I meant this post, Iambiguous. I’m on a phone, sorry , if you already responded to it . I don’t think you did though.
The amoral crusader returns! (thats me…)
To answer your original question James, I think the logic falls apart at the point where you use the term “objectively advantageous.” I would argue that nothing in reality can be said to be “objectively advantageous” without referencing a particular goal. In your health food example, if you are saying that the fact that the food improved the persons health (regardless of his opinions or desires) means that the healthy food is “objectively advantageous” then this statement would be incomplete in its current form and thus inaccurate. While it may be true that it is “objectively advantageous” to eat healthy foods IN ORDER TO BE HEALTHY, It is not “objectively advantageous” to a body to be healthy. NOTHING is “just objectively advantageous.” It is only “objectively advantageous” to be healthy and thus eat healthy food if you reference a particular goal for which being healthy IS ADVANTAGEOUS. For example: “In order to have more mobility, it is very likely that being healthy is objectively advantageous” or “in order to prolong your existence in the current ecosystem, it is very likely that being healthy is objectively advantageous.” But, for example, if your goal is to prevent inertia: “in order to prevent inertia, it could be argued that becoming morbidly obese is objectively advantageous.”
Now before you go and ridicule my example of a goal for which being healthy is not advantageous, consider the nature of evolution. Evolution is full of cases of mutations that seem dis-advantageous in a particular set of circumstances, but turn out to be essential to that organism’s survival when the ecosystem changes. You can think up the most ridiculous seemingly dis-advantageous case, and with a good imagination someone could come up with a plausible set of circumstances that would make that case advantageous. The theory of evolution is designed to account for such cases. It is entirely plausible that becoming morbidly obese could become extremely advantageous given the right set of circumstances.
Importantly: Bear in mind that in the above description of evolution, the assumed goal is prolonging the survival of a species. Thus cases are said to be advantageous when they achieve this goal. But who is to say that it is objectively advantageous to a species to prolong its survival? That is not built into the definition of advantageous. From google dictionary: “advantageous: involving or creating favorable circumstances that increase the chances of success or effectiveness; beneficial.” There is no mention of which goal it has to increase the chance of success or effectiveness for. It is completely context dependent! I cannot even logically say that my own survival is objectively advantageous.
Up to this point I have been trying to illustrate the nature of the term “objectively advantageous.” I think It simply does not make sense to say that something is “just objectively advantageous” without referencing a particular goal. The conclusion from this is that ANYTHING can be effectively, logically argued to be “objectively advantageous” if you pick the right goals. To which you might argue that “it is ridiculous to think an individual or a society would choose “prevention of inertia” as a primary goal of behavior.” Individuals and societies tend to share common goals. Such as Anon’s assertion that all sentient organisms seek happiness. While I disagree that ALL organisms do this (you never know what kind of fucked up wiring an organism might have - happiness may not be their primary directive biologically and sometimes some ideas can become primary directives to a point where it would be difficult to categorize their behavior under the category “pursuing happiness”) it IS safe to say a very large proportion of humanity have very similar fundamental goals. But then the fact that most people feel this way does not an argument make for its objectivity.
By using the term “objectively advantageous” you have shifted the moral question to “what are good vs bad goals?” instead of “what are good vs bad actions?”
Your argument about calculators and that people are too dumb to do math but yet believe they can do complex moral calculations falls apart when you talk to an expert philosopher (thats me! 
) When you talk to an expert mathematician he/she may be able to answer your difficult math question objectively. When you talk to an expert philosopher, or at least a thoroughly logical philosopher, I think most of them should see the reality as I see it. The reality is this:
There is no such thing as objective value in the universe. The universe, as far as we can currently tell, is just stuff bouncing around. Value is created by minds. This should inform you about the nature of morality. Morality should be considered as a different variation on a concept we seem much more willing to accept as purely subjective. Beauty.
I believe that I stated that, although perhaps not in the OP directly.
You subjectively choose what you want. And then what you do is either objectively advantageous to it or isn’t (or neutral). The actions are objectively advantageous to the subjective goal.
The statement is that the healthy food is objectively advantageous to a body in need of such food in order to be healthy.
You seem to be conflating evolution with unawareness.
What is seemingly advantageous at any one time, might not really be advantageous due to an unseen upcoming change in ambience. But that is not “evolution”. You are actually supporting the existence of objective advantageousness by stating that a change made something more advantageous than had been surmised.
Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a “stronger” state or person. But the goal of the original person was not to die out and leave something behind that would be stronger. If that goal is consciously chosen, evolution no longer works. For evolution to work, one must resist it at all cost. It is by not being able to resist evolution sufficiently that evolution wins the battle and destroys the weaker state, leaving only the stronger. But if evolution is intentionally chosen, the new state is the result of a prior choice, not a prior contest of strength.
Something cannot be favored if it no longer exists. That which supports continued existence (survival) is necessarily advantageous to its existence and thus to it (since it IS its existence).
Haha… yeah well… we’ll see about that. 
“Objective values”, like “universally advantageous”, would be a different subject.
I’m not sure if by “conflicting goals” you are referring to what I call “conflicting goods”.
Goals and goods are not the same thing to me. A goal is something you want to reach because you see it as enhancing your life in some manner. Then it is just a matter of either achieving it or not. If you do “the right thing” you will. So, your goal might be to get a promotion at work. But then suddenly you find yourself pregnant. Giving birth is seen by you as an obstacle to the goal. So you shift your goal to getting rid of the baby. You abort it. You get your promotion. Goal accomplished.
But that’s not the same thing [for many] as doing what is “good”. Goals, in other words, can come into conflict when the discussion shifts to morality. Some see abortion as a good thing [in any particular personal situation], others as a bad thing [in every particular situation]. Or in some situations but not in others.
So the goal of some is to live in a world where women have the right to choose. While the goal of others is to live in a world where no babies are ever aborted.
My point is that “conflicting goods” can be defended with reasonable arguments from both sides. But in being reasonable it doesn’t make the arguments of the other side go away. So how objectively [philosophically] is this resolved?
I suspect that might be Your problem. They are NOT different things to other people. You have apparently presumed them to be different.
I agree that working out these kinds of things is complex. But you’re not addressing my post at all. All those things you mention – job promotions, giving birth, the right to choose, etc. – are all like the “dinner out” in my analogy. I said that we could start by asking what the “higher” goal (or good) of all these things is. My assertion here is that in looking for the goal or good that all these things stand for (e.g. “dinner out” is a tool to achieve something other than “dinner out”), we don’t simply come up with an abstraction, we come up with something concrete, surprisingly enough – happiness. Because we are sentient beings, we orient ourselves towards trying to get what we want, in order to be happy. That is very nearly the definition of sentience. That is what all sentient beings have in common. Rocks don’t do this. Plants don’t do this. Sentient beings do this.
Now we may agree so far, but disagree about whether there are sound methods to achieve happiness, just as there are sound methods for achieving all kinds of other goals. Since happiness is as concrete as any other goal, and for many other reasons I won’t go into (like experimenting in a long term way and assessing the results), I believe that there are concrete steps involved that will lead towards happiness. And I don’t think those steps have anything directly to do with going out to dinner, getting a promotion, having a baby, etc.
If you disagree, as I suspect you will (it’s ok), I’d ask if you believe that happiness is randomly produced – that your thoughts and actions have absolutely no relationship to your state of mind (happiness, suffering, etc.).
Did the Russian give up already???
If that’s the case, they really should have held the Cold War in Texas.
It would have been merely “The Cold Night in Texas”.
Okay, in the abortion debate, what constitutes the “higher good” when goods come into conflict? Happiness for who? In other words, what happens when what makes the pregnant woman happy – removing the fetus as an obstacle to her promotion – makes other folks very unhappy. And the fetus itself of course is destroyed. I don’t see “working these things out” as just complex, but beyond reconciliation. Or, rather, I have not come across an argument [yet] myself that convinces me they can be reconciled.
I’m really just not sure how your argument fits in here.
Are you suggesting that philosophers are able somehow to resolve this rationally? James seems to. But only “theoretically”. In the interim, we just have to accept all the definitions he gives to all the words in the argument. He can’t lose. Either [eventually] the theory [RM] will be born out as “in fact” true objectively or he can always insist that if your definitions don’t match his, you must be wrong. By definition. But always his.
Do we agree? It’s not clear to me how you addressed the distinction I make between “goals” and “goods”. It would seem there are always ways to determine if you employed sound methods to achieve happiness. Are you happy? Yes? Well, you must have done something sound. But what if doing what makes you happy results in the unhappness of others? Or what if what once made you happy now makes you unhappy? I recall for example an exchange with Mr. Reasonable about making money in the stock market. Mr Reasonable loves money. It makes him happy. And he has found “sound methods” for earning it in the stock market. But some argue that the manner in which those who own and operate the stock market on Wall Street have made the lives of millions of folks on Main Street [who barely manage to subsist from week to week] very unhappy. That’s the distinction I make here. Is capitalism a good thing or an evil thing? Is there a way to determine [through RM] the extent to which it is reflective of an objectively moral world? Or will these sorts of differences [regarding value judgments] always be reflected in political arguments instead?
I believe that our capacity to express an emotional and psychological state that most call “being happy” is derived from human biology. But what in particular this will mean to any one particular human being is derived in turn from all that is encompassed in what we call nurture. Different things make different people happy. And this is embodied in dasein. And daseins come into conflict over and over and over again regarding what they believe should make eveybody happy. Usually what makes them happy.
Hi Iambiguous. I’m talking about the kind of happiness that isn’t tied in a one-to-one relationship with the thing you want. A kind of unconditional happiness (though there are of course conditions - like you have to be alive and sentient to be capable of happiness). Happiness is kind of a lame word for this, to be honest, but I don’t know of a better one to use. It is to be distinguished from pleasure, for instance. Anyway, this kind of happiness isn’t caused by things like a good dinner or winning a political debate. It’s helped along by certain kinds of thoughts and actions and attitudes, hindered by others, and isn’t “tied” to anything other than the most basic conditions as outlined above).
I know this is just an assertion and not really an argument. You don’t have to believe it.
Oh, utilitarianism or the Bible or objectivism or whatever. Not sure. I’m just saying that the idea of objective morality doesn’t eliminate considering the particulars of a circumstance. You don’t have to say wacky things like “Killing a human being is evil all the time no matter what!” in order to have objective morality.
I agree in spirit, Ucci.
Well, here [to me] it is not so much a question of “believing” it but of trying to grasp [in my own mind] what it is that I think you think you are trying to convey.
Have I ever felt like this? I don’t know. Not that I can recall. It seems to encompass more an overall intuitive sense of being or not being “happy”. As though at any particular point in your life all of the most important variables that encompass it [to you] come into alignment such that what you feel is an overall sense of being situated out in the world in just the right way.
On the other hand, most times people speak of being happy when they can point to particular things in their lives that make them feel this way.
But unconditional happiness? That I find much harder to imagine.
But this still seems embodied more in dasein – a subjective/subjunctive frame of mind – than in an objective philosophical assessment of what constitutes Happiness. Or so it seems to me.
Okay, I can accept that others might see the distinction differently. But how does that then constitute the manner in which I make my own distinction here less reasonable?
Or less applicable with respect to conflicting goods?
A woman might pursue the goal of becoming pregnant. And she can conflate that [in her own mind] with being a good thing. Bringing children into the world may even be construed by her as the moral obligation of all women.
But what of the woman whose goal is not to become pregnant? And then because of a faulty contraceptive device [or as a reult of rape or incest] she does become pregnant. Her goal then is to abort the baby. She might even make the assumption it is not a baby [a human being] at all. Just a “clump of cells”.
And in her mind aborting the baby is deemed to be a good thing. She might rationalize it for any number of reasons.
But others insist that, while aborting the baby is in fact her goal, it is NOT a good thing. The discussion has shifted to a whole new focus on/for the word “good”. As, for example, the opposite of evil.
You had mentioned biology, which makes me think you know what I mean, though. Your well-being doesn’t depend on the winds of circumstance. No?
How we perceive our own well-being [in terms of either goals or goods] will always become entwined in the complex interaction between nature and nurture. And who really has an objective understanding of where one ends and the other begins? At least pertaining to the practical relationship we come to embody with respect to our moral values and our behaviors.
What’s crucial then [for me] is that regarding either one we can only have so much understanding and control. Or, rather, this appears to be the case in a world that comes bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
That’s why for folks like James it seems crucial this is all dissolved away by taking the relationship up into the clouds of abstraction and theory and conceptualization. Up there you only have to synchronize the definitions [the meaning] that you give to the words. The argument then becomes everything. Why? Because the argument often is everything. Or that’s been my own experience with James here.
From my perspective, James’s perspective [RM] is more a psychological defense mechanism than an actual coherent intermingling of nature and nurture.
…a perspective that you presumed so as to form argumentation void of learning anything about it… as you seem to do with everything.
Iambiguous,
So you understand what I mean by unconditional happiness? Or not?
I’m not really sure how to respond to that.
I’m trying to imagine an actual situation I had been in which I felt what I would construe as “happy”. But how could that possibly described/captured without conditions precipitating the feeling?
And how close would “feeling happy” [feeling happy “at the time”] be from “being happy”? Being happy in a sense that philosophically such a state of mind would then be applicable ro everyone?
How would such a frame of mind be shared without each of us attaching conditions to it?
It’s like the quote in my signature now: “We can see other people’s behavior, but not their experience.” R.D. Laing
Again, through the evolution of life itself, we all come into the world predisposed mentally and emotionally to share this state of mind.
But how is that then extracted [purely?] from dasein? Here I get stuck in what I [and others] call “the limitations of language”.
duplicate post
In my view, learning from you means agreeing with you. Not once here at ILP have I ever seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.
And, sure, I think my own opinions about morality [here and now] are also reasonable. But no where near reflective of the…whole objective truth?