Here is the question: "Is there a universal grounding for morality?"

I look at the things that most people consider immoral:

Theft; murder; sexual abuse; pedophilia; breaking contracts; lying; corruption; slavery; you name it.

I ask, "What do all these have in common?" My answer is, they all are detrimental to human flourishing. Who am I to say? How do I know this? I consult the evidence from the available science. — Thomas Quine

Here you are asking the question: "What is common to all moral imperatives?" If there were such a common feature, I would not call it grounding, much less the grounding of morality, just on that basis. (All cats have claws... you get the point.)

Anyway, this is an empirical question about the practice morality - an is question. Your answer is not a good one, and the way you go about establishing it is not scientific (which probably explains the result). For one thing, you haven't actually done or referred to any science to support your main thesis (as far as I can see).

Of course people disagree about what best serves human flourishing, and therefore different cultures and subcultures have different moral standards. Some cultures and subcultures have believed or do believe things like racism, human sacrifice, killing infidels, acts of terror against innocent civilians, praying to your favorite God, etc are moral because they are in the best interests of human flourishing.

How can we tell who is right? Consult the available science. — Thomas Quine

So when you approve of a moral precept, you count it as evidence for your thesis (never mind how you figured out that it does in fact promote human flourishing). Otherwise you just flip the argument around and say that the precept does not promote human flourishing (never mind how you you figured that out) because people have a different idea of flourishing, or they just go about it in an unscientific way. Heads - I win, tails - you lose. (Which @Janus says is OK, but I don't think he agrees with you that you are doing science. I am not sure what he thinks you are doing though.)

But this is all beside the point, because even if you produced a good empirical theory that describes common patterns in moral behavior, it would not tell you what you should do - not without a bridge principle: something like "Thou shall do as most people do." That would be the real meat of your ethical system, and it would not be derived from science.

Who says this? — Isaac

The Quran tells us: 

"...those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads. With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. And for them are whips of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be  turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning. (22:19-22)"

There are more than 500 references to what awaits you in hell if you do not obey Allah in the Quran. Does it seem like you will flourish if you do not submit to Allah?

"The inmates of hell will also be punished by having to eat fire (2:174), or they will drink boiling water (6:70), or melted brass, or their drink will be bitter cold, unclean, full of pus (Gwynne 2002:416a). Their food will be the heads of devils that hang from the evil tree Zaqq" (https://bit.ly/2X0Vo0L) 

The Quran also tells us that paradise awaits those who submit to Allah:

"The Quran gives an idyllic description of Jannah. It says that each person that goes to Jannah is greeted by angels from every gate with the words, "Peace be with you, that you persevered in patience! Now how excellent is the final home!" (13:24) Each person lives near to the Lord in a garden (3:15) of perpetual bliss (13:23), with flowing springs (88:10–16), and flowing rivers (5:119) of incorruptible water and unchangeable milk (47:15). Each garden is the width of the whole heavens and earth (3:133).In each garden is a mansion (9:72), a high throne (88:10–16) of dignity (52:20) in a grove of cool shade (36:56–57), an adorned couch (18:31), rows of cushions (88:10–16), rich carpets spread out (88:10–16), a cup (88:10–16) full of wine (52:23), and every meat (52:22) and fruit (36:56–57) that is like the food on Earth (2:25). Each person is adorned in golden and pearl bracelets (35:33) and green garments of fine silk and brocade (18:31).Each man is married to a beautiful woman (52:20), accompanied by any children that did not go to Jahannam (52:21), and attended to by servant-boys (52:24). The Quran does not specify any specific rewards for women, however." (https://bit.ly/330t5DG) 

Does that sound like flourishing awaits if you submit to Allah?

What about here on earth?

"Sawāb or Thawāb (Arabic: ثواب‎) is an Arabic term meaning "reward". Specifically, in the context of an Islamic worldview, thawab refers to spiritual merit or reward that accrues from the performance of good deeds and piety.[1]"

"Usually any and all good acts are considered to contribute towards earning sawab, but for a Muslim there are certain acts that are more rewarding than others. The primary contributing factor on the extent of the reward is based on one's intention in one's heart - the silent, unspoken one that God is aware of and not the expressed, articulated one. These may be one and the same, but the articulation is not required prior to performing the deed.The meritorious acts in Islam can be divided into categories - the spiritual good and the moral good. There cannot be moral good without the spiritual good. Or at least the moral good will not have a high bearing if not accompanied by the spiritual good.Spiritual good includes the acts of worship including Prayer (obligatory and supererogatory), remembrance of God in the aftermath of the prayer or at any other time, acts of prescribed charity (zakat), reading of the Quran, among others.The moral good comes from treating parents with love and affection, and not with disdain; visiting sick people, keeping ties of kinship, spending money wisely in charitable causes, giving family their due rights, etc." (https://bit.ly/39Ame4X) 

Are charity, filial piety, visiting sick people, spending money wisely, any and all good acts, the sorts of things that contribute to human flourishing?

Islam is the main proponent of Divine Command Theory. I could perform the same five-minute exercise for the other monotheistic religions, but I don't want to bore the readers.

If we say happiness (in terms of flourishing or well-being) is "good," then science can certainly help us discern "right" from "wrong." — Xtrix

Right. Now do that without the morality. Science can tell us what produces happiness (I don't really agree with this, but for the sake of argument...). If we want happiness we can consult science to find out how to get it.

Why have we gone through the additional stage of equating happiness with "good", what purpose did that bit serve?

Islam is the main proponent of Divine Command Theory. — Thomas Quine

Did you read the article I linked? I think you've misunderstood Divine Command Theory. It's not about rewards and punishments, it's about the source of moral goodness.

The way to defeat this argument is not by changing my constant into a variable. It would be by proving that the intention of Divine Command Theory is not actually to serve human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

Of course the intention of Divine Command Theory is not to serve human flourishing. You might instead try to argue that the intension of DCT includes human flourishing. But your methodology is so flaky that the whole exercise is pretty meaningless.

Right. Now do that without the morality. Science can tell us what produces happiness (I don't really agree with this, but for the sake of argument...). If we want happiness we can consult science to find out how to get it.

Why have we gone through the additional stage of equating happiness with "good", what purpose did that bit serve? — Isaac

"Good" as something valuable or desirable, a positive outcome of some kind. As opposed to bad, which is something undesirable, which one should like to avoid. It's another way of saying what we want or strive for versus what we wish to ignore or avoid, in my view. Traditionally, it's been thought that science has nothing whatever to say about values -- the is/ought claim of Hume and others.

But again, I don't see myself (or Aristotle) equating happiness with "good" per se. In his philosophy, happiness is perhaps the highest good in a hierarchical structure, but a cup of tea is good too. It's just a catch-all term to connect all actions, a way to encompass all actions in terms of what their striving for, ultimately. One may or may not accept this formulation, but it's fairly straightforward.

...aren't we just back to square one with irresolvable disputes over all the really complicated questions? — Isaac

I am saying that all moral theories attempt to provide rules that if followed will serve human flourishing. Religion follows that up with threats and bullying to obtain compliance.

Science also attempts to solve the problem of human flourishing. Science doesn't always get it right, but it seems a whole lot more reliable than what religion tells us.

Mohammed tells us for example that one should say prayers when using public toilets, because genies inhabit dirty places. (https://bit.ly/2CZdqK2). Well when using a dirty public toilet in the eighth century, prayers might be your only protection.

But science tells us that proper sanitation can reduce the risk of diseases like cholera caused by dirty toilets. (https://bit.ly/39zBUWh).

Which is more effective, religion or science?

In your view, if flourishing has to be the intention of a moral action, then how should moral intentionality be determined? — sime

Hi sime, sorry, did not understand the question, can you restate in a different form? Thanks!

Yes, but you said...

If we say happiness (in terms of flourishing or well-being) is "good," then — Xtrix

I'm asking why we would do that 'if'. To say 'if' implies we have a choice (ie we might not make that association), I just don't understand why you think we would choose to make that association, what does it gain us?

Which is more effective, religion or science? — Thomas Quine

Science. What's that got to do with morality?

This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing. — praxis

Selfish genes seek to reproduce into the next generation. They do this by helping to create species that flourish.

I'm asking why we would do that 'if'. To say 'if' implies we have a choice (ie we might not make that association), I just don't understand why you think we would choose to make that association, what does it gain us? — Isaac

To associate happiness with "good"? Because by doing so you can have a "science" of morality, which has been rejected for a long time.

To determine what the "right" action is, you have to have a context in which judge it. You have to have a goal of some kind. If one wants to be healthy, then you do xyz. If one wants to be happy (depending on what we mean by this), you do xyz.

I'm not seeing where you think an unnecessary step arises. Why associate "health" and "good"?

If one wants to be healthy, then you do xyz. If one wants to be happy (depending on what we mean by this), you do xyz. — Xtrix

Right. Why do we need any more than this? Why associate either of those things with a universal concept, they work perfectly well as modalities.

Science. What's that got to do with morality? — Isaac

If morality is an attempt to advance the cause of human flourishing, it needs to look to science for better answers. Not holy books, not convoluted philosophical thought experiments, but science. And by science I mean real-world evidence that some things work and others do not.

So when you approve of a moral precept, you count it as evidence for your thesis (never mind how you figured out that it does in fact promote human flourishing). — SophistiCat

Are you asking me to prove scientifically here in the forum that theft; murder; sexual abuse; pedophilia; breaking contracts; lying; corruption; slavery, etc. are harmful to human flourishing? I did not pull these examples out of my imagination, nor are they expressions of my personal prejudices and biases. I chose them because most people consider them to be immoral, and they do so because they are objectively harmful to human flourishing. If you doubt the harm they cause, there is a lot of evidence to be found moments away on the Internet.

My goal in this exercise is to support moral precepts that can be shown scientifically to support human flourishing, and to deprecate those that hinder it or are useless. I don't need to reproduce the good science that is already out there...

Selfish genes seek to reproduce into the next generation. — Thomas Quine

They seek to reproduce genes that are most like themselves and that’s why the term ‘selfish’ is used. They do not seek to reproduce genes that are unlike themselves.

They do this by helping to create species that flourish.

As I’ve mentioned already, it’s a matter of degrees of likeness, and that includes intraspecies likeness. Genes don’t seek to reproduce a specific set of genes, like all human genes, they seek to reproduce that which is closest to themselves.

As someone who appears to value science I don’t know how you can ignore this.

In your view, if flourishing has to be the intention of a moral action, then how should moral intentionality be determined?
— sime

Hi sime, sorry, did not understand the question, can you restate in a different form? Thanks! — Thomas Quine

What is your position regarding moral intention, moral freedom, moral responsibility and moral competency? How are these things definable and measurable?

Presumably you don't consider social utility to be sufficient grounds for defining morality, for otherwise, morality is indistinguishable from luck....

If one wants to be healthy, then you do xyz. If one wants to be happy (depending on what we mean by this), you do xyz.
— Xtrix

Right. Why do we need any more than this? Why associate either of those things with a universal concept, they work perfectly well as modalities. — Isaac

Are both desirable ends? Yes. Thus, actions which lead towards these ends are therefore good or bad, right or wrong -- within that context. The meaning is the same -- they're just different words to judge actions. A "moral" action, according to this perspective, is one that aligns with one's values and goals -- be it health or happiness.

Nothing "more" is added.

A "moral" action, according to this perspective, is one that aligns with one's values and goals -- be it health or happiness. — Xtrix

So why take that perspective? That's what I'm asking. What is it that appeals to you about it, or are you just offering it as an option?

So why take that perspective? That's what I'm asking. What is it that appeals to you about it, or are you just offering it as an option? — Isaac

A bit of both. It seems almost like a truism to me. "Good" and "bad" aren't magic words, we use them all the time in everyday activity as a shorthand for evaluating our actions, and whether or not those actions take us towards or away from our goals, ideals, objectives, ends, etc. I don't see what's troublesome about it.

The difference is, as I said, between the ideas of eternal flourishing and temporal flourishing. So all moral systems are concerned with flourishing, but the two conceptions of what constitutes flourishing are very different from one another. As I said the only inconsistency in the argument @Thomas Quine presents might appear to be the claim that what constitutes flourishing can be determined by science. But as I already said he can get around this by saying that science, although it obviously cannot determine the nature of eternal flourishing, can determine that the notion of eternal flourishing has no grounds and is hence not a valid model.

Rather, if you force others in the grand old pursuit of the game of flourishing, and in doing so, force unnecessary harm and challenges on another person because you deem this worthy, or you would feel pain if you did not force this situation on another, that may be immoral. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand what you are saying here. As I see it you cannot force flourishing on others; you can aid them in their pursuit of flourishing, though.

Closer to home and therefore more likely to share genes. This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing.

The fact that we must learn and practice well-being, and that it requires discipline, also indicates that it’s rather against the grain of our base nature. — praxis

I can't see the point of bringing genes into it. All we need to flourish is a healthy state of mind and body. That is taken away from many, even most, of us by modern life, beginning with the advent of agriculture and private ownership. We only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours, but for the dire state of the environment, overcrowded cities and pervasive neurosis and addictive behavior of most of those of us who are "prosperous" in the modern world.

Praxis, I think you are underestimating the importance of the healthy flourishing of the host organism to the successful reproduction of the gene.

A little string of protein, a complex molecule like DNA or RNA, a gene, can't survive on its own. It requires a living "host" to reproduce, (although I don't like the notion that genetic material is somehow like a parasite. It is integral to who we are.).

Genes reproduce themselves with tiny random mutations, and if they help the organism to adapt and survive, these mutations may persist through time to the next generation. A mutation might turn a bear's coat white, and this in turn might help the bear to hunt in the snow, and if it prospers and has many healthy bear cubs as a result, a new subspecies or species might evolve and white fur might turn into a permanent feature.

The secret to the gene's success is not that it reproduces itself exactly, but that it throws out the occasional mutation randomly. It produces genes that are like itself, but occasionally just a little tweak different.

Many biologists have criticized the notion of a "selfish gene" on the grounds that it seems to anthropomorphize what is basically an unconscious mechanical algorithm. But I am comfortable with saying that genetic material has a built-in purpose, and that is to reproduce itself. It is "selfish" in the sense that once you have passed it on to a new generation it does not care that you die. If the gene had a viewpoint, it would be that the only thing that matters is that it survives and reproduces.

I have personally reconciled myself to my own death, but the death of any of my four children would shatter me, the destruction of my community is even much more horrifying to contemplate, and the end of the human species would be tragic beyond measure. I think I feel this way because my genes have coded me to care about the future of my genetic material.

My genes have passed on to me a kind of mental program module that says, if you care for your children, if you help them to flourish, your genes will survive. If I behave in a way that almost every culture considers to be moral, my genes will survive to future generations.

If we look at the natural world, there are many different strategies for flourishing, and some of them involve pro-social behaviors that cannot be described as selfish. "Selfish" genes can produce altruistic behavior, and they can even produce species who puzzle over the universal grounding of moral behavior.

But I want to stress that the mutations in genetic material that survive are those that help the organism to flourish. Therefore genes will reliably turn up new mutations that help the organism to flourish, or the organism will eventually go extinct, and its genetic material with it, like 99.99% of anything that has ever lived.

As a result of this evolutionary process, the motivation to flourish is baked in to all life forms. Its in the DNA.

What is your position regarding moral intention, moral freedom, moral responsibility and moral competency? How are these things definable and measurable? — sime

These questions are related to the free will question. I have heard some people argue that there is no such thing as free will, since our actions are determined by all that has happened to us in the past. Most of our actions seem to take place without the intervention of conscious thought, or happen too quickly, as in the case of speech, for conscious thought to physically occur.

This is plausible, but it fails to account for the fact that we program ourselves for future actions, and we are responsible for that. If I park illegally and get a ticket, I tell myself, I'd better not park there again. And I consciously or unconsciously avoid parking there, and if I do, I should get another ticket, in other words, I should be held responsible.

In the course of reflecting on the ticket, it may occur to me that if everyone parked illegally it would be a royal mess. Because I don't want to have to deal with that kind of mess in future, I make a decision partly out of self-interest, wanting to both avoid a mess and a ticket, and partly out of concern for others. I am responsible for this decision, it is an expression of who I am, in this sense I have the freedom to choose to act morally or not and should be held accountable because of that.

Either way I can trace a decision to obey a rule or not to obey it to a decision about whether such a rule serves human flourishing or not. The best rules are those that pretty much everyone agrees are in the common interest, such as stopping at a red light. The tricky problems are those where there are two rational opinions about what actually serves human flourishing.

There is a big debate in the U.S. about mask-wearing. Those who argue that mask-wearing is moral behavior when in close contact with others during a pandemic, believe that reducing the risk of contagion is more important to human flourishing than the temporary discomfort of wearing a mask.

Those who argue that to mandate mask-wearing is immoral believe that individual liberty and personal choice is more important to human flourishing.

Science can tell us who is right.

Like Aristotle I think virtue is a habit. But it is a habit you have developed through a combination of your life experience and your rational reflection.

I used to volunteer at a maximum security youth correctional facility. A high proportion of the kids were chronic liars, they lied about everything. An experienced worker told me they do this because they are trained all their young lives to do so. They were raised in chaotic environments with inconsistent parents or care-givers, and they found the best way to cope - to grow and develop - was to lie yourself out of every situation. And where there is no stability it's hard to think about future consequences. The criminal mind is always in the moment.

In this sense we can see how there are extenuating circumstances that have shaped the behavior of these kids.

Some will figure out that the best way to flourish as individuals is to tell the truth and stay out of trouble. But some will not. I am also listening to a great podcast true crime series from Pushkin about an FBI agent who infiltrated motorcycle gangs. It is clear there are people out there who deal with conflict through intimidation, violence, and even murder, who deal with sexual desire through rape, and so on. These people are the products of the same sorts of chaotic childhoods, they were probably abused and became themselves abusers. They have chimp morality: might makes right.

Similarly there are serial pedophiles who are repeat offenders. Possibly they were also the product of abusive homes.

There are psychopaths and sociopaths. Possibly their behavior was genetically influenced.

Punishment does not work to change these sorts of behaviors, but society needs to be protected from these types. In my view as someone who has worked both in prisons and in law firms, the only legitimate reason to put someone in jail is to protect society from the harm they are likely to cause. So I do think all people should be treated humanely, but some people need to be put away for life.

Sorry, I have gone on too long and touched on these issues only superficially, gotta go now, what do you think? We can continue the discussion later...

I can't see the point of bringing genes into it. All we need to flourish is a healthy state of mind and body. That is taken away from many, even most, of us by modern life, beginning with the advent of agriculture and private ownership. We only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours, but for the dire state of the environment, overcrowded cities and pervasive neurosis and addictive behavior of most of those of us who are "prosperous" in the modern world. — Janus

I bring genes into it in order to help understand the foundation of all morality. I don’t believe that it’s human flourishing because if it were then why aren’t we all flourishing? We’ve been around for thousands of years. There are signs of progress but there are also signs that we may be on the brink of self-destruction. Could it still be said that the foundation of morality is human flourishing if we all end up buried under the ashes of a nuclear winter? That or a similar fate is a possibility, and we are moral.

You say that “we only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours“ but is that true? Would a hunter-gatherer society have the knowledge and discipline to flourish if an abundance of alcohol or high fructose corn syrup were made plentiful to them? Doubtful. We have a natural craving for sweetness, for example, that in the wrong circumstances will tend to lead away from flourishing.

We have a variety of moral intuitions that I assume have developed for particular circumstances, just as we have a variety tastes that fulfill various bodily needs. Perhaps our moral intuitions fulfill various specific social needs, like avoiding rejection or discouraging freeloading, and in the wrong circumstances can be counterproductive to flourishing.

I don’t believe that it’s human flourishing because if it were then why aren’t we all flourishing? — praxis

The simple answer to that puzzle is that once we became reflective about these issues and we were already in the post-agricultural situation of greatly amplified conflict of interest, we have not been able to implement any solution; even if we have been able to understand what kinds of social arrangements would satisfy the requirement for universal human (and environmental because the human is impossible without it) flourishing.

You say that “we only require discipline to reacquire what would naturally be ours“ but is that true? — praxis

I meant on the individual level, not on the social. Of course more than mere discipline would be needed for universal flourishing in the latter domain.

Would a hunter-gatherer society have the knowledge and discipline to flourish if an abundance of alcohol or high fructose corn syrup were made plentiful to them? — praxis

Probably not but I don't see the relevance, given their lack of sophisticated understanding of what is good for their health.

"Good" and "bad" aren't magic words, we use them all the time in everyday activity as a shorthand for evaluating our actions, and whether or not those actions take us towards or away from our goals, ideals, objectives, ends, etc — Xtrix

But moral "good" and "bad" are about judging other people's actions also. They act like instructions or categorical claims. The claim is that science can tell us what is morally right, not just how to achieve it once we've decided what it is. If I had a goal of becoming a ruthless tyrant with hundreds of slaves, science could tell me how best to achieve that too. Science makes models which have good predictive success, that means that if you want to do something to the world, you'd be advised to consult the latest scientific model to find out how. None of this has anything to do with determining what your objective should be in the first place.

If we want to make everyone happy we could (theoretically) consult science on how best to do so. If we want society to flourish (whatever that means) we could theoretically consult science on how best to do so. But if we wanted everyone else to suffer horribly, we could also consult science on how best to do so. Nothing in science tells us which of these objectives to choose.

The difference is, as I said, between the ideas of eternal flourishing and temporal flourishing. So all moral systems are concerned with flourishing, but the two conceptions of what constitutes flourishing are very different from one another. — Janus

I agree, but I'm trying to understand what @Thomas Quine is presenting here and it appears that he thinks they do not differ, but are rather a "a constant". It seemed for a minute that you might have some insight into this position, but it seems not.

he can get around this by saying that science, although it obviously cannot determine the nature of eternal flourishing, can determine that the notion of eternal flourishing has no grounds and is hence not a valid model. — Janus

Can it? How would it go about doing that?

Those who argue that to mandate mask-wearing is immoral believe that individual liberty and personal choice is more important to human flourishing.

Science can tell us who is right. — Thomas Quine

Really? So what scientific model would you be using to tell whether individual liberty or mandatory mask-wearing is more important to long-term human flourishing? Science can tell us how many more people might die if we don't mandate mask-wearing (let's say studies converge on an average of 10,000 extra deaths with a 95% confidence). Now how does science tell us how many extra deaths at what confidence level outweighs individual liberty?