I don’t believe in objective morality in the first place.
My moral system has only one axiom:
Maximise your utility.
If nothing were right, I’d still go on maximising my utility. I don’t try to maximise my utility because I believe utility maxismisation is some apriori “right” thing to—I try to maximise my utility because I want to. Unless your proof changed my desires (in which case I don’t know what I would do), I expect I would go on trying to maximise my utility.
In the absence of morality, you maximise non moral preferences. There is no proof that all preferences are moral preferences. It doesn’t follow from “all morality is preferences”, even if that is true.
Well, we definitely need a good definition of Morality then. And what is moral and non moral preferences. Looks like it converges to a discussion about terminology.
Trying to understand what do you have in mind I can assume that an example of non moral preferences can be something like basic human needs. But when you choose to have this as a base doesn’t that become your moral principles?
Well, we definitely need a good definition of Morality then
That’s not impossible … we perhaps have too many candidates, not too few..
Looks like it converges to a discussion about terminology.
Is that a bad thing? If you don’t discuss what you mean by “morality” you might end up believing that all preferences are moral preferences, just because you’ve never thought about what “moral” means .
I don’t believe in objective morality in the first place.
My moral system has only one axiom:
If nothing were right, I’d still go on maximising my utility. I don’t try to maximise my utility because I believe utility maxismisation is some apriori “right” thing to—I try to maximise my utility because I want to. Unless your proof changed my desires (in which case I don’t know what I would do), I expect I would go on trying to maximise my utility.
But here is a problem: how would you calculate your utility if you have no moral system? You need at least more moral axioms.
In the absence of morality, you maximise non moral preferences. There is no proof that all preferences are moral preferences. It doesn’t follow from “all morality is preferences”, even if that is true.
Well, we definitely need a good definition of Morality then. And what is moral and non moral preferences. Looks like it converges to a discussion about terminology. Trying to understand what do you have in mind I can assume that an example of non moral preferences can be something like basic human needs. But when you choose to have this as a base doesn’t that become your moral principles?
That’s not impossible … we perhaps have too many candidates, not too few..
Is that a bad thing? If you don’t discuss what you mean by “morality” you might end up believing that all preferences are moral preferences, just because you’ve never thought about what “moral” means .