Moral Subjectivism AMA

Almost? Like, yes, I want to maximize well being, but I also want to minimize the amount of suffering people take.

To be honest, yes I have studied philosophy, but mostly on rhetoric, logical structure, logical fallacies, and stuff that of that nature, not as many metaethics as I would like to study. 

What is the logical conclusion of this type of "maximize well being, minimize suffering" type of morality?

Some kind of sci-fi dystopia. That is what it seems like to me.

Clearly it bothers you when people don't hold the same theistic positions that you do. If that's true, why don't you leave

In this post-modern age of deception, confusion, and truth relativity, someone has to point out the underlying philosophy of this age.

Nihilism.

Why

This is the enemy that is waging war against the hearts and souls of mankind. Its end is death.

If you don't know the enemy, how can you resist it?

Maybe someone will see the truth of what I am saying. It may change the course of their life. If not, I lose nothing by saying it.

I'd say yeah. Not to say intentions don't matter at all, but if something good comes out of neutral or selfish intentions that's not a  bad thing.

Not all of the time. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Examples

If you wanted to save one person and you ended up killing several, then ends do not justify the means.

If you had to destroy millions of dollars in property to end systemic racism, then ends do justify the means.

From where do you derive your ethical theory

Pleasure and pain of humans, or well being I suppose you could say (I kinda already explained all of it in the first page, but here we go again)

None of the above can be validated, as there is no universal standard.

We are simply, composite lumps of matter that think.

And morality is a concept thereof, as is GOD.

This is realism, not nihilism.

Nihilist is what conceptualist theists name call atheist realists.

I suppose so, but I also suppose you've never studied ethics? As humans ourselves, we ought to value that which can benefit us, blah blah, I've explained it a thousand times. The standard I'm using is objective (or as close as we can get) it's just not connected to moral objectivism. However I am also somewhat of a pragmatist, without any moral structure at all society would collapse, which is also a really good reason to support mine. The only assumption it's based on is that we should care about humans.... considering we are humans, I feel it's pretty good.

It seems to me that the fulfillment of this moral outlook could very well be to have everyone hooked up to virtual reality machines and fed happy drugs.

No one can hurt eachother, everyone is doped up and happy.

What do you think of that?

First of all, did you ignore the "minimize suffering" part, maybe in the short course they will be, but in the immediate long run they will be several negatively impacted. The drugs can hurt them if fed to much to keep them happy, drugs respond differently to different people, while they can have a broad category of effects, its the subtle ones you have to watch out for. You don't seem to factor in nourishment, physical decay, etc, etc, you are wrong..

Of course all these things are provided.

It's balanced for health say. 

Perfectly engineered for human happiness and health.

Lke being plugged into the Matrix or something.

The matrix specifically is oppressive and literally a secret evil organization, first of all - this is literally impossible, to stop the degradation of the human body while not in use, second of all, if it wasn't impossible and people consented, then yeah its fine. 

So if it is better for the environment, stops war, minimizes suffering, and maximizes pleasure...

The ends don't justify the means here.

But it doesn't do all of those things, why is it better for the environment? They would still need to grow food and feed the people or else they would starve to death, they would still need to power the simulations which would cause more pollution, as well as it being impossible, and not to mention it doesn't minimize suffering you are just asserting that.

I'm sure with some good engineering this could be really efficient.

Do I genuinely think this is the way to go? No. But it does seem to be a reasonable end to the maximize pleasure, minimize suffering morality.

It's definitely an idea, if it were possible it would be very interesting 

My bad I haven't read through the thread

Nah its cool, if you really wanted a good place to find most of it, that'd be the very first place and track my conversation with SirAnonymous. 

Selective breeding and a global standard of education based on pure logic. 

Humans as is, are undoubtedly clever but also illogical and prone to stupidity.

I think that we are heading in this direction, though it will be a while before the sentient inorganic has complete control over us.

I would also suggest that the GOD principle/ultimate reality, is probably inorganic.

So, maybe you are already singing from the same hymn sheet, but just don't actually know it.

Technological creep is very subtle but highly addictive.

And the masses are prone to gullibility and susceptible to the will of charismatic leadership.

And I don't suppose that either of us is on board, but the future is seemingly infinite and won't be ours to worry about.

It's taken homo-sapiens some 300000 years to get thus far.... So technology is already way ahead of us in terms of evolutionary development....And we're making it so.

The future is bright...the future is digital.