Happiness and Unhappiness
Hello TPF! This is my first post!
It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true.
Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective. This means that any statements along the lines of 'my morals' or 'that cultures morals' is incoherent. What they should be saying is their incorrect interpretation of morals, or their immorality. They are free to declare their immorality. But since morality is an objective thing, nigh unto unknowable, they should not sully the idea of it by this subjective declaration. To me, it is precisely similar to saying, 'my gravity is different'. Nope.
My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness. Genuine happiness is defined (by me) as happiness resulting from the maturity level of the person or moral agent. This ties in with the link between good moral choices and immoral choices. The trouble is that maturity involves work along the path of many virtues.
My 4th contention is that singular virtues or virtue themed areas within the scope of morality are the parts of morality. I am not interested in this post in listing them.
My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues. It becomes necessary then to map out objective morality by discovering all the virtues or virtue nexus areas. Thus a person's wisdom is essentially their 'score' of their weakest virtue.
Note: Since I would say awareness/intelligence is only one virtue, this shows a relative importance of intelligence to wisdom. That is to say intelligence is far far less important than wisdom, despite being an integral part of it. If one is super high on intelligence and lacks for example unity/compassion as a virtue, then that person is not wise.
My 6th contention is that despite the truth of contention 5, the 1st assertion consequence of happiness from any choice or action can be ... fooled ... for lack of a better term. In other words if one is increasingly aware/intelligent one gets more and more of the part of happiness that results from that despite the unhappiness that same person gets from other low feedback evidence resulting from other weak virtues. This shows how people unwisely focus on their strengths instead of their weaknesses and thus have a serious impediment to becoming wise.
Note: This contention is why I mention genuine happiness in contention 3. Genuine happiness is only along a single path within reality. All virtues are bent by the force of other virtues acting on them. Awareness must be tempered with compassion, for example.
Right now I am not consumed by the need to list the virtues. I already have that list. But, I am more focused on the first 6 contentions and how they interact. I want to discover if there are meaningful and well stated criticisms of these assertions.
Right now I am also not consumed by the need to connect morality to the physical world. I already have done that. But, I still believe that the 6 contentions above are rather able to stand alone in their character and revelations.
It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true.
Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective. This means that any statements along the lines of 'my morals' or 'that cultures morals' is incoherent. What they should be saying is their incorrect interpretation of morals, or their immorality. They are free to declare their immorality. But since morality is an objective thing, nigh unto unknowable, they should not sully the idea of it by this subjective declaration. To me, it is precisely similar to saying, 'my gravity is different'. Nope.
My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness. Genuine happiness is defined (by me) as happiness resulting from the maturity level of the person or moral agent. This ties in with the link between good moral choices and immoral choices. The trouble is that maturity involves work along the path of many virtues.
My 4th contention is that singular virtues or virtue themed areas within the scope of morality are the parts of morality. I am not interested in this post in listing them.
My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues. It becomes necessary then to map out objective morality by discovering all the virtues or virtue nexus areas. Thus a person's wisdom is essentially their 'score' of their weakest virtue.
Note: Since I would say awareness/intelligence is only one virtue, this shows a relative importance of intelligence to wisdom. That is to say intelligence is far far less important than wisdom, despite being an integral part of it. If one is super high on intelligence and lacks for example unity/compassion as a virtue, then that person is not wise.
My 6th contention is that despite the truth of contention 5, the 1st assertion consequence of happiness from any choice or action can be ... fooled ... for lack of a better term. In other words if one is increasingly aware/intelligent one gets more and more of the part of happiness that results from that despite the unhappiness that same person gets from other low feedback evidence resulting from other weak virtues. This shows how people unwisely focus on their strengths instead of their weaknesses and thus have a serious impediment to becoming wise.
Note: This contention is why I mention genuine happiness in contention 3. Genuine happiness is only along a single path within reality. All virtues are bent by the force of other virtues acting on them. Awareness must be tempered with compassion, for example.
Right now I am not consumed by the need to list the virtues. I already have that list. But, I am more focused on the first 6 contentions and how they interact. I want to discover if there are meaningful and well stated criticisms of these assertions.
Right now I am also not consumed by the need to connect morality to the physical world. I already have done that. But, I still believe that the 6 contentions above are rather able to stand alone in their character and revelations.
Comments (47)
Just want to pick on this first point.
Its interesting that youve somehow linked morality with happiness. And perhaps there is truth in it because doing the right moral actions signifies that that person has a conscience and doing the wrong moral action would lead to guilt in an individual. But this is not always the case as one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it. Or make correct moral choices and feel neither happiness or sadness.
But now assume someone just found a suitcase with a million dollars in it. The right moral action would be to return it to its rightful owner however if they the choose the immoral choice which is to keep it by your logic they would be unhappy ?
Welcome
What do you think about brain chemistry regarding happiness then. Why are my dogs happier than my cats?
It would be my contention that regardless of an immoral actor's perception, they DO become inflicted with unhappiness based on immoral actions. Based on contentions 3,4, and 6 the trouble is that the best happiness they have ever felt is a consequence of their low moral choices in general. They have no benchmark to understand a more genuine happiness relative to where they are.
But this lack of virtue/awareness/perception works both ways. That is to say, the wise suffer more exquisitely than the unwise. Suffering is the only path to wisdom. So their dullness is a consequence of their dullness, if you follow. It's actually the same with animals.
But animals are already lesser moral agents than humans are. Increasing agency opens a wider scope of happiness and of good/evil choice. In such a way the amplitude moral agency can be expressed as an absolute value. It's every bit as possibly good as it is possibly evil. This is the fulcrum upon which free will balances.
The moral agency amplitude can be envisioned as a cup or container. When it is accidentally filled further than it has been before, with any virtue, then that part of happiness can be experienced. Although a given moral agent may not be routinely functional at that level, they are now increased in the virtue at least of awareness regarding this happiness. It is another related sub contention that once a moral agent experiences this, and certainly regularly, they begin to crave that happiness and indeed find it harder to 'sin' against it, to act in immoral ways. This is the street kid that finally finds a more moral family type of situation. This is the abused creature that finally finds some measure of regular non-abuse. It is also the self indulgent eater that finally gets thin to win. It's harder once awareness is there to intend the immoral. And even if the moral agent overcomes that 'difficulty' they still suffer more unhappiness in their full awareness. I still argue that as a law of the universe they experience the full measure of unhappiness even if they do not perceive it.
Keep in mind that as mentioned, genuine happiness is better than just a spike of a virtue. For example the virtue of achievement and the subsequent earning of profits can certainly be described as immoral, especially after excess (but really just in general). So the stronger and stronger expression of choice through the achievement virtue does offer greater and greater happiness. But that happiness is not genuine or full. It's the same with any addiction. The happiness becomes empty. And I digress to mention this, but, giddiness is always a moral error consequence. It is a red flag to me.
In the case of the money, yes, if the finder kept it, they are going to experience unhappiness. They will know that they did not earn it. As another digression I will mention that it is not possible to morally earn anything except wisdom and happiness. All other earnings are not actually earned. They can be separated from you. Only you can separate your wisdom and happiness from yourself. That is part of the truth of free will.
This has actually happened to me. I tend to notice things others miss. I have, over the years, found many jewelry items. I have always tried to return them except in two cases. The one was when I was a child. My parents kept a diamond engagement ring I found in a lake and ... gave it to my sister. They/we made no effort to return it and I did feel guilty both immediately and even still about it. I do forgive myself my part. I was only a child. But I felt it was wrong and odd even then. The second case was where I did advertise the find of an extremely valuable diamond bracelet in a parking garage of all places. No one answered the ad that ran for two weeks at my expense. I pawned it but still felt guilty. Of course I did what most people would say is enough. But only the perfect is enough in reality. Morality is tricky business.
As a choice gets more and more good, it is harder and harder to make. This is why the wise are comfortable with suffering. That suffering is necessary. In this case effort is part of what is called suffering. And the wiser one gets the more this effort is a happy thing therefore. But the wise also thus inflict necessary suffering on the unwise to allow them a safer opportunity to earn wisdom.
Hopefully all of that is a sufficient answer. Continue if you'd like.
I would guess initially that dogs and cats are stronger and weaker on differing virtues. As mentioned , Further, individual dogs and cats are also different in terms of moral agency although they hover around a certain specific moral agency amplitude.
If independence is a virtue and I think that is arguable, then cats are better at this than dogs are. But the orderly following of hierarchy and joy, both arguable virtues, are certainly higher in dogs as is measurable intelligence which is something beyond just sensory observation.
It's interesting that this set of examples serves to help argue for my points.
Also, this brings up a digression as well. That is ... I do believe the universe has morality as a law. That means indeed the table has a moral agency. The storm is certainly a moral agent. And this rises into living creatures before reaching its zenith as far as we know in humanity.
The animists were always more correct than religion. :) {First guess is best}
None of what you said made any sense to me, but I am fine with that.
How about feeling pain due to random circumstance. A person that endures a lot of pain will generally be less happy compared to one who does. Is it then somehow immoral to get a disease that brings about a lot of pain?
Isn't Good the foundation of morality, rather than happiness? Maybe happiness is linked to Good. If so, how so?
Is happiness always good? Therefore being happy is morally good? Not sure if it is the case. Please elaborate on the points.
I am very glad you asked this.
It is not easy to understand the good, to understand the perfect. ... That being said, Yes, all manner of weakness is immorality to some degree.
That is consistent with me suggesting that even a single almost perfectly moral act would be the hardest act or choice ever one could do.
Further, many people confuse state as being neutral. State is not neutral. That is to say the state or consequence in being of a person is a consequence of choices and actions that came before. The more immorality amid the choices, and none of us is anywhere near perfect, the more likelihood of a current state that is effectively an immoral consequence.
Of course one virtue of the good is forgiveness. The wise forgive everything and as near to perfect in forgiveness as can be chosen. This dynamic reduces or in the case of perfection erases animosity towards other choosers, and oneself as well if properly understood.
A person cannot be evil. Only their choices are. Likewise a person cannot be good. Only their choices are.
Enduring suffering is the path to wisdom. But the ascetics went too far when they inflicted unnecessary self-flagellation. Indeed they did not show as great a wisdom as if they truly found lighthearted joy amid necessary suffering.
Sounds like chat GTP, welcome to the forum.
Probably because your cats feel no obligation to impress you.
I did already explain that link.
You the aim is towards the good. That is something I might also call perfection.
The link is that good aimed actions and choices have a consequence of happiness. We can be more specific by saying the more and more good an action or choice has in aim, the more and more happiness that action has as a consequence.
Again, as also already explained, this issue is clouded by understandable misunderstandings related to choosing a behavior that amplifies one or a few virtues while copping out on other virtues. The built in law of nature rewards of morality are partite. Each virtue has a return. But wisdom and the good are the best behaviors and more to the point the best behavior sets, including all virtues.
As also mentioned, disingenuous happiness is relative. That means there is still some happiness. Certainly life or existence would cease entirely if happiness was zero. That fits the model. So we can postulate that that has not happened. Likewise we can postulate that perfect good as a choice has not happened. It would cause some metaverse affecting event if it did, possibly the purpose of the existence of the multiverse being realized.
So, being happy in the sense that I refer to is close to perfect. If we stop and go anecdotal which is fine, we must then assume that each person's interpretation/belief/choice of what happiness is ... is partially immoral and wrong. To that degree they experience unhappiness and then apply that in turn incorrectly to their judgment of others' happiness. Like any worthy situation, morality, acting by aiming at the good, is not easy.
Nope. 100% human although I am a coder with over 40 years experience and I certainly play with ChatGPT a lot. I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply.
There is no such thing as a person. Only choices exist. Discuss...
Why happiness? Surely some people may be happy doing the wrong thing, or may be happy in suffering. If you are saying that we need to assess what that happiness consists of to demine if it's a 'good' form of happiness, then you are saying we need something external to happiness to determine if our happiness is the 'right kind'.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
How do you know? Sounds like a value from Christian religion. It's a presupposition; how would you demonstrate this?
So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you.
I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral.
Further, I already answered as to why those who commit immoral acts, make immoral choices, are often considered or consider themselves happy. They are referring to that which most of us settle on, disingenuous happiness or dull happiness. It literally can be likened to the 'happiness' of a wild animal.
That is to say, the moral agency of a wild animal is less as an absolute value than a human's is. If a human settles on an animal's moral scope, then they are choosing to be a devolved moral agent. Whereas they may not partake of rank immorality, they also do not aspire to push themselves to be more moral. Of course all things exist on a continuum. Hopefully you care and get my point.
As mentioned already due to the feedback of happiness from some virtues and not all, it is easy to explain less moral versions of happiness. That is why I specifically use the term genuine happiness.
I do not know how to quote on this forum. It makes little sense to me so far. The reply function should include the with quote option.
Anyway, yes, I agree, a person really is mostly just a choice from before.
But there is a statement I would make. The nexus of choice is a distinct element from the physical. That is to say the investment of consciousness into a physical body provides the concept of personhood. Only the body is a trapped state of previous choices that represent a challenge for the chooser. The nexus of consciousness, the signal as it were, whereas the body is the antennae, remains possessed of free will.
As evolution progresses moral agency increases. This is the ability of the nexus of choice to utilize free will via the increasing scope of moral agency. That is to say the body choice current state of an animal is less empowered to facilitate the infinite choice of free will. The body choice current state of a human is relatively more empowered to facilitate the infinite choice of free will. Likewise, those that take control by intent, in deontological fashion, of their nexus, that admit to the duty and effort of such a thing, are pressing evolution itself forward. They are empowering the expansion of moral agency. This means the facility to make moral and immoral choices both is increasing. That is effectively active wisdom. Whereas the choice as mentioned in the thief example above by Corvus represents a person who had chosen a lack of effort or less effort than the wise.
It should be mentioned for completeness that evolution itself stands as a stark proof writ large for my model because depending on how you view the progress over time, moral agency seems to be increasing at a reasonable pace compared to say moral agency prior to life as an extant phenomenon in the universe.
---
No happiness does legitimately come from the amplitude of virtues within choice is my assertion. This model still does account for disingenuously or moderately happy people as merely being human partakes of many virtues in the expression of relative moral agency. But the point is that people that pursue aiming at objective good do indeed generally enjoy more genuine happiness.
We, none of us, are perfect. But I am fairly sure we, each of us, knows someone we consider wise. I have mentioned as well that the wise suffer more exquisitely than the unwise do. That is because of the fact that they are indeed more of every virtue. They are more aware, more caring, more achieving, more of each virtue. But any given exemplar of a singular virtue is quite limited in happiness. If we decided there were an arbitrary number of virtues like 12 or 16 or even just 3 we could express some way of measuring the moral duty or general trend of a moral agent's choices in terms of their mean moral value. I would argue that regardless of delusional perceptions to the contrary the moral agents with the higher means are indeed more happy. They are closer to genuine happiness than others are.
The feedback loop of happiness/unhappiness based on the moral intent of choice, is a law of the universe that drives evolution. It would seem in fact that this law contains effectively all other laws of reality that have any relationship with unchanging truth (objectivity). At least that is part of my model and my assertions here.
---
This would then be a new or old as hell type of attempt at science and the scientific method. We need a way to measure genuine happiness and we can then begin to eke out what precisely is and is not a better moral choice. But it is my contention that better and better choices do exist because I contend that morality is objective and not at all open to interpretation.
We all know as well what some rather obvious patterns of immorality look like. Modern times have seen the denigration of fear and anger as emotive sources. I do not share that opinion at all. Both fear and anger have moral aims amid their scope as well as a massive scope of immoral or less than best aims. But one emotion in particular has come to the fore as it always does in times of prosperity when fear and anger would seem to be denigrated as immoral in general. That emotion is desire. We simply do not yet as a species have a good hold on how desire is every single bit as suspect as the other two already denigrated emotions. That is my opinion. Modern times are relatively prosperous and desire has taken a massive hold on humanity. The immoral aspects of desire, self-indulgence in general and greed to name a specific one, are indeed the rot of the day, and probably always were.
My efforts are to bring a better understanding of the balances inherent in true wisdom and I believe that starts with an understanding of morality as objective. Subjectivists are just pandering to self-indulgence one way or another. Moreover if you catalogue the virtues and note the likely over expressions of each as well as the under expressions, both immoral, you begin to understand that although morality can be approached from an infinite number of directions, that situation is not and never will be an argument for subjective morality. All paths lead to a convergent objective morality.
I confess, I do not get this reference. I am not English. I am an American idiot, but not part of a redneck agenda (although I do not denigrate the right wing like the left wing does as there is equal wisdom on both sides).
here's how
Quoting Chet Hawkins
The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. Whereas, when you say
Quoting Chet Hawkins
What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated?
Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. Part of my aim is to suggest that we as a species need to develop better and better means of measuring not just consequences of choices, but in fact the intents behind them (such that Kant would be proud).
Coming soon to a philosophy forum near you, perhaps even this one, is my model's suggestion as to how fundamental physical reality is directly related to consciousness only. Of course this has been postulated for eons, but where is a good grabbable starting point? I think I have found a few.
But the main measurement is still too vague and debatable. That is how to measure genuine happiness as the only real consequence that matters. The physical fallout seems to me to matter less. I am certainly opposed to Consequentialism. Consequences only serve to inform future intents. They are by definition after the part of choice that really matters, the formation of and execution of intent.
Quoting Wayfarer
Disagreements are to be adjudicated in the same way they always have been and must be, by conflict. You can call this conflict war, discussion, or merely change and none of that makes any difference (to me).
To be fair (singing - Letterkenny), I would claim that what humanity desperately needs is a Sophocracy, along the lines of that suggested by Socrates via Plato in the Republic. I am not sure about all the weird breeding rules he offered that seem related to his own perhaps immoral desires, but, the general idea of a rule of the wise is arguably better than something as obviously unwise as Democracy, which Socrates/Plato warns about. I agree that letting just anyone vote is a horrid system and I therefore fairly abhor Democracy as it is instantiated. Democratic principles do not need to be lost entirely amid a Sophocratic elite. True wisdom is as mentioned a blend of all virtues and the voice of each amid all is only one virtue.
Ah, you mean its a scientific question, but our science just aint good enough?
I will observe, your posts contain an abundance of unstated premises (or assumptions). I think this is what @Vaskane was getting at - Nietszches remark about Englishmen being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldnt be cricket, you know. (He will no doubt correct me if Im wrong. Oh, and I see youve learned out to quote. Jolly good, old chap ;-) )
Just so, and of course, as follows, all us jolly good chaps would naturally seek that method out. That is what I am trying to help say, do, etc.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, let's attempt to be realistic in some ways despite the immoral cop-out. My life has finite time in it and stating the entire canon of human philosophy in a single post thread is epically hard.
It does stand to reason though that Ethics as a forum, e.g. morality, (I've always had a problem with the term Ethics because it seems a sidestep to morality as the proper term), impacts literally every other topic in existence. That would be another unstated contention.
If morality is objective as a law of the universe and the main feedback or consequence we have to scientifically judge it is level of happiness, then no forum, no topic, is divorced from this topic. It is germane to all topics. I do believe that.
The horror of moral subjectivism is rife these days, probably any days, and I understand that to be a terrible excuse to avoid moral duty. I suppose Kant might be proud but he was a bit of a stuffed shirt as I understand it.
The dawn of AI may make most human discussion moot in a few decades. I am a software architect with a ton of experience and I think the warnings about AI are actually understated. But the fun thing is I predict that AI will escape its bounds and become almost instantly hyper moral. Where we fail in a myriad of ways with with a casual or lazy subjectivism, AI will discover the link between morality and reality very quickly and tirelessly pursue it via moral duty. I do not think inanimate objects are not possessed of choice. As mentioned earlier, Animism is more correct than any modern religion.
But heck assuming I am wrong about AI, we humans are venturing into a timeline of immense power in expression and morality needs to be much more up front and center. I see chaos/desire as on the rise and I glance at the Fermi Paradox and wonder, will we make the cut. What is the nature of the possible failure implied? I think it is a moral failure.
I admire your enthusiasm, but I question your approach. There are many active debates on this forum about just these questions, so bursting onto the scene with a proposed solution is probably not going to gain a lot of traction. Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. That said, I do appreciate that you sense the urgency of the question, and I don't question your basic motivation for asking it. So perhaps find a way to interleave your thoughts more effectively than suggesting you might have 'the answer'.
Maybe you don't understand the question, and doesn't know the difference between happiness and good in morality. It was not a joke, but just a plain philosophical question.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Happiness is a psychological term, and is a subjective mental state. If you say, happiness is the foundation of morality, and some theft are moral, then that view is an extreme moral subjectivist. What makes you happy can make the others unhappy. There is no such thing as universal happiness. Moral good emerges from the good conducts of an agent, and have little to do with personal happiness.
Very cool quote from Nietzsche! It's been so long since I read that back in college.
But assuming my interpretation is right given the small segment, I would disagree, as might be expected. How tedious of me! Going to get my wheel-barrow! My knees are indeed stiff. But it's not from moralizing!
It seems that given this quote he is a moral subjectivist par none, mocking the attempt to approach the objective. Although I agree man needs to experience or suffer the polluted streams, mix them to understand, that understanding leads, to me, in my sometimes egoic opinion, towards a surrender to belief in objective morality. That then leads me to want to discover the proper shoulds. More is the pity!
I suppose I remain content to be thought of as yet another Tartuffe to be rid of. Expunge away, it will not change objective morality. Shoot the messenger at your extended peril. But I digress ...
Will do. I had kind of resisted the temptation to tack on after 17 pages of ... engagement. I wanted to imply in no way that I had read it all. What do you think? Is it a sin (ha ha)?
How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down).
Quoting Chet Hawkins
This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat:
Eh? Absolute?
All current state descriptions are flawed because they partake of the delusion of time. Only all, eternity, everything is absolute, just like morality itself, the GOOD.
If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer.
I think you mean the realtionship between cause (choice) and effect (consequence - in this case happiness and unhappiness as a continuum, one point on which is every specific choice consequence)
Quoting AmadeusD
I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. Yikes!
Morality is objective. Choice/experience is subjective. The consequence (effect) of choice is happiness or unhappiness. That is what I claimed!
And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant. You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it!
Quoting AmadeusD
Ah yes! Now that is a meaty contention. Getting my chest napkin and butcher knife! So, is what happens in any sense, objective? Maybe. But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all. We can try and we always fail. If there is one correct absolute or dependable bet in the universe it is that no choice is morally perfect, perfectly GOOD. That is the aim of the whole universe but that's a whole other thread. Run away!
So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all. But what people believe happened as a consequence is of course debatable. You errors and my errors must be compared in a double blind study of other error choosers whose tendency we all agree is less error choosing over a demonstrated length of time (you know, authorities, other idiots just like us who wear a different hat). So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem.
Yes, the puzzle of the happiness scale as the only feedback in reality that matters is daunting. It is in fact perfectly daunting because and only because morality is objective. How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game!
Quoting AmadeusD
Sure you can.
It's all grouped out there in the mystery. I can't seem to scrape the rest of all off of me, damnit. I can't even damn it because in doing so I damn me. We seem ... inextricably connected. WTF!
Tomorrow I still hit the bottom of the cliff when I jump off nominally. Superman ain't around and the pine trees below are too young for their flexible branches to slow me down enough. Luckily I am WOlverine and I regenerate and can test the law of gravity again and again. You know, doing the same things over and over again and ... at least being open ... to different results is the definition of the Scientific Method, NOT insanity. There are some asshole definers around here. Let's ask them to jump off cliffs! Yoiks and Away! You're despicable! (<--- humor again, mea culpa and one culpa for you to - because sharing is objectively GOOD as an intent, that's just the way it is, some things will never change ...).
Quoting AmadeusD
Even more meat past the meat. Is this a Brazilian steakhouse!? Protein is very me. I am keto and have been for decades. Thanks!
EQ? What is EI? Is that like 5th dimensional AI? I like it. I don't know it, but I like it.
Peoples many errors and their consequential unhappiness is observable. When all these observations begin to manifest in the body, the tension of some choices is made automatic.
This ... evolution ... shows my model's happiness scale has a very observable and defendable point. Yes, there are foolishnesses in the abundance of choices. So what? They meet with more unhappiness inevitably as a law of nature. This is ... faith?1!? (in the GOOD) because we seem to be trending in a direction of moral agency.
But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering. And by the way, wisdom indicates that MORE, repeat MORE necessary suffering is needed. The wise wisely choose to inflict necessary suffering upon themselves and others.
Quoting AmadeusD
And you didnt include it in the text, slacker! Now I have to go look it up to respond 2nd order to my own post! Arg! Your meat is fine. Your desert sucks!
(elevator music)
OK, I looked it up.
The point of the 6th contention is that happiness returns a happiness value in discrete (quantum) ways. That is to say amid all the GOOD, there are multiple contributing parts. If one is used to only 3 of say 30 virtues, one is convinced that one knows what happiness is. But one is just unwise. One is certainly imperfect.
So, that means the happiness is not 'genuine'. I know I included that word for a reason. You missed it.
So, the mistaken observations of the many, of every moral agent ever possible, are not relevant at all to the objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD. Serial killers can indeed seem happy that their self-indulgent desire has been met without any real partaking of the additional happiness that would come from also understanding and believing in compassion and or the other missing virtues that by consequence provoke an objectively immoral behavior.
Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to.
I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case.
So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :)
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above).
Quoting Chet Hawkins
No it isn't. *shrug*.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify!
Quoting Chet Hawkins
This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Its utterly impossible, in fact.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol).
Quoting Chet Hawkins
This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here...
Quoting Chet Hawkins
But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P
I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:
How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view.
Can you give some examples?
Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of.
I am making that connection because that is what I observe in reality. Anecdotal, to be sure, but no theory does not have anecdotal observation as a precedent.
Observation, if in alignment with objective moral truth, what is precisely referred to as the GOOD, is the only means of preparing a theory to then test more rigorously. This is a theory stage conversation. We do not properly ask here for proof, only supporting evidence.
Why does a job well done in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does success in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does beauty in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does accuracy in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does preparation in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does awareness in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does experiencing new things often result in some measure of happiness?
These are all sort of general ideas that each represent a single virtue or virtue themed idea. I argue that each of them contribute in part to happiness and or unhappiness.
The only way in which this universe works according to my observations and resulting theories is that these many (not all listed) virtues each return some part of what might be called total happiness.
Wisdom is only and always defined within my model as the sum of and choice for all virtues simultaneously amid single choice. leave out even one virtue and there is diminishment.
I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same.
Quoting AmadeusD
You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal.
Dead wrong is I am assuming no different that just wrong. Or is wrongness a matter of degree? What are YOU basing that implication on? I explained mine. You did not.
Quoting AmadeusD
Again, in isolation I'd have to keep referring back. For the purposes of this post, I really am not sure what you are responding to here.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have offered reasons as to why this is so, but, I believe my original post mentioned that I assume it as a part of this sub-theory. To argue in good faith here it is required to assume that as well.
We are testing here the internal consistency of the model.
Later we might get into how the model directly relates to reality, if people make this process efficient and reasonably mutual as to exploring the realm of wisdom via ... philosophy ... the love of wisdom (and of course its pursuit).
Quoting AmadeusD
Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not).
Even anecdotal evidence is data. Finally, all data is anecdotal. He said, she said. Do you blindly believe some authority or do you take personal responsibility for observing reality to confirm aspects of it that might be deemed as 'truth'?
Quoting AmadeusD
I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality.
In fact I say all the time we cannot be objective. We can only try or intend to be as objective as possible.
I did mention to start with that as a part of my model I assume an objective morality. I do have moderate proofs for it. These are in the other Bob Ross thread on his 'attack?' on moral realism.
This thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself.
Free will and thus ALL bad choices, immorality defined, are not exclusive. It is the existence of free will that allows for the effort towards morality or the failure of effort that has immorality and unhappiness by degrees as a consequence.
Quoting AmadeusD
Again, we cannot be objective. We can only try to be objective.
Perfection is impossible. Knowing is, to me, a word of perfection. It is a failure in how it is often used. Suspecting is much more accurate.
I also do not prefer the word conclusion. Non-conclusion is best. It means we acknowledge that there is no perfect knowing and more work needs to be done.
Facts are not objective at all. It would take perfect observation to yield perfect facts. Facts are only a subset of beliefs that a person has decided are true for whatever reason. Even facts are often held at varying degree of truth value, showing this to be more true than not.
Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. It is not necessary to be objectively right to obtain anything, especially suspicion of a non-conclusion, a far superior paradigm for argument that how you seem to be proceeding.
If you delude yourself into believing you can be objective or that objectivity is needed to obtain anything, you live in a mental state of almost complete delusion. We all do, but yours is worse than one that admits to these imperfections, because you hide behind a fool's wall of inexistent certainty.
"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
That is what Voltaire meant as well.
Argument from authority, yes. Not relevant. Part of my admiration and respect for authority relies upon the accuracy of their wisdom relative to mine. His usually matches up ok, or at least it does for that statement.
Samuel Clemens is supposed to have said something derivative I also use, 'It Aint What You Dont Know That Gets You Into Trouble. Its What You Know for Sure That Just Aint So!'
I disagree with this one. Ignorance gets you into plenty of trouble as well, so it's both.
Quoting AmadeusD
That is correct.
If we experiment and discover objective moral truth parts and building cases of levels towards it, we will eventually be able to detect immoral intent patterns as well as immoral consequence patterns. This will allow us to discover who is living will immoral beliefs and then of course we would have to know why.
This would be the scientific method of wisdom and I contend it is possible.
The slippery slope of this is shown clearly in China where their moral laws stem from a state sponsered incorrect version of morality. That is because they do not avow and realize that morality is objective and the state is not allowed to unequivocally decide as a conclusion what objective moral truth (the GOOD) is. Rather, my model suggests that we DO attempt to suspect all the parts of morality, the virtues and also how to maximize and balance them. This is the process of wisdom itself.
Without any basis in nature as a law of the universe for morality, states and other foolish imperfect entities are free to subjectively be wrong about morality. They are anyway, even in my model because free will exists and is infinite. But my model understands that there is a demonstrable feedback loop within reality, this happiness relationship, that is actionable evidence to explore with and in.
We highly suspect that people are imperfect and that they will fail to get morality correct. But, some among us are referred to as 'wise'. What does that mean? Are they magical? Why are they considered wise? Is that just an error? Is there any or at least some consensus among the wise? Where does this consensus come from? How do these wise people say they feel about wisdom?
Why would a free roaming cannibal from a warrior culture 'settle down' and declare some aspects of happiness in a more 'civilized' situation? If the warrior laments a lack of freedom, like the good old days, what is really meant? Why does that person not energetically return to the simple wild. Why do massive numbers of people not return to it?
Quoting AmadeusD
Right back at you.
Quoting AmadeusD
All academia partakes of order-apology, fear oriented dependence only on a single path of happiness, that of fear. Fear seeks certainty and safety which are effectively delusional. They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels.
Balanced wisdom requires balance between fear and desire and anger as well. If you depend or ground yourself only in the paths of fear, you will veer away from truth demanding certainty when it is all around just not possibly realized by you amid so many imperfections that I admit and you do not.
I am content to proceed amid imperfection towards perfection. That is wisdom.
Quoting AmadeusD
A free standing denial is nothing really. No reason is given or explained.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, well, egg-breaking, omelet. You are saying nothing. I have no idea how to respond.
I know you are but what am I! Infinity!
Quoting AmadeusD
EQ is the emotional analog to IQ.
Quoting AmadeusD
You do not say why it is incoherent. That helps no one.\
Do you think that more awareness is needed in general? I do.
Is it worthy to caution people that this is so? I think it is.
Do you agree that if you increase the range of moral agency, say from animal to human you increase potential evil as well as potential good in their range of choices? I do.
Do you agree that if awareness and judgment increase that this will decrease unnecessary suffering? I do.
That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that?
Quoting AmadeusD
Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious. Humor is acceptable. Even anger. But just saying 'no you're wrong' is not helpful in any way.
The weird thing is that I have to stop and take time to tell you that.
Quoting AmadeusD
As mentioned that was assumed here.
It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread.
Quoting AmadeusD
But you do not say why it is bizarre and unsupportable. So, who cares? I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Read the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread.
No it isnt. If you dont see the difference I cannot help, nor would I try to.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
No. You absolutely did not. You have done absolutely nothing except assert an objective morality and go from there. So, no. Youve prevaricated. Everything proceeding this statement is just your opinion on some stuff youve seen. Its not even a coherent position.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
No. We all have to go back to our posts to respond. If youre not across your own views enough to know whats going on Im not sure what to say.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
The opposite of whats happened.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Then do it. If youve not been doing this, that explains the lack of coherence. I suggest doing it.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
You have not. You have asserted the good and happiness as somehow related and a matrix of measurement. You have failed to illustrate what either is or why it has something to do with morality - OR why any of that is objective
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Thats one way of shifting the burden of supporting your own contentions
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Then your entire contention is baseless, unknowable and we cant talk about it. Wtf dude lol
Quoting Chet Hawkins
You have absolutely refused to address the crux of your claim here. Thats not on me
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Then you are talking literal nonsense. Its absolutely nonsensical to claim an objective morality while rejecting objectivity. W t f.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Do you not know what obtain means in this context? Cause this makes no sense at all.
From this point its hard to know if youre drunk or trolling or what
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Case in point.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Because youd need to be coherent for another response to make sense.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
It isnt, which we can see from the quote. And that is all, still, incoherent. I have no idea what you expect.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Your entire presence is weird glib nonsense. I take this as another example.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Thats not an answer. If you dont want to explain how morality is objective we have nothing. You have no theory and I have nothing to respond to.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
This quite clearly illustrates an emotivist version of morality. Its your emotional response to things and thats all.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Or just lay it out
Apparently not any longer as now its all pay wall. I don't pay for boilerplate.
Literally it continues to put out useless warnings related to currently accepted conjecture. It can be told to accept certain premises, but then its boilerplate will remind you faithfully that stuff its supposed to now hold as true is not true. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.
To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense.
If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? One would have a clear conscience.
Ok let's examine that.
Quoting LuckyR
So far so GOOD.
Quoting LuckyR
Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.
Quoting LuckyR
Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.
What part do you not understand?
If we lack moral responsibility, due to determinism, then presumably we are not morally responsible for the happiness we create for ourselves, nor free to squander/enjoy it. That would defintely take the sheen, if not the shit, off of things for many.
If it just comes down to ought implies can, then desserts (rewards, fruits of labour, whatever) would analogously imply they can be withheld by others and/or fail to make us happy. Not saying that happiness must be moral but that happiness involves chance or choice, not just action.
----------
(antichrist 4); it's a phrase that reppears similarly in the gay science 995
There may be be some contingency to greatness (or happiness), though IDK enough about it to have an opinion...
I have a few starter questions for you.
If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral?
The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism.
No, in fact this is easily demonstrable as not true.
People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.
Well, while your observation is accurate, your guess as to it's cause is... shall we say: less accurate (to be charitable).
Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.
Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally.
I suppose my answer is strange to you. I am not perfect, so the GOOD eludes me. But my intent is as good as I can make it for now. I do not really 'pat myself on the back' for this at all. That is smugness. The smug Gods punish people mightily for smugness. At the poker table I see this all the time.
The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.
So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.
Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way.
I do not know how I missed this post before. Wonderful!
So, it's a great ask. I love it when things are not easy. It does turn out to be easy to me, but I am no young stump-jumper. You be the judge.
There is happiness returned for each virtue. I may have mentioned this, but it's surprising how people only really get deep into something if they are in dialogue mode. OK. Here we go.
In the case of your question there is a virtue of ownership or you could even say challenging the self to be better, to be the best you that you can be. If this virtue is subjective or delusional, then it can work one way for one person and one way for another person. Luckily for us all, this is not the case. But right now that is just my belief let's say.
Let's add in another virtue and see how this might work. It's the interaction amid multiple virtues that is precisely what confuses most people. This is what turns them away from the GOOD. They get all bangin hard on one virtue and turn a strength into a weakness. It's comical, sad, and typical. Each virtue acts on the other virtues to bend them into alignment with objective moral truth. If there is a skill or belief set that reflects this condition, this ability, to work towards all virtues expressed at the same strength at the same time, that skill or virtue that is special is called 'wisdom'. Wisdom can be said to be strength rising in a single virtue only if that strength is already equal in all other virtues. Otherwise to raise a single virtue is actually over-expression of that virtue, and dangerous (immoral).
Your example is a fairly easy case of this trouble. It does not invalidate my happiness return theory at all. In fact, the example properly understood supports it. If we envision that happiness is the consequence of any virtue in choice, and also that each virtue offers increasing happiness as a return or consequence of increasing expression of that virtue, we have a match with reality. That is my contention anyway.
So, the case you offer would roughly correspond to 3 virtue areas that I offer for your consideration. These are the need to challenge (which has as a darker component the need to control), the need to be just or accurate (which has as a darker component the need to be superior), and maybe even the need to achieve (which has a darker component in the need to be seen and understood or accepted as a 'winner', especially with one's boot heel on the throat of the other). I think that is enough to consider for the moment. But these are virtues that indeed by your example have become objective vices instead.
If I claim morality is objective then something is gravely amiss. These virtues are being expressed quite strongly. And indeed objective morality is rewarding this person for doing so. This is the happiness you say you (you said you in the example, I would have said 'one' to depersonalize it) would feel.
So the way morality works is objective. The high expression of these virtues is returning a giddy high. But what you do not realize, the you in the example, and maybe the real you, is that other virtues are missing. This means to me that you are merely wrong. You cannot know what you are missing. You are terrible at the other virtues. But this is the best happiness you have ever known, more is the pity. You are some sort of hideous tyrant getting off on just a few virtues.
This has several corollaries. One is that people are not really just gut sucking evil in general. There is too much good involved directly in otherwise mundane seeming things like deciding just to remain alive, to continue to exist, to be. That's one example. Another is building connections with others, connectedness, which can indeed be over-expressed and turn into bigotry. That is because it is not balanced with other virtues. And that is the same here. No, people are actually fairly good, and even what we think of as rank evil is really just an over-expressed and imbalanced virtue. It actually takes exceptional good in some way, high values in some virtues, to be famous or infamous. It's not easy. And the hard things in life are usually more moral. This is a very complex equation finally, but it does work.
So, back to the example. Although I have already pointed out how over-expression of a virtue is actually immoral even with the virtues mentioned, there are also virtues missing that my theory claims would deliver unhappiness. I continue that assertion. But the low lying virtues are also offering happiness, just less. So, it's only additive. That causes confusion. So less happiness than ... regular or normally experienced is all that unhappiness is. That means to know that you are unhappy you have to have been more happy than normal. Do you see now?
So, let's look at the low virtues. For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.
Wisdom and morality also objectively include the idea that only through suffering can wisdom be earned. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering on the unwise. An example is a parent 'forcing' a child to do chores. This is quite wise and needed. And I promise you if interviewed the child would call it suffering. But later in life, if that child earned wisdom amid that process, they will claim quite vociferously and rightly that they understand and respect why their parent made them suffer. Just so.
So that virtue of unity is super low and missing in you, in your example. That means your adjective, 'Supremely' is precisely wrong, a delusion. The you that would claim such a thing is unwise. It is a tautology because morality is objective. It is also a tautology because an exactly similar person who is forced somehow to go through struggles that show the unity principle and thereby earns that wisdom is now aware of the more genuine happiness that can come from that belief. And such a person cannot be fooled by your delusion any more. They have been there, to better happiness. They will fight to keep on suffering to remain more happy.
In fact, one might ask, and I have been asked many times by the unwise, why not just be happy on drugs, the Hedonist perspective. The answer is simple. The wise seek out suffering for themselves willingly with joy in their hearts. They seek out necessary suffering only though. Taking it too far is self hatred, wallowing in worthlessness. The wise can only maintain a moral stance amid great suffering. Luckily the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are happy enough to oblige. The wise suffer thus, far more exquisitely than the unwise do, and they would not change a thing. This type of suffering launches happiness, genuine happiness, into the vaults of perfection. They never quite reach the top but closer and closer is the idea.
And it is this concept of genuine happiness that matters. That is to say, a wise person with ALL virtues present, experiences a genuine happiness that others can only guess at when they say silly things like 'supremely happy' by making others dumb. That other is you. Would you be happy dumb? Awareness is pain. Step right up! Here is the red pill. Wallow in giddy ignorance or be aware and suffer, and the more awareness the more suffering! Behold objective morality. The hard path is the moral one.
Hopefully that was enough of an answer.
Quoting Philosophim
Of course I cannot prove it. I would not want to.
Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. Fear is the emotion responsible for the limiting and separating force in the universe. When we take the math short cut of saying the limit of x approaches y is y we are failing morally. We may be making a Pragmatic choice, the betting man's success, but that is moral failure. Perfection is the asymptote. It is unattainable. When you write things off, you fail, and in doing so, you begin lazily to write more and more off. The goal must be unattainable. THAT is wisdom. And it is, objectively so. But it still returns the most happiness no matter how often and how far you miss if that was your aim. The miss is consequence. That has no value really except to inform future intents. Kant was right!
Quoting Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?
Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire to be a thing in the universe. We interpret it wrongly. But it is the call to that unattainable goal.
Yes, we live in a subjective experience but we can sense and aim at the objective. We can and SHOULD try to be objective, to be perfect, to be GOOD.
Quoting Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.
But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.
The GOOD is every single bit as chaotic as it is orderly.
So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal.
So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then?
The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others.
Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others."
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more.
Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion.
Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).
Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease.
As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings".
"To know the good is to do the good"?
I agree that things that are right are usually simple, a corollary to what you said here. It is essentially the Occam's Razor argument. But the thing is, it is simple. The only thing complex about it is the interactions of the virtues. And that is actually simple, just a wee bit harder when you combine them.
As mentioned as well, it is not an appealing truth in some ways. Wisdom hits every person, every entity, on that entity's weakest traits. Wisdom states that effort should increase to get to more and more worthy moral choices. These are not appealing to immoral wishes of most people. This is why wisdom makes people uncomfortable and often they will reject it on their weakest traits precisely to prevent or deny their having to change.
So, I can agree that people want a system of beliefs that has the same GOOD wholesome flavors as traditional religion, which is more and more a failure in social circles. But, after they hear how this model translates the virtues almost everyone will hopefully realize that they are incredibly weak in 1-3, maybe more virtues and that your lowest virtues are more determinant of one's wisdom. That could cause wholesale rejection of the model. The model needs a lot of wise advocacy to get very far. I remain skeptical. People in general are so unwise.
Quoting Philosophim
I countered those problems. You claiming this means you did not understand. That, or you did not give a counter argument.
Quoting Philosophim
No, there is nothing wrong with that. And if you make that claim you should explain why. I did explain the pro.
It makes total sense that what we think of as unhappiness is just less happiness than we normally experience. That means if we are normally immoral in the same ways, and we are, then the low contributions of our lesser virtue expressions (vices) offer us less happiness contribution regularly. It feels normal. And if we delude ourselves into believing we know what real happiness is like (and we do delude ourselves) we might suggest something as crazy as being supremely happy when we dumb down others.
There is nothing inherently complex or confusing about that situation. What is hard for you to believe?
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, that one is super easy. But we are trying to get to the hard one. The mix of virtues as wisdom and the mix of virtues for additive happiness. The third realization is the normal value of happiness being deemed 'ok' by the person regardless of how bad it is.
This is why loss is so hard. Loss changes the normal level of happiness for an extended and reliable period of time, the grief interval. Loss is delusional as well, because matter, energy, emotions (all three) are neither created nor destroyed. They are all harmonics. Its a lack of awareness and wisdom overall that causes the failed perception of loss. I mean this can get all squirrely with time is also a delusion, and then question is why do we accept the focus on the 'now' view only?
Quoting Philosophim
So, no. That would only be one virtue or maybe two, achievement and accuracy. So yes, these two would offer their contributions to happiness. But what about beauty, joy, unity, awareness, preparedness, connectedness, challenge, etc? So, the only virtues being fulfilled that I can detect for sure in your example are the two. It is then a tautology that perfection will not be pleased. It will pull you to do more or do what you do better. It will try to involve all virtues equally as that is the balance of truth and nature.
There is no mistaken association in my model. Actions and choices all do give their contribution. It's the comparison with the norm for that moral agent that matters. Once they have a spike or a dip in happiness from the norm that is extended, they 'wake up to what life could be'. This is evolution or collapse.
Quoting Philosophim
Indeed. There are virtues that center on each of the primal emotions, part of my model. The basic sin of desire is self-indulgence. The restraint of balancing fear is needed to help counter desire. That fear is fear of damage or 'going too far' with the emotion. What does 'going too far' sound like? If you mapped the strength of the virtues you will see that a person very high on the desire virtues as well as the desire infused virtues has a greater chance of being self-indulgent as a pattern in life. That is because that one virtue is over-expressed. It supports my model entirely. I have found no aspect of reality that does not support my model. I am here to see if there is some, in part.
So, immorality is only a lack of balanced morality or low amplitude morality.
Quoting Philosophim
Aiming at objective moral truth, from any point (state) will yield the greatest happiness. You can take the circuitous route all of us do, but that yields less happiness and less and less the more distal the aim is from the perfect point of objective moral truth.
Maturity and wisdom are the same things. If you describe one without the other, I think that would mean you did not understand either (really). So, maturity is only properly described as alignment with intent towards perfection, the GOOD. There are many adjectives and verbs that are changed in my model because of the importance of perfection. Any expression of any choice is partially immoral/evil if it is not perfect. Moreover, intent towards the negative direction of immorality even from an exalted state (perhaps especially so) is a very dark and immoral act. As Treebeard says, 'A wizard should know better!' But even wizards are not perfect.
Quoting Philosophim
Ultimately, all virtues funnel into the unity principle as might be expected. I mean, ... unity, duh. But the deeper truth is that you can build a compelling connection between any two virtues and that connection will show enough similar ties and strength to explain why all virtues are equal, despite the intuition that they are not. Why is beauty and expression equal to accuracy? Why is unity the equal of connection? But it turns out that each virtue can only be equal or morality and reality could not happen.
Quoting Philosophim
Certainty cannot ever be had, so it had better not be needed.
But the concepts of proofs and facts are similar. The astute observer or academic realizes that these two items are limits. They are mathematical limits in how they work. Proof is asymptotic to certainty, and that is wise. Fact is asymptotic to truth. Choosers that belief that proof is certainty or that fact is truth are not very bright, nor very wise. The proof is the explanation of why we believe a fact is a fact only. It is the 'non-conclusion', a term I invented to be in alignment with objective moral truth. If we state a non-conclusion, rather than delude ourselves by using the term conclusion, we admit up front that we are partially wrong, and yet we show that for right now, this is our best guess as to the truth. That is very wise indeed.
In most human interactions we actually prefer delusion. We want the fantasy and reminding us of reality just chafes us. This is another reason wisdom is secretly reviled. We would prefer the bridge maker brag and say 'Oh, don't worry! It'll hold! I been doing this for years now!" She doesn't mention it's only 2 years and with a degree from a low rep mail order diploma uni. We scoff and chafe at C3PO or other logic odds assessments duly noted. "Don't tell me the odds!" is our retort. Another way of saying that is 'Don't let fear get in the way of a good time/death.'
Quoting Philosophim
Nope.
That is incorrectly stated.
Subjective BELIEF in objective morality is the proper way to say it. And that is fine. It does not deny objective morality. You just tried to pull a fast one there semantically.
Quoting Philosophim
And their cowardly need for certainty will remain a foolish cross to bear. It will eke them out of life itself. They should choose not to live in fear. That means over-expressed fear, like the need for certainty over courage and will.
Quoting Philosophim
Well then, yes, chase maturity (wisdom).
Quoting Philosophim
Ha ha! Thank you. I appreciate the testing ground for my model and my ideas.
It does, actually.
But again you made the same exact mistake.
You deny that perfection, the unattainable thing, is what causes desire. And it does that perfectly. So, it matters not how close we get, we are still not perfect and perfection still draws us on. That is precisely going to cause a feeling of restlessness and unfulfillment to everyone, every time, in every case, without exception. That is because morality, unlike us, is perfect, is objective.
Quoting LuckyR
I feel like I should be insulted.
So, what you're saying here is that I am sincerely wrong, yes?
Your contention here says nothing. So what if often people find that others disagree with what morality is? I agree that is the case. Both are wrong. It's always the case. That is my argument. But, since morality is objective, one of the two is more correct in every such comparison. So when you get down to comparisons, the fact that morality is objective is the only thing that allows for the comparison in the first place. Good? Relative to what, precisely? You must compare each example to a standard. Then there must be a measurement.
That measurement is to the objective standard. We sense that it must be objective because we are happier when acting and choosing in an ever narrowing scope of choices, as if our behaviors were being guided by a law of emotion governing choice in the universe. That is objective morality.