Ecmandu wrote:
Not true. The question is what is good in life (moral)?
If every being in existence can just *poof* existence for all beings simultaneously, and not one being chooses this, then life is axiomatically good, and all the subset behaviors are axiomatically good, moral etc...
Think about it a moment before considering that this isn't all true by definition.
Let me sum up what you've said, just to make sure we are on the same page.
If every being in existence could destory all life in the universe, and none of them chooses to do that, then life must be good, and all behaviors in life are good since they are a subset of being alive behaviors.
Since the thread begins with falsifiability, what you are saying is: the above is a possible test to see if there are objective morals, hence Goodness can be part of a scientific hypothesis.
Let me know if I have misunderstood or not explained something well enough or left something out, etc.
Problems:
1) just because a hypothesis is falsifiable it does not mean it is true.
2) I don't think the testing protocol limits the variables enough. Someone might 'push the button' for other reasons: temporary rage.
3) I am pretty sure someone would push the button. I am not sure what this would prove or disprove.
4) Every person could be seen as choosing whatever they choose for a variety of reasons, not because they assess life as good or bad. For example some would argue that those who would not push the button would do this because they fear death - iow are programmed to avoid it by their DNA. There could be other explanations.
5) Good in relation to what? Let's say no human pushes the button. And then we humans continue to exist. We develop space travel and destroy other species of intelligent life. Yes, we chose to live, but are we Good?
6) I don't see how all behavior becomes good if we choose to live?
7) Your test would not show that humans are not bad. Bad creatures want to live and be bad. Since they are bad they let all humans live. And the badness continues. i cannot see where self-interest must entail that one is good. I covered this point in another way in the previous post.