I understand all this.

Fair enough. What led me to say what I did was your earlier summary statement:

Here you seem to claim that moral skepticism (not being able to know any moral claims) entails a rejection of objectivity about morality. Since the definition of moral objectivity that both bunny and I have been using is that it is the view that there are true moral claims, you seem to be asserting that moral skepticism entails moral nihilism.

No thats not what i was saying. But i apparently can't get across what im saying so.. i give.

I seem to have stumbled into a conversation about morality!

I don't get the idea of morals and what people mean by it. It seems like a rather rigid, simplistic way to think about things. Right or wrong. Correct or incorrect. Moral or immoral.

What's wrong with just trying to live in a way that's best for humans? Obviously what's best is open to interpretation and one's own personal opinion. It also cannot be proved. Nor can we say that people are obliged to act the "best" way. We can however look rationally at what could be considered better for humans (or most of them).

Humans generally dislike pain. Hence it's pretty rational to consider lack of pain a "better" option for humans when compared to pain. Not provably better, but considering most people prefer absence of pain you could rationally label absence of pain "better" than being in pain.

So it would be rational for humans to not intentionally inflict pain on each other if we wanted to do the best for us.

I guess this wouldn't apply if you came across some weird twisted species that actually enjoyed being hurt, unless it was due to faulty thinking/mental illness. There are people who actually want to die and have a legitimate reason to do so (incredible pain, 2 months to live etc). In this situation it'd be better to grant their wishes.

Is it not more beneficial for us to think in more realistic terms like this, than to continue playing the "morals" game? It just seems like a strange code where people label acts as ones we're obliged to do, or obliged to avoid. What is the point and why do you do it? Is it just that humans have had the ambiguous concept of "morality" pushed on them for so long, that they can't let it go?

I do think that doing the "best" for humans is what most people generally have in mind when they form their systems of morality. It just seems like a convoluted way to go about it.

Keep trying. I know how frustrating it can be when you're unable to properly convey an idea. Use examples and analogy to make it easier.

The point of your post is not very clear to me. You begin by claiming that morality is rigid and simplistic. Fine. However, you provide no example or reason to accept this claim, so your claim seems to me more a reflection of your biases than a thoughtful conclusion. This becomes even more clear when after rejecting "morality," you propose replacing it with another system of morality! Huh?

Edit: Perhaps I'm being uncharitable. Let me put it this way. Your entire post seems like a non sequitur to me because you are essentially proposing that we replace morality with morality. You say things like, "What's wrong with just trying to live in a way that's best for humans?" and "So it would be rational for humans to not intentionally inflict pain on each other if we wanted to do the best for us." My point is that those are exactly the kinds of claims that underlie morality. I don't care if you don't want to use the word, "morality." But you are not proposing a different way of thinking about what we should do; you are just summarizing a couple of different approaches to morality.

Thanks for the advice but im kind of burnt out on the whole objective, relative, subjective, morality thing. Plus i really dont know much about it so its like i 5 year old talking to a college grad. Which means im probably wrong.

Ah but I'm not. I distinctly said that nobody is obliged to do what's best for everyone. If you want to go around and kill everybody, well that sucks. I'll try to stop you, but people aren't obliged to do anything.

A lot of the behaviours I recommend are probably going to be ones that you consider "moral", but that doesn't mean I'm using a system of morality.

But then again, everybody seems to mean something different by morality. I thought a key part of it was the idea that people should or were obliged to act in certain ways and obliged to avoid other behaviours. And the idea of good and evil etc.

But yeah, morality is basically just a system people use to regulate their behaviour and make choices about what to do. That doesn't mean that you're proposing morality anytime you think about a rational course of action. If I think about what's best for me to do to live a happy life, is that considered thinking about morality? That's exactly what I'm doing here, except extending it from myself to the human population.

I wouldn't call what I'm talking about "morality" and I can't comprehend how it would be meaningful for me to attach that word to it. I don't think the best course of action is "moral" nor do I think the worst course is "immoral".

It might be due to bias, but I just feel weird about morality. It just seems so ambiguous, which is apparent in how everybody has no idea what is moral, or how to even figure out what is. You describe actions by either right or wrong, but nobody knows what it means to be "right". Right in what sense?

All I know is that I could go around in circles for years thinking about what is "right" or whether an action was "right" and never come to a conclusion. I don't think the idea of "right" is particularly descriptive. If I go with "what is the appropriate course of action... if we want to do the best for ourselves" then it becomes a much more meaningful train of thought. I find it much simpler to think about my actions in those terms.

Honestly, I used to think what I'm talking about was morality. I thought morality was simply thinking about your actions in relation to others and trying to do the best by people. But apparently that's not morality itself, but an action that would be considered moral.

If I'm wrong, tell me, because I'm confused now :P

So, you are obviously working with a background notion of "moral obligation" here. But I'm not sure what it is. After all, most philosophers who say that you have an obligation not to do x, whether or not you want to do x, you shouldn't do x. Typically, philosophers will claim that you shouldn't do x because it is in some way irrational, or goes against reason.

Now, you might be saying that no moral system can actually provide us with reasons to act morally, and so it isn't irrational to act immorally. If that is your view, then fine, I think that is reasonable. Of course, in order to show this, you'll need to show why the major moral theories that most people believe do provide us with such reasons fail--which you haven't done.

If however, you are claiming that we don't have an obligation to act according to reason, then I am confused. That is, if you are admitting (as you seem to) that we do have reasons to act morally (such as the prevention of pain, or because it is "better" for humanity), but that these reasons don't put any obligation on us, then I will repeat myself that I think you just don't understand the claims of moral theory.

Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and the other great moral thinkers were deeply interested in trying to show that we have reason to act morally. But there isn't some deeper level at which we are then obligated to act rational. This obligation is like the obligation that a mathematician has to accept the answer of a correct proof. She doesn't have to do so in some physical sense. It isn't like her head will explode if she doesn't. But nonetheless, we would say that insofar as she acts rationally, she will accept the proof. Similarly, if Mill successfully shows that we have a reason to maximize utility in our actions, then insofar as we are rational we will do so. But it isn't like we then need some deeper reason to act rational.

I guess the main problem is that unless you are irrationally recommending behavior, then you are using morality as the basis for your recommendation.
Well, of course, this depends on what theory of morality you think is correct. Many moral theories actually do claim that morality is a consideration of all rational action.

Also, the question of what constitutes a happy life is a central question of moral theory. Many of the most important texts on this subject, such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, are also primary texts in the history of moral philosophy. And extending this to everyone is basically just utilitarianism.

As I said before, just because you don't want to use the label "morality" doesn't mean that you are not talking about morality. What you assert here are claims that are common in moral philosophy, so it seems kind of perverse to relabel it. But whatever...it isn't that big a deal what you call it.
I think this is a completely understandable feeling. However, unless you've studied moral philosophy in some depth, your conclusion doesn't justifiably follow. After all, I have a similar feeling about some claims in quantum mechanics. However, since I'm basically a novice about physics, I don't claim that the experts are not clear, or that physics doesn't make sense. Similar considerations should apply in moral theory.

Actually, you don't know this. If you studied moral philosophy for years, you would probably get a much better idea of what "right" means. You probably won't answer all of your questions, but that is something we never do.

I don't really understand the point of the distinction you are making here. Not really sure what you mean by "morality itself" here either.

Thank you for the post, and I will take the time to digest it.

I'm still confused though. I guess I'm just unclear on what is really meant by morality. I keep thinking I know, but I'm not sure. I dunno, would you be able to me an explanation of precisely what you mean when you talk about the concept "morality"?

OK, I've been Wikipediaing it and I'm getting it. I was wrong. Ignore what I said above.

Edit: I should really read either the thread, or about the subject matter before I come guns blazing into a thread and spout off

There's no shame in being wrong. It's part of learning and personal development.

I hope not because im wrong all the time.