A Call for Ethical Consistency: Is Consequentialism Enough? The Role of Intention and Volition in Moral Action

Debate Room
1

The assumption that “all living beings cherish their lives, fear death, seek happiness, and shy away from pain” is a perspective that many hold. It is often used as a foundational concept in discussions about morality.

The question of whether a moral framework can be based on facts and evidence is intriguing. Sam Harris argues for this in his book “The Moral Landscape,” suggesting that morality can be grounded in the well-being of conscious creatures. He challenges the idea that morality is either relative or dictated by religion, proposing instead that rationality and science can inform our understanding of human values. It’s not about needing a deity for objective moral values, but rather about using solidarity and rationality to establish them. However, there are problems with his theory.

While consequentialism justifies actions based on their outcomes, it often overlooks the morality of the intention behind the action. For example, killing animals for medical research may produce life-saving outcomes, but the act of killing itself—motivated by the intention to end a life—remains morally problematic.
Deontological ethics focuses on intention and volition, arguing that actions like killing violate the intrinsic value of life, regardless of the benefits they bring. Justifying morally questionable actions through their outcome’s risks ignoring the moral duty to respect all sentient beings. Kant’s categorical imperative also warns against universalizing such actions, as it leads to contradictions. In moral evaluations, both intention and the action’s inherent morality must be considered, not just the outcomes. Ultimately, ethical consistency requires that we respect life and dignity, rather than relying on justifications that serve utility.

Your thoughts on this?

1 Like
2

I don’t believe that morality must have a foundation in order to be followed.

Please consider a very primitive animal like the Portuguese man-o-war jellyfish. This jellyfish is actually a colony of several animals that live collectively, and–as a colony–they must follow rules to survive, like “share food,” “don’t attack your neighbor,” and “don’t eat our offspring.”

These rules are like simple versions of the Ten Commandments, yet jellyfish have existed for over 500 million years, and possibly predate the Cambrian Explosion.

We don’t need religious faith to have justification for following rules that work to everyone’s benefit, and the theist idea that only God and eternal punishment are neccesary to keep everyone in line makes the assumption that God is the only thing that keeps us all from being sociopaths . . . and I reject this reasoning.

If we can have faith in God, then why not skip a step and have faith that doing the right thing purely for its own sake is all that’s needed.

If the jellyfish don’t need religion to be good to each other, then why should we need religion to justify being good to each other? It’s worked for the jellyfish for over 500 million years.

3 Likes
3

I agree with you.
My focus is on how intention or volition should guide moral behavior, suggesting that actions are inherently moral or immoral based on their intrinsic nature, regardless of their consequences. This aligns with a deontological approach, where moral duties guide actions without the need for a religious framework. Where you use the example of jellyfish to argue that even in nature, cooperative behavior exists without religious belief, and humans can also follow moral rules for their own sake without requiring divine commandments.
I really appreciate the example though.
The main argument I wanted to discuss here is focused on intention vs. outcomes in moral philosophy, emphasizing intrinsic morality over utilitarian justifications.

1 Like
4

I don’t distinguish between utilitarian justifications and intrinsic morality, as I believe that a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

As a registered nurse and a paramedic, I tend to view the world in practical terms, and I believe that morality is situational rather than absolute.

As an example, consider cannibalism. The very thought makes people cringe, although we may be forgiving if people are stranded in a remote location and engage in cannibalism (as a last resort) to survive.

Yet consider that the purpose of eating is–in part–to replenish, maintain, and build tissue in the body.

So, what about organ donation?

Recycling a kidney or a heart from a dead body to help a sick person is a form of cannibalism . . . except that we skip the digestive tract. The same thing can be said about blood donation.

My point in bringing this up is that even the most morally repugnant act can be noble and kind depending upon the circumstances and situation.

Using the dogma of religion to guide morality may increase human misery and death when we view a changing, evolving world in terms of absolutes. A real-word example that I often use are lightning rods. It was considered sacreligious and morally wrong to put lightning rods on church steeples, because lightning comes from God. This is why churches were considered the best place to store gunpowder, because God would never strike a church filled with pious people.

Well, the church in Brescia, Italy, exploded when the 90 metric tons of gunpowder blew up when lightning hit the church . . . and killed thousands of people and destroyed more than 15% of the town.

Morality should be guided by our intellect, not religion.

2 Likes
5

Whilst I’d share the sentiment of the latter claim, it is a subjective view, and not an objective fact. Morality seems subjective to me, and relative. However I shall ask what i always ask, please present an objective moral fact.

I don’t see why religion is any more relevant to morality than any other subjective belief, and whilst I’d agree reason and science can help us make more informed decisions, the notion of whether those decisions are moral must ultimately rest on a subjective opinion.

Both notions are subjective, consequentialism doesn’t change the fact that the basis for our morality ultimately must rest on subjective beliefs, the best we can hope for is a broad consensus on some of the more extreme behaviours, but ultimately nothing (that I am aware of) can be claimed to be objectively immoral.

Whilst this is a sentiment I share, it is not an objectively true belief. It is enough (for me anyway) to acknowledge that I should treat others in a way I myself would want to be treated.

I agree, but again this is a subjective view.

3 Likes
6

Indeed, one lesson I’ve learned is that one’s view of ethics is strongly dependent upon which axioms one treats as being both true and of primary importance.

I would also like to know:

[1] Is it possible to define an “intrinsic moral value” for an action?
[2] Does there exist a reliable and rigorous test for said “intrinsic moral value”?

Without a positive and detailed answer to those two questions, any assertions about a purported “intrinsic moral value” are meaningless.

4 Likes
7

I am about to propose a moral framework grounded in facts and subjective experience. It may contain some issues, so I would appreciate assistance in refining it. This is influenced by Sam Harris’ framework, Buddhism, and OP.

A Moral Framework Based on Subjective Experience and Factual Evidence

This framework avoids invoking deities or metaphysical belief systems, focusing instead on subjective experience and observable facts. It grounds moral decisions in rational compassion and the objective consequences of actions, particularly concerning harm and pleasure.

Clarifying “Bad” to Avoid Equivocation

Definition: In this framework, “bad” refers to actions that cause harm, suffering, or negative consequences to oneself or others. Harm includes physical or emotional pain, suffering, or death, as well as the corruption of the mind through negative emotions such as hatred, lust, envy, greed, etc. This definition covers both tangible and intangible harm.

All living beings perceive the world through their senses, experiencing sensations that are pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent. Instinctively, all living beings avoid pain and seek pleasure, a trait rooted in evolutionary biology.

Defining Harm and Pleasure

Harm: Actions or consequences that lead to unpleasant sensations (pain), suffering, or death.
Pleasure: Actions or consequences that lead to pleasant sensations, happiness, or well-being.

Rational Compassion as the Basis for Morality

Instead of relying on empathy, which can be biased toward kin or aligned values, this framework uses rational compassion—a reasoned, fact-based approach to moral decisions. Rational compassion seeks to minimize harm and suffering for all individuals based on objective criteria, rather than personal bias. (Paul Bloom proposes this)

Moral Judgments Based on Universal Experiences

Claim: If an action consistently leads to harm (unpleasant sensations and suffering), it is undesirable.
Conclusion: Therefore, we “ought” to avoid actions that cause harm because they lead to universally undesirable outcomes. This conclusion follows from rational compassion, which is based on observable consequences and the objective value of minimizing suffering.

All Living Beings Cherish Life and Fear Death

All living beings instinctively avoid death and seek happiness. Even individuals who contemplate ending their lives still seek to avoid pain, reflecting an inherent value placed on life. This instinctual desire to preserve life and avoid suffering supports the moral principle of minimizing harm.

Pain and Pleasure as Fundamental Variables
Claim: Pain is bad, and pleasure is good. Indifference, which causes no pain, is neutral and therefore acceptable. Pain and pleasure are the primary factors determining whether life is perceived as good or bad.
Moral Principle: To act morally, one must consider the pain and pleasure experienced by all parties involved. Even those who derive pleasure from causing pain (such as psychopaths) avoid pain themselves, demonstrating the universality of these sensations.

Reflection on Actions: Volition and Consequences

Claim: Actions should be evaluated based on their intentions (volition) and consequences. Morality can be grounded in the dual evaluation of whether an action:

  1. Reflects harmful intentions (e.g., greed, hatred, or selfishness).
  2. Leads to harmful consequences for oneself or others.

This reflection allows us to determine whether an action, word, or thought is morally skillful or unskillful.

Skillful actions are those motivated by rational compassion, aiming to minimize harm and promote well-being.
Unskillful actions are driven by negative emotions like greed, hatred, or delusion, leading to harmful consequences. For instance, actions driven by hatred can result in violence, while actions driven by greed may lead to exploitation.

Principle of Responsibility

A key principle in this framework is responsibility: each person is responsible only for their own actions, not for the actions of others. This means that if someone pulls the lever in the Railway Track Problem, they assume responsibility for the death, even if their intention was to save others. However, in cases where inaction does not directly cause harm, the individual is not morally responsible for the negative outcome.

Addressing Utilitarian Arguments

  1. Railway Track Problem: The person who pulls the lever is responsible for the death that results. By intervening, they assume direct responsibility for the harm, making the action morally problematic. In contrast, if they do not intervene, they are not morally responsible for the deaths, since they did not directly cause the harm.
  2. Killing a Terrorist: Killing a terrorist to save others, regardless of intention, is inherently problematic because the act of killing corrupts the mind and causes harm. In this framework, responsibility lies with the person who commits the act of killing, regardless of whether it is for a greater good. The principle of proportionality, often used in utilitarian arguments to justify killing for the greater good, is rejected here. Instead, the focus remains on the intention and the inherent corruption of the mind that comes with committing violence.

Volition and Consequences as Moral Dimensions

When evaluating actions, intention is crucial to clarify whether an action, word, or thought is inherently harmful. If one’s intention is to save others and not to harm, as in the case of self-sacrifice, the action is morally acceptable even if it leads to one’s own death. Conversely, if one acts with selfish or harmful intentions, the action is morally corrupt, regardless of the outcome.

Consequences are also important to determine whether an action leads to harm for both oneself and others. However, responsibility for consequences lies only with the actions of the individual, not the actions of others.

Objective Foundation for Morality

The foundation of morality in this framework is based on the objective criteria of pain and pleasure. Actions causing harm (pain, suffering, death) are bad, while those promoting well-being (pleasure, happiness, health) are good. By using rational compassion, we can avoid the biases inherent in empathy and create a more consistent moral system that minimizes harm for all individuals.

8

Huh? Please explain why these things are negative and how, specifically, they corrupt the mind.

1 Like
9

I wonder if this poster is mentioning a form of the slippery slope, in the context that once you commit a crime (like shoplifting), it becomes easier next time.

In law enforcment, this view is related to “broken windows” policing. Basically, if we aggressive prosecute low level crimes (like graffitti), then we prevent major crimes because we are nipping criminality in the bud, or interrupting a progression of crime.

10

That could be, Kevin. But only the poster can tell us for sure, eh?

2 Likes
12

Negative emotions like hatred, lust, envy, and greed are inherently harmful because they distort our perception of reality, leading to actions that ultimately bring bad consequences. These emotions arise from instinctive mental forces - greed (attachment) when we desire what we find pleasant, and aversion (hatred) when we reject what is unpleasant. Hatred overstimulates the nervous system, leading to stress and aggression, while lust can overstimulate the brain’s reward circuitry, fostering addictive behaviors. Envy leads to unhealthy social comparisons, damaging self-esteem, and greed pushes individuals toward risk-taking and aggressive behaviors, resulting in negative social or financial outcomes. These emotions, aside from their immediate effects, can also contribute to a slippery slope of escalating harmful behaviors.

1 Like
13

Are you asserting that these emotions are always harmful? Are you asserting that they always distort our perception of reality? Are you asserting that they always result in bad consequences?
What do you propose one do when experiencing these emotions?

Like what?

Are you asserting that desiring what one finds pleasant is negative? Or that rejecting that which one finds unpleasant is negative?

2 Likes
14

If I say so, I am saying it from a Buddhist perspective which is not relatable to this forum at all. Hence go with a milder version where to a certain extent these emotions can be healthy and not harmful. These emotions exist on a spectrum, and in some cases, they might serve short-term adaptive purposes. For instance, lust in a relationship can foster intimacy, and envy can motivate self-improvement. However, when these emotions are excessive or dominate one’s thoughts and behaviors, they typically lead to harm, such as addiction, resentment, or destructive actions. It’s the intensity and duration of these emotions that often dictate when they become harmful. The margin is always determined by subjective experience and social contract. Therefore, leads to moral relativity.

From a Buddhist perspective, yes. Again keeping deeper Buddhist philosophy aside, it’s not that these emotions always distort reality, but rather that they tend to when they are unchecked or irrationally amplified. For example, Hatred can make us view others as threats or enemies, even when they may not pose a real danger. Lust can cause us to prioritize immediate pleasure over long-term well-being.

So, while these emotions do not necessarily always distort reality, their extreme forms tend to skew our perceptions, making it harder to act with clarity and reason.

No, not always. However, unchecked or dominant emotions often result in negative outcomes. While these emotions may not cause immediate harm in moderation, their overwhelming presence typically leads to adverse effects. The pleasure derived from actions prompted by these emotions is fleeting and can ultimately result in pain and aversion. Liking something can lead to a desire for possession, which necessitates protection, possibly requiring investment in security measures, and could escalate to the use of weapons, conflict, or even war.

Mindfulness and meditation practices have become increasingly popular worldwide, demonstrating effectiveness in stress relief, emotion regulation, and the treatment of various mental disorders, among other benefits. reflecting on your emotions and deeds also helps. Ask yourself what the emotion is telling you and whether it’s grounded in reality. For instance, is envy indicating a desire for self-improvement, or is it distorting your view of others?

The “slippery slope” refers to the idea that indulging in minor negative behaviors can lead to more serious actions over time, right?
For instance, Hatred may begin with minor acts of exclusion or avoidance but escalate to outright aggression or violence. Greed may start as simple selfishness but could evolve into fraud or exploitation if not kept in check.

Again from a Buddhist perspective, yes.
Desiring pleasant things and rejecting unpleasant things are natural, instinctual reactions. The problem arises when attachment (greed) to the pleasant or aversion (hatred) to the unpleasant becomes excessive or irrational. For example Desire for pleasure becomes problematic when it leads to compulsive behaviors, like addiction or unethical actions to acquire what we want. Avoidance of pain becomes harmful when it results in cruelty, avoidance of necessary challenges, or hatred toward others we perceive as threats. In other words, it’s not the act of desiring or rejecting itself that is negative, but the degree to which we let these drives control our actions that can lead to harm. Determining the margin is subjective, as the threshold varies from person to person. When actions affect both oneself and others, a social contract is essential to establish boundaries. To develop an almost objective moral framework, we must tackle such issues. Assuming or proving that all the emotions mentioned inevitably lead to negative outcomes could help eliminate this subjectivity and relativity.

15

vs.

For future reference, perhaps you should have included the latter when asserting the former. It would have minimized confusion, would not have required subsequent explanation, and resulted in a far more reasonable statement.

3 Likes
16

This seems like an oversimplification to me, and if such emotions are innate in us, they likely evolved for a reason. I can’t speak for others of course, but lust has not always led to bad consequences for me. :innocent: Hatred need not be harmful either, I can hate certain actions or behaviours with a deep aversion, things like racism, rape and murder for example.

It can, but again this depends how one reacts to it, it can be a strong motivator to work hard for things we desire.

Hmm, that sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me.

2 Likes
17

There are overwhelming pieces of evidence that people go down that path that I presume I don’t have to show them here, If you see this as a fallacy, you are blind to the evidence.
Furthermore, Why I said emotions like hatred, lust, envy, and greed are inherently harmful. Western psychology posits these emotions are healthy to a certain extent.
@CyberLN Neglected my point to show I am contradicting where I have given the reason why I changed the statement.

18

You did contradict yourself.
If what you were doing with your second statement was revising your previous statement, then indicating that would have been advisable.
It wasn’t neglect, it was my failure to be a mind reader. :smirk:

1 Like
19

My bad, I was stating two different perspectives, however, I wasn’t clear enough. I have stated it in the second statement, You neglected that part and found the contradiction. From a Buddhist standpoint, the emotions I have described are considered negative, including lust, which may provide temporary pleasure. I hope that you do not oppose any doctrines acknowledged as religions worldwide.

How can emotions like craving, lust, and greed be harmful?
It is the feeling you get from your senses you are attached to (from an empirical point of view but with no God). That causes craving. when you crave something you seek it. then it goes down that path to own it.

Craving leads to seeking. Seeking leads to getting things. Getting things leads to judging them. Judging them leads to wanting and lusting. Wanting and lusting lead to attachment. Attachment leads to ownership. Ownership leads to stinginess. Stinginess leads to protecting what you have. Owing to protecting many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies.

This will go down in two different paths,

  1. You are powerful and competent than your opponent, you’ll do all of or some of the above surprising the opponent.
  2. You might not do all these things if you are weaker than the opponent, would you let go of the things that you love? if you can’t fight you feel sad, betrayed, helpless, etc. Perhaps you’ll try indirect approaches like reputation destruction of the opponent spreading gossip. :joy:

Does this occur constantly? No, it doesn’t. When you comprehend the world as it truly is, you recognize that things change. Consequently, you manage your attachments and, with understanding, you let them go. Without attachment, the subsequent steps on this path do not materialize. You may possess things you cherish, but you won’t feel let down if you lose them. Achieving this requires self-awareness of your thoughts. There’s no necessity for a deity, metaphysical force, or law to protect or guide you.

In this sense, some of the emotions that are considered healthy in psychology can be categorized as harmful. If you pay enough attention you can see these things happening to yourself. in your family and, ultimately, all around the world.

20
  1. Saying “there is overwhelming evidence” is not evidence.
  2. In your claim you presented no evidence.
  3. It demonstrably was a slippery slope fallacy, you actually used the words in your fallacious claim. Now here is some actual evidence for that claim (FYI I linked it above as well).

“In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends.”

Rather undermining your claim, obviously. FWIW, it seems more likely that our reactions to those emotions are the determining factor and whether they become pernicious or not.

That takes care of that one anyway.

  1. I see nothing harmful in temporary pleasure.
  2. Lust as part of a relationship need not be temporary.
  3. Lust can help produce children and a family.

I would imagine there are countless pieces of religious doctrine that I would oppose, since some of it ranges from pernicious, to vile and abhorrently cruel.

It doesn’t matter, since the result need not always be pernicious. Happiness can be pernicious, if what makes you happy is harmful to others, saying emotion X can be pernicious, whilst trivially true, is also a little bit facile. It’s actions that can be harmful, and emotions can feed and inform actions, so we need to be aware of that, and consider the consequences of our actions.

FWIW recent research suggests that atheists are more likely to consider the consequences of their actions, as part of their moral worldview.

“A new study suggests that, while atheists and theists share moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, atheists are less likely to endorse values that promote group cohesion and more inclined to judge the morality of actions based on their consequences. Tomas Ståhl of the University of Illinois at Chicago presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on February 24, 2021.”

CITATION

Craving, can cause craving?

Can, not always does, again it is how onw reacts to the craving, that determines whether it becomes pernicious. I have dealt with lust above.

Then your claims above are again facile. We already now that emotions can inform actions, and that actions can be pernicious. Religions often teach doctrinal beliefs as immutably true, this sort of indoctrination is unlikely to instil followers with the habit of weighing consequences, rather than simply blindly believing behaviour X is moral, and behaviour Y is immoral. Just as you are doing here really.

Well there you go, you just demonstrated my point. You’ve been taught by a religion to believe those emotions are harmful, rather than to think critically, and weigh the consequences of actions that those emotions might inform.

And thus try and avoid those harmful behaviours, thus those emotions need not be harmful at all.

2 Likes
21

First of all, I have to admit my mistake. This was a mistake on my part as I attempted to use the phrase without a proper understanding of the terminology. My perspective differs from that of the ‘slippery slope’ concept.
Let’s make this argument about how unskillful emotions work again.

  1. You start with an emotion and act on it.
  2. The satisfaction you get from acting on the emotion depends on how much you value the outcome.
  3. Acting on the emotion results in pleasure, which is associated with a flood of dopamine in the brain Brain Reward System (simplypsychology.org).
  4. After the initial surge, dopamine levels drop, leading to feelings of exhaustion or fleeting emotions.
  5. The value given to the experience is based on how attached you are to the feeling derived from it.
  6. This can lead to craving the dopamine reward rather than the process itself, similar to how addiction develops.
    Ex: Process of drug addiction
    Motivated Behavior: Reward Pathway
    This article from Michigan State University describes the reward circuit involving dopamine release from the VTA into the NAc and prefrontal cortex. It explains how dopamine signaling predicts reward value and can be altered if predicted outcomes differ from actual outcomes

This explanation is based on established psychological and neurological principles, showing a clear cause-and-effect relationship. It does not suggest an unsupported chain reaction leading to a significant negative outcome, which is characteristic of a slippery slope fallacy. Instead, it describes a well-documented process of how the brain’s reward system functions and how addiction can develop.

I agree with your perspective. While it’s true that our reactions to emotions play a significant role in determining their impact, it’s also important to consider the inherent nature of certain emotions.
However, when you are reacting to those emotions mindfully you you have the control to decide the outcome. this is what we can recognize as moral competence. Even though you have moral competence you might at times fall for emotions and react harmfully. this occurs due to inherent characteristics these emotions has.
Emotions like lust and greed, when left unchecked, can lead to harmful behaviors and negative consequences. For instance, lust can lead to objectification and unhealthy relationships, while greed can result in unethical actions and societal harm. Research in psychology suggests that emotions like lust and greed are often linked to negative outcomes. For example, greed is associated with risk-taking and aggressive behaviors, which can be detrimental to both individuals and society.

I am a bit pessimistic about this.
At what cost you are getting a small amount of pleasure? Temporary pleasure, especially when derived from emotions like lust and greed, can lead to long-term negative consequences.
While families can bring happiness, they also come with their own set of challenges. Different individuals within a family have varying motivations and desires, which can lead to conflicts and problems. See also. The dynamics of family life are complex, and maintaining harmony requires effort and understanding. While temporary pleasure and family life can bring happiness, they also come with significant costs and challenges. This is self-evident to anyone who has experienced the complexities of human emotions and relationships.

Of course, as a species on this Earth, our instincts drive us to reproduce and maintain the gene flow. However, that doesn’t define our purpose in life. We adapt these instincts to make sense of them, especially since the world is always challenging us. Some instincts manifest in unusual ways now that we are no longer fighting for survival in the wild. For instance, in a tribe, women might be drawn to the person who provides food, defeats a tiger, or is physically imposing. Nowadays, these instincts persist but manifest differently, leading to attraction towards film stars and sportsmen. This is the world in which we navigate family dynamics. Though you value family for your own reasons, you knowingly or unknowingly struggle to keep up with all the hassle to keep those values and pleasures going, thus as I explained earlier you have to protect them.
The paradox
You go to work to earn money and live happily, but in doing so, you often don’t have time to actually be happy. To find happiness, you may get married and have a partner, but maintaining that can mean sacrificing your time, money, and many other things you might otherwise enjoy.

When you are angry with someone do you feel pleasurable? when you are burning with lust and have no means to satisfy are you experiencing pleasure?

I agree with this perspective. Many of our actions and relationships are driven by a utilitarian approach, where we instinctively weigh the benefits and outcomes. For example, when asked why we are friends with someone, we often cite their positive characteristics or the benefits we derive from the relationship, such as support, companionship, or shared interests. This utilitarian mindset helps us navigate social interactions and make decisions that maximize our overall well-being and happiness. By recognizing the value and advantages of our connections, we can better understand the motivations behind our actions and foster more meaningful relationships.
There is no reason why this isn’t helpful in moral decisions.
The issue with the utilitarian perspective is its perceived hypocrisy; it deems the killing of animals acceptable, but not humans, under the assumption that human lives hold greater value than those of animals. Meanwhile, psychology continues to explore the potential for animal consciousness. Let aside the animals, “killing people because they kill people,” does this even make any sense? Consider the Israel conflict people criticize Hamas for killing and slaughtering but they are totally fine when palastienians are being slaughtered. The utilitarian perspective is not new, it is primitive, and animals have it.

No, the feeling itself is the cause of craving. You may believe you are drawn to a cake, but in reality, you are attracted to the sensations it evokes, whether through sight, sound, touch, and so on. Predominantly, it is the taste that lures you in this instance.

Good for you,
You can either find the means to satisfy it, or understand why you get that kind of emotion, and with the understanding the emotions cease to exist, but not without lots of effort.

In all other instances, I concur with you, as you do with me. Any inconsistencies might stem from my limited proficiency in English, as it is my second language. This was the issue with the slippery slope argument. I appreciate your clarification on this matter.

This response was helpful. Understanding the balance between religious doctrine and reason can be quite enlightening.

In this scenario, objective morality appears unattainable, although this does not imply that subjective morality is flawed. You can derive your moral values without any objective basis just fine. This is where Sam Harris’ claim is vulnerable.
Fact: Everyone knows touching a hot pan is harmful and leads to pain, therefore everyone agrees touching a hot pan is bad.
Claim: Touching a hot pan is bad (objectively)
Harris commits a critical error by conflating the objective fact of universal agreement that X is true with the objective truth of X itself. The universal subjective aversion to pain and suffering does not render such experiences objectively bad; truth is not equivalent to collective sentiment.

To establish an objective moral framework, it is necessary to identify a cause or a set of facts that do not depend on a social contract, thereby avoiding moral relativism.