logic of the universe. — Thomas Quine

I suppose there can be logic in the universe. But I have no idea what the "logic of the universe" is. If by such you mean physics, I at least do not find morality therein. So. I have to ask you to make it clearer to me than it is as I find it.

I believe you are charitable. And indeed you must be if you think of the universe as a sociable kind of place, Eddington's description of its strangeness in mind. . — tim wood

I wasn't suggesting the universe is social, but parts of it, i.e. social organisms, are. So, the logic of sociality would be inherent in those.

I suppose there can be logic in the universe. But I have no idea what the "logic of the universe" is. If by such you mean physics, I at least do not find morality therein. So. I have to ask you to make it clearer to me than it is as I find it. — tim wood

The universe proceeds along a recognizable trajectory, the laws of physics are called "laws", not because they are written in some universal statute book but because they appear to be obeyed pretty reliably throughout the universe, stars are formed, planets are formed around them, some planets form an atmosphere, some are stable enough to maintain water, some undoubtedly contain the essential ingredients of life. Cosmologists say that galaxies evolve, solar systems evolve, and planets evolve.

One of the physical laws appears to be that those things that have whatever it takes to survive tend to persist, and those that do not tend to go extinct. Persist or perish.

Life arose from things that had the necessary qualities to be able to persist in the face of a madly swirling and ever-changing environment. Once life got a foothold, those qualities that allowed lifeforms to better adapt to their environments tended to persist through generations, in other words, those qualities that enabled the lifeforms to flourish tended to persist. Darwin was able to identify this logic. It's called evolution, and it is an expression of the logic of entities governed by physical laws interacting with each other over time.

It's called a logic because it proceeds in a systematic, logical fashion, following observable and reliable laws - he universe does not jump about in an absurd or illogical fashion. This logic is what allows most scientist to infer that if life evolved on earth, it probably evolved on other similar planets as well.

Now why I would argue that the evolution of morality is an expression of the logic of the universe is that moral precepts arise like any other entity or lifeform, and if they are adaptive and serve their purpose they tend to survive, and if they are maladaptive or harmful to human flourishing, such as human sacrifice to the Gods, they tend to die out.

We should not view moral information as very different from genetic information. A universal moral code is not fundamentally different from DNA. Both are forms of information that will survive across generations if they help the organism to flourish, and will be discarded if they don't. This was Dawkins' insight when he came up with the concept of the "meme".

Dear Thomas Quine! Did you come up with this moral approach or did you read it somewhere? If the latter is true, where can you read about it? I find this idea very interesting! ("all moral precepts are an attempt to answer the question, “What best serves human flourishing?”)

It is a variant of utilitarianism, with some pop-science thrown in. The general approach was formulated by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, and since then the idea has waxed and waned, but never gone out of circulation. It has its proponents among modern philosophers, including pop-philosophers like Sam Harris - and of course it is regularly being put forward by non-professionals who may or may not be aware of the history.

Now why I would argue that the evolution of morality is an expression of the logic of the universe is that moral precepts arise like any other entity or lifeform, and if they are adaptive and serve their purpose they tend to survive, and if they are maladaptive or harmful to human flourishing, such as human sacrifice to the Gods, they tend to die out.

We should not view moral information as very different from genetic information. A universal moral code is not fundamentally different from DNA. Both are forms of information that will survive across generations if they help the organism to flourish, and will be discarded if they don't. This was Dawkins' insight when he came up with the concept of the "meme". — Thomas Quine

This sounds a lot like the victor writes the history. If there is anything to morality that is fundamental, that underlies variations and differences, that is discernible in every system even as its "logic," then I think that whatever that is, would not itself seem very moral. "Human flourishing"? That might call for the imposed death of about 6,000,000,000 souls and rigorous population control thereafter. Does that sound moral?

Thank you very much for the information!
I myself consider a concept of morality close to this to be correct, as I think morality is essentially an urge and a phenomenon that helps to sustain life, while today’s concept of morality is essentially just the norms necessary for the oiled functioning of human society, nothing more.
After all, the war hero who killed many members of the enemy army, so he killed masses of people, is also considered moral…
Morality cannot be the subject of human bargaining, but a factor independent of human will, because its main purpose and meaning is to sustain life.

Hi András - this is an original approach of mine inspired by Aristotle and Darwin. It has no resemblance to utilitarianism apart from being consequentialist.

The theory that happiness is the proper aim of morality has been rightly criticized by an army of philosophers since Bentham and Mill.

Mill and Bentham wrote in a time where there was little hard science on happiness, on the motivations of human beings, and on the motivations of other sentient beings. We know today that happiness is only ever fleeting, and is normally achieved in the pursuit of goals other than happiness. On the achievement of these goals, happiness tends to dissipate, until new goals are set. Individuals therefore tend to have a happiness average set point, influenced by genetics far more than Mill understood, and although the happiness of an individual may go up and down, it tends to return to about the same average level over time. This makes general happiness difficult to measure accurately or usefully. Happiness thus appears to be far less tractable through social policy that Mill understood at the time. Sam Harris's "well-being" is just a modern variation on the theme. And in any case, as the Buddhists remind us, life is suffering, man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upwards, and the mortality rate is running at a steady 100%.

I think Aristotle's eudaimonia, or flourishing, is much more promising as a starting point for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is the product of active human agency. Feelings of happiness or well-being often arise from circumstances completely out of one's own control; to flourish generally requires active goal-setting and determined effort on the part of both individuals and the communities of which they are members.

Secondly, in Aristotle's eudaimonia, the good life is objectively rather than subjectively determined. An immoral individual can live a life of happiness and well-being having made a fortune in drug-smuggling and sex-trafficking, but in Aristotle's approach this could not be considered a good life.

Aristotle does make the point that the whole purpose of politics is eudaimonia, but I don't buy into Aristotle completely because he was of course unfamiliar with Darwinism. I think to have a working concept of the Good, and an objective measure of what it means to flourish, one has to move up a level from the individual to the species, to humanity as a whole. If this is understood, the individual cannot be said to serve morality, to serve human flourishing, no matter what their personal subjective feelings of happiness or well-being might be, if their activities, like those of the rich drug-smuggler, cannot be said to serve that goal.

Aristotle's eudaimonia also specifically excludes other species and is concerned only with human flourishing. My approach says that all species seek to flourish, each in their own way.

By the way I am writing this up in a paper I hope to get published, and if anyone want to read it and provide honest feedback let me know.

Hi Tim - as I mentioned in an earlier post, people will consider something to be moral if they believe it serves human flourishing. They are not always correct.

The Nazi's believed that genocide, military expansionism, racial purification, and totalitarianism were moral because they believed these were in the best interests of human flourishing. Were they right about this? How did that work out for Germany, Japan, and Italy, and for the world? I think the verdict is in...

The moral arc bends towards justice for the simple reason that justice serves human flourishing and injustice does not.

Hi András - this is an original approach of mine inspired by Aristotle and Darwin. It has no resemblance to utilitarianism apart from being consequentialist. — Thomas Quine

It is, of course, utilitarian in a general sense - not quite in the way Bentham and other classical utilitarians framed it, but then few modern proponents of utilitarianism would own its classical formulation. Framing utilitarianism as an imperative to promote human flourishing is actually quite common.

But yes, I neglected to mention the naturalistic fallacy used as a justification (good = adaptive = flourishing), which again is quite common. (Just as a note, Social Darwinism followed the same justificatory logic. I don't mean this as a smear by association, but I think the only reason you don't follow the same track is that you are unwilling to pursue the less appealing implications of your theory to their logical conclusions, which betrays extraneous moral considerations at play.)

G.E. Moore, who coined the term "Naturalistic Fallacy", has a quote I like a lot:

“…[H]ow “good” is to be defined, is the most fundamental question in all Ethics. …[T]he gravest errors have been largely due to beliefs in a false answer. And, in any case, it is impossible that, till the answer to this question be known, what is the evidence for any ethical judgement whatever.”

Like many philosophers, Moore gives up trying to define the Good. This is my main criticism of contemporary ethical theory: how can you make any ethical judgement whatever, if you cannot define the Good? We can describe lots of things with the adjective "good", as in "happiness is good", but Aristotle asks, what is the higher Good that is served by all lesser goods?

Moore attacks classical utilitarianism directly. To say that a natural phenomenon such as happiness can be described using the adjective “good”, does not mean that the noun Good equals the noun happiness, in the same way that to say a banana is yellow does not mean that the colour Yellow is a banana. One cannot argue that because happiness is good, it constitutes THE Good; that would be to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.

This is precisely what classic utilitarianism does. It takes a natural phenomenon like happiness, finds it good, then moves without justification to claim it as the supreme Good.

Many philosophers follow Moore's logic to an extreme, and insist on a distinction between facts and values, and between science, which is descriptive, and ethics, which is normative. Some think science cannot possibly have anything to say about morality. I disagree - I think all norms and all morals are grounded in the natural world. They are an attempt to come up with rules of human interaction that will best allow us all to fulfill our natural, instinctual desire to flourish as individuals and as a community.

My argument in this thread can be summarized as follows:

1. All living species, including Homo Sapiens, seek to flourish. (I did not say all individuals, I said all living species.) The verb "to flourish" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary online as "To grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way." For any and all living species, to flourish constitutes the Good.

2. All moral precepts and moral systems are an attempt to answer the question, "What best serves human flourishing?" In this life or in a mythical afterlife. All are attempts; not all are successful.

3. If we wish to flourish, as individuals or collectively, or as a species, science can offer useful advice. If it IS the case that we seek to flourish, we OUGHT to consult the evidence available from science as to how best to achieve this.

One can undermine this argument by raising valid objections to either 1, 2, or 3. It would be very helpful to me if someone could do so.

Framing utilitarianism as an imperative to promote human flourishing is actually quite common. — SophistiCat

I've been looking around to find anyone making the same arguments I am making here. If you can direct me to a source you are familiar with I'd be grateful.

Social Darwinism followed the same justificatory logic. — SophistiCat

People consider something to be moral if they believe that in the final analysis it serves human flourishing. Their beliefs are not always justified.

People consider something to be immoral if they believe in the final analysis it hinders or sets back human flourishing. Again, what people believe is not always justified.

There will always be disagreements between people about what serves human flourishing and what does not. Science and evidence can help us tell who is right and who is wrong.

One can undermine this argument by raising valid objections to either 1, 2, or 3. It would be very helpful to me if someone could do so. — Thomas Quine

We've been through all this, so it's obviously not 'helpful' at all.

1. Is false. Living species do not all seek to flourish, they seek to propagate genetic material. If you want to use this pseudo-Darwinian approach to moral objectives then the only common objective is to have as many offspring as possible which are fit enough to themselves have as many offspring as possible. Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem, other will not. As for this flourishing constituting 'the good', I've not read a single reference to it in any ethical text, nor any common conversation. He's a really good man doesn't mean he had as many children as possible, nor that he caused the survival of as many children as possible.

2. Is also false. Divine Command Theorists do not determine their principles of the basis of human flourishing either here or in a mythical afterlife. They believe that God's commands
should be obeyed because they are God's commands -regardless of their consequence on humanity in any way shape or form. Studies in the neuroscience of moral decision-making show conclusively that we do not always (or even commonly) consult any moral system dealing with consequences before acting morally. Babies can act morally - are you suggesting they calculate the effect of their actions on human flourishing?

3. Is only true if you undermine your definition at (2), you can't have both. If you're going to include people's beliefs in a mythical afterlife as demonstrating that all moral theories are about human flourishing, then it cannot also be the case that science can tell us how to achieve it. For those that believe in an afterlife, science has no information to provide on the matter. Notwithstanding that, science actually has very little to tell us about human flourishing that could really help in any real-world moral decision. In almost all cases of complex systems there are disagreements among scientists as to the long term consequences and the vast majority of human systems (economics, social dynamics, ecosystem interactions...) are sufficiently complex to be chaotic in the long term and so beyond accurate predictability. Science might be able to tell us what is flat out wrong, but it certainly cannot tell us what is right.

Framing utilitarianism as an imperative to promote human flourishing is actually quite common. — SophistiCat

I've been looking around to find anyone making the same arguments I am making here. If you can direct me to a source you are familiar with I'd be grateful. — Thomas Quine

Geoffrey Scarre's writes in "Utilitarianism" (Routledge, 1996) that "most forms of utilitarianism are welfarist, concerned that lives should flourish or prosper according to some specified criterion of well-being" (noting along the way that not all utilitarians are hedonists).

Or coming at the question from the other side, Gilbert Harman asks in "Human Flourishing, Ethics, and Liberty" (1983):

What kind of ethics do we get, if we begin with a conception of human flourishing and attempt to derive the rest of ethics from that conception? A number of writers have expressed sympathy for such an approach to ethics, although they disagree about details: Henry Veatch, Robert Nozick, Alasdair Maclntyre, John Finnis, David Norton, Philippa Foot, Tibor Machan, Elizabeth Anscombe, Ayn Rand, and Abraham Maslow. — Gilbert Harman

Harman critically assesses various approaches to ethics that fit this criterion, utilitarianism being one of them:

A second feature of this approach to ethics [after relativism - SC] is that it tends toward utilitarianism or consequentialism. The basic value is human flourishing. Actions, character traits, laws, and so on are to be assessed with reference to their contribution to human flourishing.

It seems from the latest post though, that @Thomas Quine is equating 'flourishing' with nothing more than long-term population numbers.

The verb "to flourish" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary online as "To grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way." — Thomas Quine

So that would put him more in the camp of Michael Ruse (generously), or Herbert Spencer (less generously), I think.

It seems from the latest post though, that Thomas Quine is equating 'flourishing' with nothing more than long-term population numbers. — Isaac

I think you are mistaking me for Isaac...

Super busy today but will reply as soon as I can...

Is false. Living species do not all seek to flourish, they seek to propagate genetic material. — Isaac

The strategy every living species uses to propagate genetic material is to flourish.

Every species has a different approach. Some fish and primitive forms of sea life gather in large numbers and on a biological signal of some sort they squirt billions of eggs and sperm into the water and boom, that's the end of their parenting.

The semi-living creature, the novel coronavirus, displays the kind of strategy you are attributing to the whole of life. It has one simple program, reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. But higher forms of life don't work that way.

Most species do not just drop their offspring randomly, but engage in greater or lesser amounts of parenting. Why? To help their offspring to flourish, and in so doing to help the species to flourish.

Why is it that in human society we regard parental care as a moral obligation? Because without it the children and by extension the whole of society would struggle to flourish.

Why is it that the wealthier the parents, the fewer children they tend to have? If the biological imperative is simply to propagate more genetic material, why don't they just have more and more children, surely they have the resources? Why are they fighting against what you have described as their biological imperative, to reproduce, reproduce, reproduce? If they have children at all, why do they make an effort to give them the best care and nutrition, lavish them with gifts, make sure they get the best education, pull strings to give their children a head start, etc. Can it be perhaps they wish to use their resources to ensure that they and their children flourish? Can it be perhaps that evolution has shaped them to behave in the most effective way to ensure that their genetic material will propagate, i.e. by seeking to flourish?

Millions of young women seek abortions because they recognize that they are not in a position to give birth and live a life in which both they and the child will flourish. Perhaps they are poor, maybe they don't have a reliable father for the child, maybe they are incapable of caring even for themselves at that point in life. If propagation of genetic material were the biological imperative rather than flourishing, how could there even be such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy?

Many historians of the Rwandan genocide have pointed to over-population on scarce farmland as a contributing factor. How did propagation of genetic material in Rwanda without consideration for the flourishing of Rwandan society help the species?

I could go on, there are endless examples from the natural world where evolution privileges the flourishing of the species over the mindless propagation of genetic material.

Can someone provide an example of a living species that does not seek to flourish?

Harman critically assesses various approaches to ethics that fit this criterion, utilitarianism being one of them: — SophistiCat

OK, this is very useful, thank you for the references, dammit, now I have to go back and check what they say.

Lots of philosophers talk about flourishing, but I've only ever seen it refer to the individual, I'm unaware of anyone bringing the species and evolutionary theory into the equation. But I will check out these sources.

The strategy every living species uses to propagate genetic material is to flourish. — Thomas Quine

So how would we know the success of any given strategy other than by measuring the extent to which it has successfully lead to propagation of genetic material?

there are endless examples from the natural world where evolution privileges the flourishing of the species over the mindless propagation of genetic material. — Thomas Quine

Who said anything about mindless? If you could even be bothered to actually read what I write before spouting off your barely related script you would have seen that the very sentence you quoted is followed by...

the only common objective is to have as many offspring as possible which are fit enough to themselves have as many offspring as possible. Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem, others will not. — Isaac

Tell me how you interpret "Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem" as mindless propagation.

I'm quoting Isaac's response, but my questions are addressed to @Thomas Quine

1. Is false. Living species do not all seek to flourish, they seek to propagate genetic material. If you want to use this pseudo-Darwinian approach to moral objectives then the only common objective is to have as many offspring as possible which are fit enough to themselves have as many offspring as possible. Some niches will result in a complex, co-operative or even altruistic solution to this problem, other will not. As for this flourishing constituting 'the good', I've not read a single reference to it in any ethical text, nor any common conversation. He's a really good man doesn't mean he had as many children as possible, nor that he caused the survival of as many children as possible.

Why do you need to cover all species? You invite a lot of complications. Why not sentient species or something similar? After all, you are discussing an ethical system and trying to lift animal behavior from instinctual or biological to ethical is a heavy task. Likewise, your notion of flourishing seems to imply a level of quality. not mere quantity as Isaac is asserting. Limiting your scope to humanity is more in keeping with that qualitative assertion.

2. Is also false. Divine Command Theorists do not determine their principles of the basis of human flourishing either here or in a mythical afterlife. They believe that God's commands
should be obeyed because they are God's commands -regardless of their consequence on humanity in any way shape or form. Studies in the neuroscience of moral decision-making show conclusively that we do not always (or even commonly) consult any moral system dealing with consequences before acting morally. Babies can act morally - are you suggesting they calculate the effect of their actions on human flourishing?

Two parts here, religion and neuroscience.
Religion: If you are asserting human flourishing as your standard, you have all you need to remove religion from consideration. In a view sensitive to the well-being of humans on a large scale, religion is amoral at best, but probably fully immoral. Your desire to use science as a tool in determining morality would also lead to an exclusion of religious beliefs as moral systems that increase human flourishing.
Neuroscience: I think the best answer to this criticism lies in the distinction that you are making with regard to scale. Isaac's example cites a lack of moral consideration in the acts of individuals, but you have specifically stated that you are describing a species-level moral system. Even if people do not consult moral systems in their personal behaviors, they will typically espouse them to other people, and the power of these systems is in their normative character, not in their effect on individual decisions.

3. Is only true if you undermine your definition at (2), you can't have both. If you're going to include people's beliefs in a mythical afterlife as demonstrating that all moral theories are about human flourishing, then it cannot also be the case that science can tell us how to achieve it. For those that believe in an afterlife, science has no information to provide on the matter. Notwithstanding that, science actually has very little to tell us about human flourishing that could really help in any real-world moral decision. In almost all cases of complex systems there are disagreements among scientists as to the long term consequences and the vast majority of human systems (economics, social dynamics, ecosystem interactions...) are sufficiently complex to be chaotic in the long term and so beyond accurate predictability. Science might be able to tell us what is flat out wrong, but it certainly cannot tell us what is right.

I think the adjustments suggested above deal with the concerns raised here. Religion is out, and even if science is able to tell us that some things are false, that makes it a useful tool without needing to provide absolute truth.

Any community of human beings who have collectively agreed that such-and-such an act or course of actions is moral, have done so in the final analysis because they believed these actions to be in the service of human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

A bit too much formal optimism regarding humans here. "Values," and that's what they should be called, usually arise unconsciously through culture.

Similarly, any community that has agreed that certain actions are immoral, have done so in the conviction that these actions harm or hinder the project of human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

Too much credit to humans, we do not think in terms of flourishing or species consciousness, don't get me wrong, we should!, but we don't. Many of our values are based on superstitions, traditions, psychological defenses. However, human flourishing is an excellent concept from which to begin, though it doesn't take us in the direction some might think. Here idealism is not king, instead the authority of its world is lost, being inescapably superseded by the importance of concretion.

Too much credit to humans, we do not think in terms of flourishing or species consciousness, don't get me wrong, we should!, but we don't. — JerseyFlight

It seems to me that people generally do think in terms of flourishing when they think morally. That is not to say that they apply the criterion of flourishing broadly enough, though.

When you think morally you deliberate as to whether your actions will help or harm others that you understand your actions will affect. The problem is that we seem to have an inbuilt limited capacity to genuinely care about more than a certain number of people.

Is it asking to much to expect people to care about the whole of humanity, much less the whole of future humanity? Are most (if not all) people able to do any more than pay lip service to such concerns?

So how would we know the success of any given strategy other than by measuring the extent to which it has successfully lead to propagation of genetic material? — Isaac

Such a lot to cover in these recent posts but let me start with this.

Aristotle defines the ultimate Good and goal of life, Eudaimonia, as “living well and faring well”. I like Aristotle not least because as a student of biology and zoology he understood that species seek to live well and fare well. I prefer to use the modern word “flourishing”, lots of meaning in that word, but keep it simple and take the dictionary definition, “to flourish” means “to grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way.”

Now keep in mind that I have said all living species seek to flourish. But just because they seek does not mean they succeed, otherwise we would not need the word “extinction”.

Let me bring up the case of the domestic turkey, one of the most numerous species on earth. (I was reading that they are very popular in Afghanistan, where they are called “Elephant Birds”.) If we take “successful propagation of genetic material” as a measure of success, the domestic turkey (not talking about the wild turkey, a noble bird) is one of the most successful species, and as long as we have Thanksgiving and Christmas its reproductive success is guaranteed.

Now the domestic turkey is an animal I am familiar with, having run an organic farm in the past. I can assure you the domestic turkey is one of the sorriest animals on the planet. It has been overbred for heavy breast meat to the point where it can barely walk. As a result it suffers from chronic joint failure and if you try to keep them free range as I did they will eventually become crippled. Their breast meat is so heavy that the male can no longer mount the female to mate, so all turkey offspring are the result of artificial insemination performed by the turkey farmer.

The list of diseases turkeys suffer from is longer than your arm, therefore in commercial farms they must be kept pumped full of antibiotics and other medications.

Turkeys are so stupid that a big problem in large farms is that a sudden noise or flash of light will cause a stampede in which 10% of the flock might be crushed to death. My turkeys were so incompetent that during a rainstorm, when all the other animals including the chickens would head for shelter, the turkeys would just sit out in the rain all day. Similarly they would sit in the hot sun panting while all the other animals found shade. I eventually took to picking the poor animals up and carrying them to their pens at night, I am sure they could never find their way back the way chickens do. One was crushed when stepped on by a horse. I gave up on turkeys.

Now if not for the constant care of farmers, if the species of domestic turkey were suddenly turned into the wild, the species would be extinct within a year or two.

So the domestic turkey is an example of a species that propagates its genetic material very successfully. But can anyone say this species is growing and developing in a healthy and vigorous way?

Is it asking to much to expect people to care about the whole of humanity, much less the whole of future humanity? — Janus

Emphatically, of course not! But here the capacity of mentalization, which is a psychological capacity, hinges on the social structure into which one is born. Hence, if you want to make a better world, humans must first learn how to provide, more specifically, intelligently organize, better social conditions for their progeny.

Hence, if you want to make a better world, humans must first learn how to provide, more specifically, intelligently organize, better social conditions for their progeny. — JerseyFlight

Of course some people are able to at least genuinely care about their progeny. If everyone has progeny and everyone cares about them and everyone has a grasp of the actual situation we face, then there would be universal motivation to organize for a better future for those progeny, which if comprehensively thought out, would ensure a better future for the whole biome.

And that said, what about caring about the future of the earth itself and all the species that make up the biome per se (and not merely insofar as it it affects us)? Is such broad-based care possible, emotionally speaking, to people who are not motivated by ideas (that is, most people)? Or do even intellectually motivated carers genuinely care enough emotionally, if their comfort or lifestyles are threatened or if they are called upon to sacrifice much? Looking around, I see a lot of talk, but not much genuine sacrifice.

Of course some people are able to at least genuinely care about their progeny. If everyone has progeny and everyone cares about them and everyone has a grasp of the actual situation we face, then there would be universal motivation to organize for a better future for those progeny, which if comprehensively thought out, would ensure a better future for the whole biome. — Janus

I agree. I do not believe that people without children have a right to set the rules of the future for society

And that said, what about caring about the future of the earth itself and all the species that make up the biome per se (and not merely insofar as it it affects us)? — Janus

I agree, man's entire life hinges on the earth.

Is such broad-based care possible, emotionally speaking, to people who are not motivated by ideas (that is, most people)? — Janus

Yes, because we have now largely figured out how people's personality structures are devolving into pathological behavior.

Or do even intellectually motivated carers genuinely care enough emotionally, if their comfort or lifestyles are threatened or if they are called upon to sacrifice much? Looking around, I see a lot of talk, but not much genuine sacrifice. — Janus

I so very much feel your complaint here, I have the exact same one. As a philosopher I stand against arm-chair intellectuals and philosophers, mere theorists. However, this doesn't mean that thinkers are supposed to hold up signs in the streets, no, their cultural vocation is a bit different.

The first thing is for one to orient themselves to social reality, the next step is to figure out what kind of social actor they are, the third step is to innovate in order to maximize the power of individual action, many times this means aligning oneself with a group or institution. "Most philosophers have merely analyzed the world, but the point is to change it."

"Most philosophers have merely analyzed the world, but the point is to change it." — JerseyFlight

I do agree with this quote from Marx, but not all of us are called to vigorous action in this regard. If we are involved with ideas and engage with others in this involvement, either by writing, speaking or teaching then we are certainly playing a part in the move to get as many people as possible to start thinking for themselves, and facing up honestly to the human and biological situation we find ourselves in.

One of the most important things is to call out bullshit and distraction from the issues wherever we see them. Solidarity is important and more effective than individual efforts, but I have found it is not that easy to find a satisfactory group or institution to align oneself with; they always seem to get mired in politics, virtue signalling, political correctness and power struggles.

not all of us are called to vigorous action in this regard. If we are involved with ideas and engage with others in this involvement, either by writing, speaking or teaching then we are certainly playing a part in the move to get as many people as possible to start thinking for themselves, — Janus

Yes friend, I completely agree with you, this is what I was talking about, intellectual work. This is a problem I have thought a great deal about, and have arrived at some exceedingly practical solutions.

I have found it is not that easy to find a satisfactory group or institution to align oneself with. — Janus

I have found exactly the same thing.

Or coming at the question from the other side, Gilbert Harman asks in "Human Flourishing, Ethics, and Liberty" (1983 — SophistiCat

)

OK, I read the Harman piece very quickly, great article, great critique of utilitarianism, but again two problems pop up which all these philosophers seem to assume, firstly morality is all about the individual, flourishing is taken to be something either done by or happens to the individual, and the society is scarcely considered, and secondly, flourishing is taken to be a norm. If it is just a norm that someone thinks would be a good idea, why is your idea better than my idea?

So Harman retreats to the default ethical position, that morality is just something we make up along the way, it has no grounding other than that right-thinking people have agreed about it.

My argument is that to flourish is more than a norm, it is a biological imperative for the species. The individual can decide to flourish or they can decide to commit suicide, but what the community thinks is moral is what the community thinks will best serve human flourishing, and what they think is immoral is what they think will hinder it.

Of course what will help one community at one point in time to flourish will differ from what will help another community in a different era. This is why we have different moral systems - but the grounding never changes.

I want to read the Harman article a few more times but I am not at home today.