We’d also be looking for ways to reduce single parenthood, too, since that seems to be the biggest cause of poverty. And we’d probably be looking for ways to reduce the overall population, or slow its growth. I’m certain we’d have some form of eugenics in place.
As noted above, science doesn’t give us morality.
I worry what happens when two opposed, perfectly rational goals are proposed. Also, being a deeply selfish and lazy person myself, I recognize that many rational persons will oppose any measures which reduce their personal comfort or that of their children.
To the extent we have a natural morality, it’s the result of us being communal monkeys.
I suggest, that we can use logic to establish a morality based on minimizing human suffering.
Additionally, who will have the time to research the two goals to the same extent as their proponents? At some point, you’d have to make a judgement call as to which proponents you like better or which seem more trustworthy, or other arbitrary criteria.
And even then, the great inescapable unknown is the future itself. Random events might make Choice A turn out to be better than Choice B, or vice-versa.
Why is minimizing human suffering the ultimate good?
It’ll do in the short term, until we find a gooder good.
Establishing a moral system, whether God-based or not, requires certain shared assumptions. If it’s God-based, the assumptions are something like “this book says what God wants us to do”; if it’s not God-based, it’s something like “human suffering is bad, human happiness is good”. So, in this case, we’d have to share the belief and the assumption that human suffering is bad, and one of the goals of our moral system should be to minimize it.
How about improving well being?
If not that, what’s better?
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Why is “minimizing human suffering” what science tells us our morality should be based on?
You’re probably not just asking me, but I’d say science is the best method to accomplish a goal- whether the goal is “minimize human suffering” or “atomize humans into stuffing”. As to what the goals should be- I think we’d have to turn to other disciplines, which would start, in any case, with certain shared assumptions.
I don’t know. Maximizing resource distribution, minimizing environmental impact, increasing human numbers to have more people to share ideas with, decreasing population to restore the natural world to a natural balance, allocate resources to achieve a permanent presence in space, or train people to live as healthy hunter-gatherers again as we did for 20,000 years?
If we are looking to the greatest good for the greatest number, should the “good” or the “number” be the dominant goal?
Science tells me I should fight for My Tribe, and if that means killing the next tribe over, so be it. We should be trying to maximize resources for My Tribe.
I’d think the most effective totalitarian state would be crafted via empirical inquiry into human psychology.
Those all sound like means to the end (or not) of increasing well being. You can use reason, science and rationality to help you decide.
Reason suggests to me that if you just try and increase the number, you will run out of resources and end up lessening well being for a greater number. Maybe we could do some science on that to see if that reasoning is correct.
Did science tell you why your tribe is better than the next tribe?
“Science” makes no such value judgements as to who is “better,” all things being equal I need to ensure that my Tribe endures to perpetuate my genes.
Science tells you that a larger tribe could be beneficial in warding off attackers. Besides, aren’t there usually religious reasons tribes use to disassociate from other tribes? Something along the lines of “we are The People-they are animals”?
I agree about single parenthood - though more support for single parents might work also. We’d have to look at the evidence.
Not about eugenics or forced birth control. The evidence shows that increasing the standard of living decreases birth rates. Since a rational case can be made for control of one’s body (which enforced birth control does not support) economics seems a better way of going about this.
Even companies with rational decision making processes screw the pooch sometimes. It would be totally irrational to claim that any system will always produce the right answer.
Which method is more efficient?