2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
The whole problem of moralistic ethics is that it assumes its own conclusion. The only reason we consider these questions in the first place is that we are empathetic by nature. In other words, we are biologically predisposed to avoid our own suffering and that of others. So of course all moral ethical frameworks base themselves on the idea of minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness, that's our biological imperative.
But suffering isn't something to be avoided, it's just a reaction to a given environment. From your perspective, your hand burning is immeasurable suffering, from the perspective of the universe, it's just fuel combusting.
These ethics detach themselves from our biology and then build gigantic theoretical frameworks over a set of assumptions that was naively picked in the first place.
Comment by [deleted] at 14/01/2020 at 18:23 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Perspective matters, though. The universe lacks agency, so there's no moral distinction to be made in its regard. Humans, on the other hand, have agency, and so morality is (or at least can be) relevant.