*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fear not, I'm chill.

From those I've seen, utilitarianism comes the closest. We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like "maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth". Or something, I don't know. If I knew I'd be much more famous. The point is I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done, in theory. And if it can be done in theory, it suggests there exists a provable calculable definition for right and wrong.

Provable was the operative word in my question.

Is any of that provable?

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to ethical systems, utilitarianism is very appealing to me.
BUT
How can you prove that what's good for humans is what's "Good?"
Seems a pretty lucky coincidence that the moral right has what's best for humans as a fundamental premise, no?

All organic life on Earth..?
Then COVID-19 has same the moral rights as humans.
Bacteria have moral rights.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just making sure that I understand what you're saying.

What do I know? Maybe the only moral good humans have served is to be the host for bacteria and viruses.

Correct.

Wrong.

Awww, c'mon. You said you were chill, man.

We "only" need to define the worth of well-being and suffering on a scale with enough parameters for it to workable. And obviously, I don't know how to do that, and most likely neither can anyone else right now. Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.

I don't see why this is a relevant first step to a provable moral statement, but maybe you're right.

How would having this change anything?

More than assuming that's what you thought I was more just commenting on your phrasing:

"Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism."

That's a weak argument, and the rest of it seemed to amount to "we can't know".

You're right. It was a weak argument.

Really I was saying:
You're promoting a system whereby individuals don't get to decide for themselves what is good for them, but that some other agency gets to dictate what is good for each of us.