. — Banno

Not really. At least twelve different brain regions have been shown to be involved in moral decision making, some of which are to do with reward (happiness) and rule-following. Others are related to social norms, social status assessment, most are related to theory of mind, intention and empathy, a few just to fairly raw visceral feelings. The idea that it's just about one simple thing is not supported by the scientific evidence...

...or did you mean to say "morality should be about caring for others"? Are you trying to describe what kinds of thing we actually use the term to cover, or are you trying to constrain language to suit your own philosophy?

So my thesis is that all moral systems are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" (I look forward eagerly to a refutation of this empirical observation.) And if it IS the case that humanity seeks to flourish as a species, then we OUGHT to use science to tell us how best to achieve that. There should be nothing controversial about this claim. — Thomas Quine

What about divine command theory? To express that in terms of human flourishing, then you'd have to include flourishing in the afterlife as part of 'flourishing'. If that's the case, then science cannot be used to tell us how best to achieve it.

That behavior is hard-wired into the DNA not only of humanity but really of any species in which mothers care for their young. — Thomas Quine

If behaviour is 'hard wired', how can it be moral? Morality relies on there being different possible courses of action. 'The idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism'. Again, your model equates moral choice with instinctive behaviour, and it ought to be abundantly clear that humans are not necessarily instinctively moral (otherwise, why the need for a legal code or police?)

it ought to be abundantly clear that humans are not necessarily instinctively moral (otherwise, why the need for a legal code or police?) — Wayfarer

You're confusing an instinctively moral desire with an instinctively moral outcome. We need laws and police because the behavioural result of any situational calculus is not always moral. It says nothing of whether any instinctive moral thought went into that calculus, only that other factors outweighed it.

...moral decision making... — Isaac

...and then there are those who think what is the case ought be the case.

Yes, indeed, I'm just twisting language to my own needs.

it ought to be abundantly clear that humans are not necessarily instinctively moral (otherwise, why the need for a legal code or police?) — Wayfarer

Most mothers don't need the police or the law to tell them they should take care of their babies - they know to do so instinctively. But some do, instincts can obviously be overridden.

and then there are those who think what is the case ought be the case. — Banno

Are you suggesting there's a way moral decision-making ought to be? Isn't the way moral decision-making ought to be itself a moral decision (afterall, the outcome would have serious moral implications). How, then, would we work out how moral decision-making ought to be? Use our moral decision-making as it currently is, or beg the question?

Most mothers don't need the police or the law to tell them they should take care of their babies - they know to do so instinctively. — Thomas Quine

You've completely failed to see the point. The point is, animals act from instinct - they do what they do out of necessity. Only humans can weigh things up, make choices, act better or worse. If a mother lion is negligent in the tending of her cubs, they may well perish, but no crime has been committted. Humans are supposed to know better, and to do better, and are held to another standard (leaving aside starvation due to poverty or some other calamity). If you can't see that, you don't understand the first thing about ethical theory.

Only humans can weigh things up, make choices, act better or worse. — Wayfarer

And you know this how? Did your magic sky friend tell you?