In any objective morality existence is inherently good
This is a simplification and rewrite of https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1 Posted originally for one of our fantastic forum members, Bob Ross, we had a great conversation where I feel this could be narrowed down to a more focused conversation here.
Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make.
The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good.
Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
For me, the problem with most approaches to finding an objective morality is that they are top down. They start with moral premises that are generally understood in society and look at them as the starting point. Instead, I want to start with a bottom up approach. It is about finding the fundamentals of morality, then working up to examples of generally understood morality.
1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?"
2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality
Morality is the way that we evaluate the goodness of a state. A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities. If there is an objective morality, no one has discovered it yet. But are there some things that we could still answer? While we don't know if an objective morality exists, we can know the fundamental question, and know that there are only so many answers to this question. If that is the case, perhaps we can argue that one answer is more reasonable than the others.
The argument:
a. Assume that there is an objective morality.
If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.
[b]b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".
This is an all or nothing question[/b]
Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false.
c. Assume the answer is yes. There is no innate contradiction.
This is not a proof, just a note that there is nothing contradictory in the answer, "Yes".
d. Assume the answer is no.
e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.
f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.
g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
Conclusion: If there is objective morality, "No" as the answer to "Should there be existence" leads to a contradiction. Therefore the only answer which does not lead to a contradiction is, "Yes".
Thus, logically, if an objective morality exists, then "There should be existence" is the most fundamental moral tenant from which all other morality is built on. I would like to build on this in another post, but as a fundamental claim of what an objective morality must entail, I wanted to see people's thoughts first.
Once you're satisfied with the conclusion, the follow up that continues on from this basic premise is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
I separated these posts to be more digestible, but they are essentially the full idea together.
Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make.
The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good.
Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
For me, the problem with most approaches to finding an objective morality is that they are top down. They start with moral premises that are generally understood in society and look at them as the starting point. Instead, I want to start with a bottom up approach. It is about finding the fundamentals of morality, then working up to examples of generally understood morality.
1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?"
2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality
Morality is the way that we evaluate the goodness of a state. A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities. If there is an objective morality, no one has discovered it yet. But are there some things that we could still answer? While we don't know if an objective morality exists, we can know the fundamental question, and know that there are only so many answers to this question. If that is the case, perhaps we can argue that one answer is more reasonable than the others.
The argument:
a. Assume that there is an objective morality.
If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.
[b]b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".
This is an all or nothing question[/b]
Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false.
c. Assume the answer is yes. There is no innate contradiction.
This is not a proof, just a note that there is nothing contradictory in the answer, "Yes".
d. Assume the answer is no.
e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.
f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.
g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
Conclusion: If there is objective morality, "No" as the answer to "Should there be existence" leads to a contradiction. Therefore the only answer which does not lead to a contradiction is, "Yes".
Thus, logically, if an objective morality exists, then "There should be existence" is the most fundamental moral tenant from which all other morality is built on. I would like to build on this in another post, but as a fundamental claim of what an objective morality must entail, I wanted to see people's thoughts first.
Once you're satisfied with the conclusion, the follow up that continues on from this basic premise is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
I separated these posts to be more digestible, but they are essentially the full idea together.
Comments (300)
for what?
This statement doesn't make sense (i.e. is a category mistake) because "existence" in not an action or practice and therefore cannot be prescribed.
If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself.
Quoting 180 Proof
Existence can be an action or a state. Actions are states over time. States are what existence looks like within a snapshot of time. A person who runs or the picture of someone mid run. We can imagine a button that could eliminate all of existence. Is it objectively moral to press it, or not? Any objective moral approach must answer this fundamental question. While I can't prove that an objective morality exists, if it does exist, the only non-contradictory answer is that existence is better than there being nothing.
Why?
Because existence already is, we're in it, and we want it going?
But by what standard is an "is" a "should be"?
Explain how.
I'll focus on that part of the OP for you.
a. Assume that there is an objective morality.
b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".
c. Assume the answer is yes. There is no innate contradiction.
d. Assume the answer is no.
e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.
f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.
g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
Sure. Actions only happen over time. This apple on a tree at exactly 1.23 seconds after existence is an apple. An apple over time is aging. It is not just an existence, it is existing.
Why would moral theories be required to answer this question? I think most moral theories simply do not answer the question at all.
I do not understand this sentence.
Also, "existence" =/= "existing" (i.e. ground =/= grounding).
Again:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Philosophim Finding the fundamentals of morality to build a general understanding of morality. Are those examples then compared to the basis built from the fundamental findings or other understandings and examples? The how and TO WHAT we compare a general understanding of morality to is important for objective moralizing, I believe.
Quoting Philosophim
NOT ACCORDING TO ITSELF, IT SHOULDNT EXIST. OBJECTIVITY ISNT EXISTING, WE ARE AND WHAT WE DECIDE IS OBJECTIVE, IS. WE WILL NEVER KNOW IF IT IS FOR OURSELVES, AS OF /IN PRESENT TIME. BECAUSE IT CAN HAPPEN DOESNT MEAN IT EXISTS CURRENTLY...IT CAN EXIST, DOES (I believe), YET, WE ARE STILL HERE! *tick-tock* THIS ARGUMENT SEEMS INVALID, NOTHING TO ARGUE.
I DO like the direction this discussion is taking, though! I should note, that I type in CAPS for no good reason...however, I think there is good reason for the making of this post. I applaud your work, Philosophim and also Bob's, in the specific area of "morality" you both frequently discuss on the forum . You two are dedicated, thorough, and well spoken! Taking notes! I am pleased to find myself commenting on another thread and I appreciate all the effort that goes in to your posts!
BUT anyways, where was I......
LITERALLY NO ONE: "SHOULD THERE BE EXISTENCE"
My inner voice: "nO"
EXISTENCE: "TOO BAD."
Maybe if I truly believed it, when I allowed my mind and inner voice to go there (answering "nO" to question B of the argument) I would have more justification or explanation and I WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN IT, except...I cant, because I think and believe there SHOULD be existence. If I thought otherwise, well, tough shiz! Explain WHY it shouldnt and feel LOVE at the same time. Can you? That alone is good enough for why it should...LOVE! And any/the explanation that one could come up with, for why it SHOULD NOT, will be lost by those of it! At the most, a nod, smile, and wave good bye! Agree to disagree...because that question should not be asked, period. If the answer actually is objectively no, to the question "should there be existence" then its over my dead body and guess what...I'm fine to go down for that!
I dont know, I feel these questions in the argument is opinion based questions, and no argument is to be HAD. We cant argue opinions. Well, I usually wont unless I am bothered by the opposing stances and cant move on without carrying frustrations, issues...Or we can if we are really bored and/or of hidden agendas/intentions from the act. For ex. when one indirectly posits stances and takes on the likeness of what they think the one of/with/ that has those beliefs and takes those stances and portrays outward that air in communication, to sway, to seem agreeable, to seem sure, to distract and soothe the self?...boo!
Quoting Philosophim Should there be? THERE IS!
i can get on board with what you are saying here, though. Existence "was" an action...it can be, again! Until we cant. Maybe, It's being an action.
Existence is not good or bad inherently to itself, we are inherently existing with both the good and the bad, all together- we all get the same time in one day...it just hits us differently. The good and the bad are how we can be moral agents, i think. It is not on the scale or the basis to be either/or...we need both. Morality is undefined objectively, because people are still confused. I am guilty of it myself, at times. But not about this...morality is and ALSO is when it can be objective.
thats right, it is not a real question...if it is, i would like to observe that convo in real time being had between an asker (out of curiosity, lack of better words/understanding/clarification for self -NOT- if asker is only asking, not because they care about the actual answer from the giver (true or not), but for their own reasons/needs. If the ask is done indirectly for other intel (without knowledge of observations being had, of course) then I believe within that ask, is an observer seeking something other than "the answer" but "thee answer" that works and can be accepted to proceed with discussing for them....if this is an actual question, no judgement, I genuinely want to know WHO is ASKING WHO or WHAT and WHAT they get from the answer and how to carry on from there...do they want to just "ask" to bring up discussion that can incorporate their ideas further surrounding the topic? Probably, most likely...AND thats fine with me, people have to bounce ideas around for feedback, I totally get that but when/if it is other than that, its pretty bleak. I am not sure if the will exists in me to even want to try and wrap my head around what is or might be going on wherever that question takes/lands us...if its an actual real question, that is! I find it SUS!
Because most moral theories cannot answer that question. There is currently no accepted objective moral theory. They are all subjective at this point in time.
But why are they required to? If they are objective, they need to answer that question because it is the question that underlies all moral questions. How can you claim how one should exist before you can claim that they should exist at all? Subjective moral theories stop at this point because it gives up the game, or they just aren't deep enough to go that far.
Regardless, the question has now been pointed out, shown its importance, and answered.
I'm trying to demonstrate a snapshot versus existence over time. Existing only happens over time, as actions only happen over time. Do you have a counter proposal for existence 180 Proof? Seeing what you're thinking might help me understand your questions more, or let me explain in terms you think in.
Me. Its not what I get, its that we get a foundation for an objective morality. How do we carry on from there? We build from there. That's what I do in the other paper if you want a hint. I'm planning on writing a follow up that breaks the build up down a bit more as that first post was a discussion draft for really one person. But first, that there is a fundamental question, that this is the fundamental question, and this is the answer to that question need to be established and explored first.
Quoting Kizzy
I did not find the answer bleak, but incredibly hopeful! This lets us develop a tool and measurement system to evaluate if certain situations are more moral than others. This will eventually build into human morality, but demonstrates morality at a molecular level, animal level, and eventually high intelligence level. It will help us actually answer the moral questions we have apart from social norms, culture, and personal opinions.
Because we must first objectively establish what morality is. Then, after we do so we can examine objectivity itself and ask whether it is moral or not.
Quoting Kizzy
This will build into our general questions about morality. Should we lie? Should we steal? Should we murder? Also common philosophical moral dilemmas like killing a crying baby while hiding from Nazis to save all the other people hiding under the floorboards from being discovered. Some will have final answers without much debate, while other debates may arise.
Quoting Kizzy
I don't think this is correct. We will die if we don't get oxygen. No matter of definitions, subjective viewpoints, or beliefs will change this.
Quoting Kizzy
Such a nice comment! Thank you. If you hate me after this discussion though, its ok. :) Not that I'll try to hurt your feelings, but I may conclude things you disagree with. It is my experience that often times the admiration of another person only lasts as long as that person delivers what one desires. As long as we can still respect each other despite differences or working through them, its a win for both of us. I appreciate your points here as well! They are something to look at and explore together.
Quoting Kizzy
Ha ha! What you're stating is that the question of whether there should be existence is irrelevant because there its going to be here at the end of the day. But morality is not about what is. Morality at its core is understanding that states of reality can change. I reach a fork in the road and I ask myself, "Should I go left, or right?" Implicit in this is that there might be a 'better' outcome depending on what I choose.
As a very simple example that most people agree on, we don't kill babies for fun. There is one future in which a person kills a baby for fun, and another where they do not. Almost everyone agrees that the existence of a future where a baby dies for someone's amusement is not as moral as a future where the baby lives. If we have an objective measurement that can prove this, that would be a start. But to get there, we have to start with the fundamentals.
Quoting Kizzy
And there is nothing wrong with that. When we don't have objective answers, all we can go on is our subjective understanding. We don't have to understand the mechanics behind why we walk to walk after all. Not understanding how we walk does not deny the objective reality that we do walk. Morality is the same.
But in the case in which a person loses their leg and we want to make an artificial replacement, its helpful to know how we walk right? Subjective moral values are typically good enough in many day to day actions. Its when we hit the edge cases, subjective moral value conflicts, or a subjective loss of moral evaluation entirely that we need an objective methodology that helps ground us.
Quoting Kizzy
True, this is where we will build to. This foundation and our moral actions are inclusive of one another, not exclusionary. My question to you now is if the initial logic I've noted above seems sound. If I can get a general consensus that this seems like a logical start, I can build from here. Yes, your initial impression might be an emotional rejection or not understanding what the point is. But ignoring that, does the logic hold?
You can't assume anything unless you already exist.
No disagreement there, but how does that effect the discussion in any way? This seems irrelevant.
Quoting Philosophim
That was the burden of my comment.
Quoting Philosophim
How is there a "discussion" without the given that preexists any possible question of "shoulds" ?
I'm not sure I follow. "Should" is a question of whether a state should be. Its irrelevant to whether that state currently is. If a baby has been killed for someone's amusement, should it have been done? No. What is, is not necessarily what should be if there are alternatives.
Where "should not" isn't an option, there no alternatives; therefore the question is meaningless and pointless.
Not at all. If you are chained to a wall watching helpless as a person kills a baby for their amusement, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have done that. Your ability to affect an outcome has no bearing on the question of whether it should be an outcome. That is a subjective self-inserting form of thinking. Your ability to affect or have an opinion on an outcome does not change the objective reality of whether that outcome should be or not.
Not about outcome. About precondition for question. Question chases own tail. Therefore question silly.
I fail to see how this is chasing its own tail. If you're going to start typing like the Hulk, I think you've run out of justification and simply don't like that the question is being asked.
Therefore question should not be asked, or else silly is meaningless.
Quoting Philosophim
I see little evidence for such a claim. As a theist I agree that existence is good, but there are non-theological forms of ethics.
Quoting Philosophim
Those who take existence as a given can still do ethics.
Simply present an ethical question that does not inevitably resolve to the underlying fundamental question I noted and you will have successfully refuted my claim.
Quoting Leontiskos
I never said they couldn't. That wasn't my point. My point was that the base underlying question of, "Should there be existence?" exists under every moral question. If you can't answer that fundamental objectively, can you objectively answer anything built upon that fundamental objectively? Not likely.
I am to assume at this point you don't have any issue with the argument's conclusions in answering the fundamental, only whether this is a fundamental question for any objective ethics?
If there is any kind of morality at all, it seems it needs to be possible that states of affairs can obtain that should not be. For example, a man is torturing a child. This shouldn't be! But it is! Not a contradiction. Happens all the time! There are all sorts of things that, if morality means anything, are the case in spite of their badness. If states of affairs that ought not exist simply cannot exist, by virtue of the 'ought not', then moral prescriptions would be pointless.
If it were the case that states of affairs that should not exist actually therefore cannot exist, then only what should be the case could be actually real. There would therefore be no evil at all in the world. Whatever happens, then, is proved to be good simply by virtue of its actuality.
Its not. That's not the argument. The argument is not about "I".
Quoting Philosophim
We aren't talking about a subjective viewpoint. We're talking about an objective fact, like the existence of gravity. We're not even claiming that we're proving that an objective morality exists. What we're noting is that if an objective morality exists, the fundamental question of, "Should there be existence?" can only be "Yes" to avoid contradiction.
Not I; everything.
The alternative to your personal existence is your never having been born, which was an option for the universe. You can contemplate what that might have been like in the context of all the non-you things that exist.
Should the universe exist? has no alternative state for the universe to contemplate.
I am glad to see you are more active again on the forum! I am guessing the new job has settle down a bit (:
We have discussed a lot of this in depth, so I just have one objection worth adding (that we didn't discuss):
I don't think this is internally coherent for your position: you use the term 'good' to denote things which you do not thereby concede should exist. Let's take it by example.
Imagine you could combine two elements (in the periodic table) to formulate another element and, let's stipulate, this would produce "more existence" than if the combination were not done. This combination would be, then, "good".
Imagine, though, that you could combine those two elements with two other elements to formulate another element and, let's stipulate, that would produce "more existence" than if the combination were not done. This combination, likewise, would be, then, "good".
However, imagine that the first combination doesn't produce as much existence as the second combination: they are both "good", when considered in themselves, but the second one is more "good".
Let's say you can only perform one of the combinations (as performing one eliminates the possibility of performing the other): obviously, you would choose the second one (because it is more "good"). However, if you what you mean by "good" is merely "what should exist" then both combinations should exist; but it seems perfectly coherent for you to say "the first combination is good, but it should not exist because the second combination is better (i.e., 'more good')".
Gradations, or degrees, of goodness are eliminated if one accepts that goodness is identical to 'to ought to exist'.
As an external critique, the other issue is that defining goodness in this manner eliminates many commonly accepted usages of the concept; e.g., by saying that this clock is good for telling the time, one is not at all implying that the clock should exist.
Just food for thought (:
Bob
It has! I haven't had much energy to think about much else until about now.
Quoting Bob Ross
I hesitate to go more than what is currently in the OP at this time as I am trying to focus it to be more approachable. The warning about what is to come are well appreciated, though I think it will be ok.
Quoting Bob Ross
Good as defined here is like "tree". Its describing a general concept. When we dive into more specifics, this is after directly defining what existence is, and how we can create situations that have more or less existence. Gradations still exist, because there are different combinations which result in more existential or less existential outcomes.
This of course relies on the context. If both combinations can co-exist without issue, then lets have both. But if we only have a choice of making one or the other, then that which creates more existence, is the better one. So yes, "Existence is good" at first glance does not appear to have gradations, but that's because we haven't set existence yet into a measurable quantity yet.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think this is fine. The same words are used within different contexts normally, and I don't think that most people will confuse the definition of good when talking about existential morality versus describing the effective and pleasing functionality of a clock. Or maybe they will and I'll have to cross that road when I get there!
Quoting Bob Ross
It is always well cooked and appreciated!
I agree, but I believe I can objectively show this to be true as well. Just starting with this part and writing the next part after if this part seems rather clear with few objections.
For me, "existence" is atemporal and things which "exist in time" are temporal like the relation between 'the continuum' and 'sets', respectively following from how Spinoza conceives of Substance (sub specie aeternitatis) and its Modes ... (sub specie durationis). So while (some of) that which "exists in time" might be "good" better (for you/us/all) existing than not existing "good" "bad" & "indifferent" existents presuppose existence that makes possible is prior to and in excess of any and all "value". Thus, in my understanding, evaluating the ground of all evaluations (i.e. judging the ground of all judgments) e.g. "existence is inherently good" seems to me viciously circular and therefore incoherent.
As for "objective morality", I propose that its objective basis is nature in general and disvalues (i.e. suffering of natural beings) in particular whatever harms, or is bad (dysfunctional, maladaptive) for, our kind (and other species) which I summarize in this post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/843592
and elaborated on here ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625
The problem is that you are using a concept of "good" that is incoherent; and it is the base of your entire theory. Without a proper concept of "good", I don't think one can delve into ethics.
For example, the title is " In any objective morality existence is inherently good". If "good" is "ought to exist", then "inherently good" is "inherently ought to exist": there is no such distinction between intrinsic (inherent) and extrinsic 'ought to exist". Either something ought to exist, or it shouldn't.
Also, you define "good", as a concept, in a moral sense when it should be being defined in its generic sense: otherwise, you have invalidly omitted goodness simpliciter.
These are just issues that your theory, to be complete and have a proper foundation, needs to address (I would say).
That is fair as I have not delved deeper into it yet. I will have more time this weekend to do so.
Quoting 180 Proof
While nice, I still don't see it as objective. For example, why should humans flourish? Why should humans be reasonable? All of this makes sense in a subjective self-beneficial viewpoint. But it doesn't answer anything more fundamental than this, and we all know how subjective morality ends up.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is true. Again, it seems I need to go into the second part where we actually measure what existence is and how we calculate it. For now as an intro, I'm not bothered by these issues. We'll see if they remain pertinent on the next drill down.
Suffering (i.e. dysfunction, loss of homeostasis, fear) happens, like life itself, is a ubiquitous, objective fact (e.g. human facticity).
We flourish in order not to languish. Not to flourish is maladaptive.
We are (often) reasonable in order to cooperate, or negotiate non-zerosum resolutions to conflict. Not to be reasonable (more often than unreasonable) is maladaptive.
You continually mistake 'state of affairs' for 'moral fact' and respond with Emoji's when this is pointed out.
I await something interesting from you. Given your constant need to deride those you think are incorrect, isn't it just delightful that you're wrong.
Correct. But how should I respond to my suffering? If I'm in constant pain, should I be on pain killers to the point that I become a blissful zombie? If I suffer in war, should I abandon my post? And this still does not answer the more fundamental: "Why should I exist to suffer at all?"
Quoting 180 Proof
No disagreement here. But should we flourish to the point where we wipe out other species? What if in one section of the world can one person flourish 3 times as much at the cost of killing one person on the other side of the world? And the more fundamental: "Why should humanity exist to flourish at all?"
Quoting 180 Proof
And what if it is reasonable that murdering the other person resolves my conflict and helps me to flourish? Lets say we have a resource, oil, that is limited and drives economies. Wouldn't it be reasonable to wipe out any competitors to oil on the other side of the world to greatly benefit the country where I live? And once again, to the more fundamental: "Why should beings with reason exist at all?"
Again, these are all nice guidelines to live a subjective moral life. But these are not objective moral answers which transcend personal benefit and self-interest. Morality is more than one's own self-interest. It sometimes asks us to suffer, die, or be 'unreasonable'. Why should I spend 18 years of my time and money raising a child I don't love? Who cares if the human race dies out after if I'm happy and flourishing? There are more fundamental questions that need to be answered.
If this is true, as you have stated, then your concept of 'good' is incoherent; which will not get resolved by elaborating on what you think is good (i.e., this or that is good: existence is good). You are confusing an explication of the property of goodness with what can be predicated to have it.
Can you drill into that more?
If I claim good is "What should be" then note, "Existence should be", then existence is good. If I go to the next step and say, "If existence is good, then more existence is better," how is that incoherent?
Quoting Bob Ross
Considering good is "What should be" I'm not seeing what you're stating. Should "X" be? Then it is good. Should "Y" not be? Then it is not good. The property of goodness is something that a thing has, or it doesn't. The question of, "Why is X good?" is different from the property itself. Is that the division you're noting?
I was referring to:
Claiming that good is to ought to be is incoherent. Talking coherently about existence being good in the sense that it should be doesnt help: thats talk about what you are ascribing as good, and not what good is itself.
This isnt a definition of good as a concept: what should be? is not a concept, it is a question.
This doesnt explain what good is. That's like:
Me: X is green.
You: What is green?
Me: It is green because X has color.
That is besides my original point, though: if I grant good is the same as to ought to be (which would avoid the above issue), then we are back to the original issues (that I quoted above). None of these issues get addressed by explicating that you think existence is good.
Agreed, just as I point out here (this link below was included in the post before my previous one):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625
In sum, the objective fact of the matter is this: 'all human beings suffer because we are alive and to varying degrees we human beings flourish e.g. (in general) form more adaptive than maladaptive habits by daily preventing and reducing suffering without causing more suffering in order not to merely languish'. For me, this is the objective, naturalistic basis of ethics and I observe that moral conduct or norms, to varying degrees of customary or subjective performance, manifest and/or conflict with this ethos.
Prevent or reduce your (or another's) suffering without increasing your (or another's) suffering. In other words, you should either seek help from others or help yourself and both without causing more harm to others or yourself.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/843592
You exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").
Humans exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").
"Murdering" is not a non-zero sum resolution to conflict, which may "help" you to survive but survival is not the sufficient condition for flourishing. Again, your question in effect, 'what if being un-reasonable (maladaptive) helps me to flourish' does not make sense as a reply to what I wrote above about being reasonable.
Beings with reason exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625
That's not coherent to my claim. I already mentioned if both could co-exist then both should as that's more existence. The only case in which we decide one over the other is if both cannot co-exist, or we only have the capacity to choose one over the other.
Quoting Bob Ross
I'm still scratching my head at this Bob. If good is "What should be", then that's what good is. If "X is good" then I am ascribing X as good. Can you give me an example of your terminology division?
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not a question, there's no question mark! :D If I used the phrase, "This is what is", you understand that's not a question. Same here.
Quoting Bob Ross
Right. Good = "What should be". If "X is good" then "X should be". We have the definition of what good is, and then a demonstration of something which has the attribute of being good.
Quoting Bob Ross
That's just an odd phrase. You can just drop the 'to' and leave it as 'ought to be' if the 'what' part of the phrasing is causing issues.
Good = ought to be
Something which is good = A specification of what ought to be"
is this the division you're looking for between good and what is ascribed as good?
There is no question that we all suffer. You view morality as a methodology of easing human suffering and providing benefits to humanity. But that's not objective. That's just a methodology that benefits mankind. I've defined morality as, "What should be." The problem with a human centric morality is, "Why should there be humans?" If the answer is, "I want there to be," then its really a culturally subjective viewpoint for self-benefit.
The morality I'm looking at is the deeper morality that would give us an objective justification for concluding that humanity should flourish. The morality I'm asking would exist even if humans didn't. Its a morality that can be applied to animals, and even the non-conscious universe itself. It does not care about our personal benefit, or our cultural subjective viewpoints.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why? If I can benefit while hurting another, why not? Lets say I have no emotional feelings of empathy towards other people. In fact, murdering a person gives me great happiness. Why should I listen to your morality? If I can make a billion dollars and be respected by the world while giving my employees the most minimal of human respect and decency, why shouldn't I? An objective morality cannot be based on emotions, nor can it only appeal to normal or good people.
Quoting 180 Proof
There's no category error here at all. Going back to my start, notice I never say, "I'm proving an objective morality exists." I'm noting, "If an objective morality exists, then this is what we can rationally conclude must be an answer to the fundamental question." If you claim, "I don't believe there is an objective morality," or that there is no objective answer to whether there should or should not be something, then there's nothing else to explore. We have subjective morality, and we all take our own corner of what we think ought or ought not to be. But in entering this discussion, we are assuming there is an objective morality. And if so, the question of, "Should there be existence?" is an absolutely imperative question that must be answered to build upon anything else.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why should I care whether others flourish? Why shouldn't I eliminate every other person on this Earth for peace and quiet? Again, I personally agree with flourishing as a goal, but it is nothing we objectively conclude, only emotionally conclude.
You sidestepped what I said: mentioning that both co-existing would be better doesnt address the hypothetical I gave you. What should be is a final consideration: it leaves out any discussion of a hierarchy of good things that never make the cut for being things which should exist.
Thats fine, I was talking about your response which tried to discuss that existence is good to address what is good. Saying existence is good doesnt address what good is. This just loops back around to the various incoherencies with the concept of good being what should be that I already mentioned (e.g., a clock that is good for telling the time is not necessarily a clock that should exist, etc.).
Thats fair! I misread that (:
Thats fine: it means the same thing.
Ah, it wasn't my intention to side step the issue. Let me take a look at it again.
You might be missing context as the important factor. Within the context in which both can co-exist, it is good for both to co-exist. In the context in which only one can exist, it will be a greater good for one of them to exist over the other. But this second context does not universalize that the one which will not exist wouldn't be good if they could both exist.
Lets use people. An 80 year old man is out with their 5 year old grandson. As they pass by a building, an explosion happens. The still spry grandfather can leap out of the way, but his grandson will die. If he stays, he will die, but his grandson will live.
Ideally both should be able to live. But given the situation, only one can. In the situation between the grandfather and grandchild its not that the grandfather shouldn't exist, its that the best outcome within this specific situation is that the grandfather dies protecting the grandson. A moral outcome based on a limitation does not mean that we will have the same moral outcome with that limitation removed.
No worry. Feel free to chime in any time later if it hits something you feel like exploring.
I think you might have an equivocation with your use of "should" here. "Should" can mean "ought," or "it would be good to..." but it can also be used as in "x should follow from y," where it is basically standing in for "x [I]entails[/I] y."
It seems possible that an objective standard could exist that says "things ought not to exist." This would simply mean that existence is not good, but it might still obtain anyhow. There is some self-reference at work here, in that the objective standard of good, by itself existing, is a bad thing, but this does not seem to be a contradiction.
Now, it is the case that if [I]nothing[/I] exists, then no standard of goodness can exist. If that's what you're getting at, that seems fine. But here, the term "exists" seems like it could also be equivocal. Do facts like 1+1=2 exist outside of created existence? Do they exist necessarily?
Well, if they do exist in a way different from how chairs and tables exist, and the standard of good exists in the way necessary facts exist, then it seems possible for it to exist while also stating that created existence "ought not exist."
The hypothetical stated that they cannot both co-exist; but I understand what you are saying: it just doesnt address the issue.
Heres a great example of you using the concept of good incoherently with your definition: there is no way to rewrite that sentence in terms of greater should exist or should exist more than without losing the original meaning (in the sentence) of greater good. Thats why I used the example: there is one thing that is good but should not exist; which contradicts your definition.
Also, on a separate note, Ive always thought something fishy is going [ (; ] on with your derivation of existence being good but couldnt pin point it: I think I found it. In order for there to be a standard, there must exist already something that is morally good. If this is true, then existence cannot be that standard; because that would be circular.
I think what you are really noting, without realizing it, is that whatever is morally good will presuppose that it is morally good for it to exist. I think you are just extrapolating invalidly too far by concluding that should something exist or nothing? is the fundamental question because of it.
Then isn't your proposition only proving that objective morality itself should exist, i.e. is a moral end? I don't see why it would apply to any other forms of existence (whose existence wouldn't affect the existence of the objective morality)
I wouldn't say that x should follow from y is the same as 'entails'. Should or ought in are words of intention or preference. If x should follow from y, it means that there is a possibility that it does not. If existence should be, it doesn't mean that it necessarily will be for example.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Then how would it answer its own contradiction? Anytime you reach a contradiction in logic, its an indicator its something that's not possible. To be clear, the question is, "Should there be existence?" or the binary of "Something vs Nothing". Meaning in the face of an absolute void, there still ought to be something. Does this mean, "If we can have 2 somethings vs the 1 something, that the 2 something is always better?" No. We are setting a base good, and nothing more at this point.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That's about the gist. So if there is an objective standard of goodness that exists, it cannot logically conclude that it ought not to exist. For if it did, then that logically means it would be good if the objective conclusion did not exist. If we got rid of the objective morality based on its own conclusions then, we are left with only one answer, that there ought to be existence.
Objective reality cannot be a contradiction. Objectivity is a state of reality that is, while a contradiction is a claim that something both is and is not at the same time in purely equivalent positive and negative terms or A = !A. No objective conclusion that I know of leads to a contradiction of itself, therefore anything which is a contradiction cannot be objective. Ergo, "Existence ought to be" is the only conclusion which an objective morality could conclude.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No. They are observations and logical conclusions about created existence. Everything that is exists. There are no ghosts 'outside of existence', floating concepts in the aether 'outside of existence', or other nonsense. You cannot get outside of existence. If it is, it exists.
Also, a better word than possible would be plausible. Something possible is the knowledge of something that has occurred at least once. So it is possible it could happen again. What is plausible is something in our imagination that we have not actually explored. So its plausible that a green man is outside of my home monitoring me right now. Plausibility however is not a very good induction if there is something above it, which is possibility or impossibility. What I am claiming is that it is impossible for there to exist an objective morality that contradicts itself, because that which is objective does not contradict itself. Therefore anything plausible to the contrary we can imagine is a consideration to explore, but by itself unexplored can be dismissed as a serious challenge.
So, if you believe it is plausible that there is an objective morality which concludes there ought to be no existence, feel free to propose a proof of its counter where I have proposed it is impossible. But if you cannot raise it to the level of possibility or impossibility, then cogently, we can dismiss the argument as a thought that cannot be elevated enough to be a serious consideration in the argument.
How? I don't understand. Please give an example of the issue in another way so I can understand then. You can use the grandfather, the grandson, and the explosion to demonstrate if you wish.
Quoting Bob Ross
Should not exist in that context. In another context both the boy, the grandfather, and the explosion ought to exist, just separately. Because when you get into existences, we find that some combinations create more potential and actual existences than others. But we're getting too far ahead now within the scope of this conversation. Lets just break the basic example down.
If you wish, chart it out. Take the boy, the grandfather, and the explosion and set them to every variation of true and false you can think of. True = exist, while false = does not exist. Of course the optimal set would be where all three are true. But if we're in a situation in which one must be false, that is a less optimal situation. Meaning we have a situation that is the greatest good, and situations which are not as good. As you can see, we can have one set which is the greatest good, with other sets that are not as good.
Perhaps you're missing the notion of relativite vs absolute. In an absolute sense (within the context of this simple thought experiment only, don't go any deeper than this!) all three should exist. But we are not Gods. Just because something ought to be, doesn't mean it can be. There are limitations in which we cannot reach the ideal. In this case, the explosion is going to exist and either the grandfather or son will be set to false. In such cases we must take the best of what is available to us. Meaning that when we cannot reach the case in which all three can exist without eliminating the other, we must chose from what is remaining. Meaning there is an ideal good, and a reachable good. If this is incoherent, please point out with clear examples, not abstracts.
Quoting Bob Ross
Ha ha! No worry. It needs to be challenged in every way. A claim to objectivity requires it.
Quoting Bob Ross
A logically necessary requirement for something is not a circular fallacy. Something circular would be something which tried to prove itself by illogical self-assertion. "The bible is entirely true." How do we know its true? "Because the bible tells us its true." I am using a proof by contradiction to note that existence should be, not circular logic. Consequently, it would be that something good already exists, but that is not being used as a proof for the claim that existence is good.
No. There is one assumption that I noted in the OP. We are assuming an objective morality exists. If it exists, logically, what must the answer be to "Should there be existence?" Logically, any objective morality must conclude, "Yes." We aren't proving that an objective morality exists, we are simply proving what it must entail if it does exist.
I understand that, and I was a bit unclear in my wording. My point was that objective morality, which we presume is true, proves only that the existence of the system itself is moral and ought to exist (i.e. it would be immoral for there no such system, like if we were judging an alternate amoral universe by our universe's standards). I don't think your proposition proves that existence as a concept is moral, only that the existence of an objective moral system is moral (which is somewhat redundant and tautological). To conflate the existence of a moral system with the existence of an object or sentient being is a stretch, in my opinion. And since an objective morality is not dependent on sentient beings (or anything else, it exists as a universal truth) which has already been stipulated, our existence is not moral/immoral based on this argument.
I agree that uses of "should" such as, "if you add two odds together the result should be an even," leave something to be desired as to clarity.
But then g. seems to equivocate on this usage.
But if "it shouldn't exist," is taken as "it is not good for it to exist," I don't think there is a contradiction.
Let me rewrite the argument without the equivocation:
e. If it is the case that there is some objective moral standard that concludes that [it would not be good for] anything to exist, that objective moral standard must itself exist.
f. But if [that objective standard] exists, then according to itself, it [is not good that it] exists.
g. If it is [not good] for anything to exist then it is not good for that objective moral standard to exist.
I am not seeing a straightforward contradiction here. "Everything is bad and it would be better if there was nothing," might be self-refuting in a way, but it isn't saying the equivalent of p and not-p.
Arguably, yes, such a claim would be self-refuting. But presumably the standard is saying "it would be better if everything did not exist," not "it would be better if this standard alone did not exist." In particular, I don't see how we are left with "only one answer." If there is no standard for what ought to be the case then our answer might as well be arbitrary.
No, because the question is not, "is the objective system moral itself?" The question is whether there should be existence at all. If the answer is no, then the very objective morality itself shouldn't exist. But if it shouldn't exist, then it cannot claim that other things should or should not exist as it should not exist itself. If it should not exist, then it should not be followed. It contradicts itself.
Lets continue.
If its not good for the objective moral standard to exist, then according to itself, it ought not to exist.
If we are to know that it ought not to exist, then we should destroy it, ignore it, or not follow it according to itself. The only conclusion we can make then is we ought to conclude that existence should be, therefore existence ought to be.
Its a pretty clear contradiction from the conclusion. Any conclusion which leads to negating itself is irrational, and cannot be an existent objective morality.
Yes, I agree. Therefore, an objective morality must advocate that its existence is just. But I don't see how that proves that the broader, universal concept of existence itself is moral, or how it shows that our or anything else's existence is moral (excluding the objective moral system, whose morality is a logical fact).
Because it cannot answer the question, "Should there be existence?" in the negative without contradicting itself.
It only contradicts itself in one unique case, when the objective morality is referring to itself. We could modify the statement to be "Should (objects, humans, life, literally anything else) exist" or "should there be existence/should things exist outside of the moral sphere" and it could claim "no, that's not moral" with ease.
That would hardly be advocating for existence as a whole
As long as you understand the answer to the fundamental question, you're ready for the next step. Its just a start. Compared to nothing, all existence is good. But It doesn't tell us if some existence is better than others. Yet when we have an objective fundamental to start with, we can build towards a more complete moral system not based off of subjectivity. I'll post the next part this weekend as this has to be digested in bits. If you want to see where I'm going to go, you can click the link I noted in the OP. I warn you though that's more of a note splash.
[quote=QED]1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad, and
2. if "objective moral good" assumes "existence is good",
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad;
4 therefore if "objective morality",
5. then it necessarily assumes existence is both good and bad (i.e. "should be" and should not be) simultaneously which is a contradiction;
6. therefore either (A) "objective morality" is not possible or (B) "objective morality" does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be";
7. however, objective morality is possible (e.g. disutilitarianism),
8. therefore (B) objective morality does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be". [/quote]
Show where my reasoning goes wrong and thereby defeat this counter-argument to the OP.
(fyi I'm traveling today so I'm on my phone and may not be able to post responses promptly.)
3 is incorrect. If there should be existence, then the absence of existence would be bad. We have nothing so far which notes, "This particular existence should not be," because we have not asked the question, "Should this particular existence be?" This question only entails the void of all existence, vs there being existence.
Now, I will be building up in the next post up to the point where we can evaluate how to parse existence into existences, and logically determine that some combinations of existence result in overall lower existence then if they were not there. But before I can get to that part, the fundamental needs to be answered. If we realize that all existence is good when compared to nothing, then we have an objective base to build off of.
Thanks.
You're moving the goalposts: according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence". Your objection above is incorrect.
I'm not understanding the point. Can you quote the part of the OP you're talking about?
Quoting Philosophim
Sure ...
Quoting Philosophim
That was just an intro sentence to sum up what you would read. Where do I note that objective morality is conditional in the argument? I feel the logic is pretty clear, so I'll sum it here again.
Good is "What should be"
I conclude that if there is an objective morality, it necessarily must answer the question, "Should there be existence?" with Yes.
So this would mean that existence is good. The denial of existence would be bad. You say:
but that doesn't lead from anything I've stated in the OP. If good is what should be, bad is its negation. Thus the absence of existence entirely would be bad. In no way does the OP imply or assume that existence is bad.
Do you mean something like 'If there is the Good, then existence must be good'? Buddhism proposes that the Good would be the end of suffering, and that all existence is suffering, which entails that existence is bad, something to be transcended.
I'm not arguing for the truth of Buddhism, just pointing out that it's always going to be a matter of interpretation.
No, I mean the steps that I go through on the OP to reach the conclusion. If good is "what ought to be" and there is an objective morality, it must necessarily conclude "Yes" to the question of "Should there be existence?"
Quoting Janus
For a subjective notion of morality, sure. Anything goes. This is not anything goes. This is a step by step process to prove certain conclusions that an objective morality must abide by.
Quoting 180 Proof
i.e. show that the latter (bad) is not entailed by the former (good).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196
What is the difference between there being an objective morality and there being The Good? What would there being an objective mporaity look like for you?
An objective morality would be an analysis of what good is apart from culture, emotions, or subjectivity.
How do you define "The Good"? I'm not using that term here so I don't know what it means.
Let me break it down another way for you then.
Let me translate what you said in terms of what the OP is saying.
1. If there is an objective moral good, then of course there must be an objective moral bad.
2. An objective moral good concludes that existence is good.
You state, "So an objective moral bad must conclude existence is bad." But that doesn't follow. We've concluded that an objective moral good must conclude that existence is good. In such a scenario the objective moral bad would be, "A lack of existence".
I'm saying A = good !A = bad
You're saying A = good, A = bad.
So no, you cannot conclude from what I've written that what is objectively bad is existence.
Such an analysis would need an objectively good object of analysis, and that object would be "The Good" if it existed.
Well, take a look at the OP, think about it carefully, and let me know if you think it works as a start. :)
Quoting 180 Proof
... so I stand by my counter-argument until someone (or myself) refutes it.
:up: :up:
If you want to claim I didn't, point out how. A repost of a few sentences that doesn't address my reply, nor attempt to clarify your position leaves you over there in a world I cannot reach nor understand.
Where in the OP do I go wrong when I show you what objective goodness must be?
You merely define it as "what should be". That doesn't tell us what should be, and since there are obviously many aspects of existence that, at least from a human point of view, should not be, it just seems inconsistent and unwarranted to claim that existence must be good if we assume (for the sake of argument) that there is an objective good, because even with that assumption the nature of that good we cannot know.
I've tried my best but I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Have a nice flight, catch you another time.
The question was, "Should existence be?" Did you understand the logic that lead to the answer being "Yes"? Do you have some disagreement with it?
I've already told you why I disagree with it.
But, I'll try a different tack (which amounts to the same thing):
Quoting Philosophim
That it exists doesn't contradict the idea that the rest of existence shouldn't exist. That would only be so if it were the creator, as the 'Gnostic' example I gave shows. According to that account the Good is a transcendent God, not the deluded demiurge who created this world.
So, you are conflating the (purported) existence of an objective good (however we might conceive that) with the actual existence of the world.
You've given a personal opinion, but not a refutation of the OP. Its ok, I know not everyone reads and understands the OP. Its an establishment of a base, I'll write the next steps on where we can go with this over the weekend. But I wanted to give people time and thought to digest the first part. Good conversation.
I've given an argument that in my personal opinion refutes the OP. In your personal opinion it does not refute the OP. I'd be disappointed if I had to conclude that you're one of those who reads all disagreement as misunderstanding.
I'm not convinced you really think our exchange was a good conversation; if I sincerely felt someone had not understood what I had written I would not deem it to have been a good conversation.
In any case, it's nothing personal, I wish you all the best.
Its not an opinion. You didn't address the arguments of the OP. No citation of the steps, nor refutation of the specific reasoning given. Its ok, not everyone wants to engage at that level.
Quoting Janus
No, you were polite, said your peace, and wanted to go no further than that. That's a good conversation. :) No trolling, 'yelling', or insults my way. This is an open forum for all people to engage at all levels. Thanks for participating and enjoy your day!
I believe I did:
Quoting Janus
I addressed the above and pinpointed what I thought was the salient problem with the reasoning. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, even though I thought I gave an illustrative example in the Gnostics, so I'll try one more time.
If something morally objective existed, it could not be an empirical existent. It would enjoy a different kind of existence; one which we cannot coherently imagine. Since its existence could not be an empirical one, it could conclude that there should be no empirical existence without concluding that its own existence is morally wrong, and would thus avoid contradicting itself.
That's irrelevant. Existence is "What is". I have the definitions at the top, let me know if there is any definition that needs more detail. Even if its not empirically existent, it still exists right? It would be an odd thing to say it doesn't. The question is, "Should there be existence?" Not any specific empirical, rational, metaphorical, relative, existence. Any existence at all. It is that, or nothing.
Existence is "What is". Lets say there's another form of existence that's not empirical. It exists right? Thus the question, "Should there be existence", and its answer, does not change.
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll:
Sure, we can entertain the idea that there might be some kind of existence we have no idea of, but it's no better than fiction, in fact it's worse, because fiction is really based on our experience of this world. Moral questions concern our existence, human life as we know it to be, so when we ask whether there should be existence that question, if coherent at all, can only be coherent in reference to the human existence we know. We cannot even coherently ask moral questions about the goodness or otherwise, of animal or plant existence let alone the inanimate world, much less some existence we cannot know or even imagine at all That's my take on it, anyway.
Quoting 180 Proof
:smirk: :lol:
Bravo! Encore!
its doable!
bleak
lol
right on
ill re-read these posts, thanks for redirecting
I dont either... agree with you here
Quoting Philosophim see sticky note moved from here 5/15/24 1154pm
" NO precondition for questioning should be enforced by anyone except the self to, for, with the self...like dont you think the precondition is the ability we have to "think before we speak" ? Isnt "thinking before speaking" a precondition to questioning? Common sense to me. Makes sense, to me! "
Quoting Bob Ross This is good to point out, bob (underlined)
Quoting Philosophim
good point here
Quoting Philosophim we can...
Quoting Philosophim That is excatly right, Philosophim! ONWARD!
Quoting Philosophim
The confusion within some people may not understanding this part...see bold and underlined text from quote below to back this one above???
Quoting Philosophim I think you are onto something here..
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Is it necessary to go this direction? ITS A DEAD END the road we take because we are blinded by confusion and thinking any relevance comes around the questioning if nothing exists path....
We can proceed here, Quoting Philosophim, and we shall BECAUSE WE CAN AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO! I did not present a rejection, I rightfully questioned the intention and ability of the person (you) who seeks to proceed with building a new process (the objection that can come from ideas presented in OP). I think you are reading into the emotions before acknowledging the character for what it is? Shame on you! You know better than that!! AND ALSO I can give a general consensus, (who else is going to? Who COULD?) because my intentions to enhance the efforts you seek to start doing, the building, are true in that I believe you are taking THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN YOUR EFFORTS presented in the OP. Are you seriously asking MEEEEEE if the logic in the OP proper??? WHO AM I TO SAY? LOOK AT THE WAY I EXPRESS MYSELF? DO YOU SEE ME USING LOGIC IN MY STYLE and EFFORTS? I dont know much or care to learn proper logic, and have said it before.. it is not required. It is not useless, it is very valuable for some people to understand "things" but that is out of my place to speak on...I will argue NOTHING "needs" to be logically correct, it needs to be real and if it is real it OUGHT to be able to be logically put from there....does that make sense or am I slow? ACTUALLY don't answer that last question.... :roll: It might contradict things if you do that, correctly...ha!
My more than general consensus exists here now and even did then (my original comment). This is my immediate responses and reactions, as they came to me in the moment while reading the thread to its end. This single comment displays in it the way I have navigated the thread and comprehended it for its worth (to me)...I am not prepared in the time I have now, as I am nearing the max limit that this single comment ought to hold. If I share my consensus (it exists already) further than this here comment, consider this the warning that it will still surface...this comment AT LEAST serves to prep the others! The sail has been set and the wind is steady coming! When the time is right, we will move on together! Until then, "yo ho yo ho, a pirates life for me!"
Quoting Philosophim Yep, seems obvious to me. What does that say about YOU? (literally anyone- lets compare)
Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded.
"I need you to work more' (said from Boss in an office to Worker) is a subjective moral case that was at first closed, but then opened, and awaiting conclusion.
Hunger, is an objective moral case that is always open and is awaiting conclusion. Other examples: a need for peace-making, a need for order, thirst, survival, etc.
You know, you have a vast knowledge of philosophy and a clever mind. I keep appealing to you because I feel if you ever got into a serious discussion, you would have a lot to offer. If I'm going to propose an objective morality seriously, I need serious attacks. What I have written has never been written before. Here's a real chance to think about something new and be a part of it. My last appeal, do what you wish.
1. If X creates more existence than its absence, then it is good.
2. If Y creates more existence than its absence, then it is good.
3. X creates more existence than its absence.
4. Y creates more existence than its absence.
5. X is good. (1 & 3)
6. Y is good. (2 & 4)
7. X creates more existence than Y.
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
9. X should exist, and Y should not exist. (5 & 6 & 7 & 8)
10. Y should not exist, but is good. (6 & 9)
11. Good is what should be.
12. 10 is then incoherent: Y should not exist, but it should exist. (10 restated in light of 11)
Your response, was to sidestep the issue by denying 8 and commenting on if they both could co-exist. Thats blatantly not the point.
I didnt say it was circular logic: it is ontologically circular.
If what is morally good (lets call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence (let's call it E) is not what is morally goodit is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good.
To say that existence is what is morally good, would, then, to be to claim that existence is actually what makes G morally good; while G is what makes existence morally good.
I was not the one who introduced the idea of non-empirical existences, you did as a counter. So then your counter to me is noted by you as fiction. Fiction does not counter what is objective. "Unicorn" arguments can be dismissed. So then we're back to the point where my points remain unchallenged. Try again! Maybe another angle? Challenge anything, the definitions through the premises to the conclusion.
That's a neat way of looking at it. Did you happen to read the OP entirely btw? Any comments, questions, or issues with what was stated? Thanks for stopping by.
Actually, it is also circular logic (come to think of it). One would be saying E is morally good because of some relevant property of G, but also saying G is morally good because of some relevant property of E.
Existence is ought otherwise it wouldn't be(see: the correct understanding of morality((there is not correct against(((i.e. immorality - it will always be incorrect))); you have to be moral for things to continue((((i.e. immorality in the case of survival leads to not surviving)))), and there are things ought by existence, but the fact that existence is ought doesn't necessitate anything other than it will come if things continue to be moral around the time it began. Because existence is ought implies many things, but by no means is it a 'should' other than an acknowledgement of 'existence is moral', based on that matter alone.
I didn't think I sidestepped. I thought I addressed this with the grandfather and the grandson next to the explosion, and only one being able to live. Isn't that the situation in 8? But this does not destroy that Ideally we want all three existences to be able to co-exist. Even if there's a limitation and only one can live, it ought to be that both still live. Just because we can't generate that outcome doesn't change anything in regards to their goodness as existences.
Morality is not about the outcome, it is about what ought to be. Morality is about possibilities. In the instance of the explosion, there is no possibility of both the grandfather and grandkid coming out alive. So we evaluate the situation based on the limitations presented to us by the state prior to the explosion, and determine what the most moral outcome would be. Both the grandfather and grandson are good, but unfortunately, we cannot change the fact that one of them will die, only choose who will die.
Have you ever heard of triage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
My mother is a nurse, and its a very basic approach to care when there is not enough time and resources to treat everyone at the same time equally. A person who has third degree burns and is dying is going to be treated prior to someone who has a cut that needs stiches, but otherwise can wait. Does that make the person who has the cut unworthy of treatment? That they aren't valuable? No. Its just an assessment of understanding that given limitations, certain people have priority over others. If the hospital had unlimited resources, ideally everyone would be taken care of at the same time. If we were Gods then ideally we would let both the grandfather and grandson survive. But we are not Gods. We are mortals with limitations.
An objective morality should be able to determine what is most moral without limitations, and what is most moral given limitations. I've done that here. That should answer your point, but feel free to contest if it does not.
Quoting Bob Ross
Let me take the first part of your sentence.
"If what is morally good (lets call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence is not what is morally good."
This is not my argument. First, its not "morally good" which necessitates anything, its an "Objective morality." Morality is an analysis of what is good. If an objective morality determines that existence is good, then existence is good.
Now lets tie in your second sentence. "it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good"
So this now becomes, "An objective morality is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good", which is not a problem. So no circular logic.
Not really. A real guarantor of objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent, so your argument fails from the start unless you posit a transcendent guarantor. And, as I've pointed out, whether or not the existence of that transcendent guarantor is itself good has no bearing on whether empirical existence is good, unless that guarantor be the creator. But then you would just be arguing for theism.
1. Where is your proof that an objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent?
2. What is a transcendent guarantor and what is your proof of it?
My point is all of the above is not a proof, just an opinion with unproven statements. Not that it matters that much as...
Quoting Janus
3. I will note again that I have not separated existence into different types. Meaning if there were multiple existences, I am not saying at this moment that any one existence would be morally superior or inferior to another. So you're inserting a point that I have not claimed to make. That's typically called a straw man argument, or a logical fallacy. You build up something that the person is not saying, then argue that its wrong.
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists. I am stating this for the third time, and I have yet to hear an argument against this. I noted the question, "Should there be existence?" and that logically, the answer is yes. Feel free to look through the argument and demonstrate why you believe this is incorrect by refuting the logic given. But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.
Unfortunately, we are just talking past each other; and I would just be reiterating if I responded. So I will let it rest.
Take care, Philosophim! :kiss:
There is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, so that would rule out all temporal existents. At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis.
Quoting Philosophim
That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words. The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence.
Quoting Philosophim
You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed.
I think we are done...I, for one, am not going to continue to repeat myself.
You too Bob! I'll have the second part posted this weekend, we can touch base again for the second part to see if that resolves your issue.
Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right?
Quoting Janus
So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one.
Quoting Janus
No. I'm pointing out that coming in and saying, "Here is my counter" does not absolve you of clearly defining and proving your counter is correct. You believe your points to be true, but you have not proven your points to be true. If they are not true, I, who have attempted to prove my points, am not countered.
If you want to counter what I've written, you need to address the logic of what is written, and demonstrate your own counter can hold up against equal criticism. And don't take it the wrong way! :) It is better to make claims, arguments and counters. Just understand and expect the same will be given back.
Quoting Janus
How? Are you saying that any of the descriptors of existence, transcendent, temporal, empirical etc, don't exist? I think that's pretty clear, otherwise we wouldn't call them existences. They are weighty words that make the point very clearly.
Quoting Janus
Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion?
Quoting Janus
No, I've heard clearly and addressed it clearly.
Quoting Janus
You need to prove its incoherent, not just say it is. I have seen no proof that it is incoherent.
So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP. As I've noted, its fine to have counter arguments, but they must rise beyond opinions. The OP is a proof. It rises to the same standard I am asking you to give. And now that you understand that standard, feel free to look at the OP again and hold it to the same level. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't demand of myself.
True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable, but until that happens...
Quoting Philosophim
We can't really imagine, in the sense of "form an image of" an eternal existence. We can think it as the dialectical opposite of temporal, that is all. Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical
Quoting Philosophim
If it wasn't universal, then it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere, if it was not eternal it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness at all times. The ideas of guaranteed universality and eternality pertain to transcendence, because nothing in or about this empirical, temproal world can be guaranteed to be universal or eternal.
Quoting Philosophim
Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here.
.
So then its possible. Do you see you keep making contradictions to yourself?
Quoting Janus
So we can imagine without an image. Which is still just imagining something.
Quoting Janus
I'm not, I'm just using your words. I really didn't care about that part, I just wanted you to clarify what you were saying with some evidence and without contradictions. As I noted, it doesn't matter these types of existence, as it does not negate the question of, "Should there be existence?" which does not care about types. Which you still have not addressed. So again, I'm not seeing any viable counters to my points here.
Quoting Janus
So then if I asked a question, "Should there be existence?" and I could prove the answer always has been, and will be "Yes", then would that not be an eternal guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere? Wouldn't that be transcendent then?
Quoting Janus
Its fine, as I noted not everyone likes to go to that level, but that is the level that's expected for me to consider my points countered. And believe me, I've been countered before and owned up to it. I appreciate your contributions Janus. I'll be putting a second part out this weekend that may clear up some questions and further the thinking if you're interested.
There's an element of objectivity to our lives, there are things we must do, logic gates we must pass to experience(hunger, thirst, peace-making, aggression, etc). If we are immoral concerning these logic gates, we won't be able to experience the good.
Initiating existence was once a natural order, it was once the reason we ought be moral.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904275
Quoting 180 Proof
Statements like these are subjective opinions and don't address the OP. Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that.
I continue with the next steps here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life
I'm not sure how you automatically elevate the subjective over the objective, when the objective also exists and is good as well. This first part doesn't really declare what particular type of existence is better than any other type of existence, just the fact that existence, innately, is good compared to their being nothing.
:roll: Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904265
If you would expand on your points a bit, I might be able to engage with you. I've tried responding based on what I thought you were trying to say, but it doesn't seem like I've hit the mark. No, I don't understand it, but I'm willing to try if you'll expound on it a little.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196
Alright, I've been polite and you insist on trolling. What a waste of an intellect.
The opposite of "trolling".
I have no idea. He put two incoherent sentences together, and I've been trying to get him to explain what he meant by them. Instead he wants to climb on trash talk mountain and declare himself king. I genuinely thought he was playfully admitting he was trolling here, which I can forgive if it stops when requested. Apparently he can't even communicate basic trash talk clearly.
I did request in my other thread that he move on, so I'll give him a chance to. Otherwise I'll report him for clear trolling at this point, and I'll talk with the mods to ensure he stays out of my threads going forward. For a member that's been here as long as he has, his conduct is pretty poor here.
It seems like all of your subsequent reasoning devolves upon this set of specious reasonings.
First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"?
All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. Which is trivially (definitionally) evident, and doesn't add any substantial information. Your argument makes exactly this much sense:
If a banana exists, then it is good.
If a banana claims that it does not exist, then it is self-contradictory.
Therefore bananas are good.
As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. It exists all around us. In which case you may not stipulate that "existence is good" because what exists is clearly both good and bad.
Existence qua existence is neither good nor bad, it just is. Non-existence is not; meaning nothing can be meaningfully predicated of it.
Lets look at the definitions in the OP once again.
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. If you would like to propose other definitions, and why they would be better, then we can discuss that.
Quoting Pantagruel
I'll repost point one again:
Quoting Philosophim
My point is if good is "what ought to be" and we are analyzing "what ought to be", all moral questions will arrive at a fundamental that must be answered. "Should anything exist?" If existence should not be, then it is not good. If existence should be, then it is good. And to be clear, we are talking about any existence vs no existence at all. This is not 'existents' or discrete identifies of existence like atoms, humans, etc. This is the fundamental question of, "If there would be no existence, or some existence at all, what would an objective morality have to answer?"
Quoting Pantagruel
No, I don't prove ruductio ad absurdum. I'm using it to prove a point that any objective morality that claims, "Existence should not be" contradicts itself. Let me post the last few points again:
Quoting Philosophim
This is not the same as a banana proving that it is good. This is noting that at the fundamental question, there is a binary response. One leads to a contradiction, the other one does not, therefore the other one is true.
Quoting Pantagruel
And once again, those others are clearly wrong. I assume both binaries, and the binary that "Existence should not be" contradicts itself, while the "Existence should be," does not. Its a fairly straight forward Reductio ad absurdum argument.
Quoting Pantagruel
True. You may want to read the next steps then. This part is only about answering the fundamental of "Existence vs non-existence". In my later papers that are linked in the OP, I note how to identify within existence discrete entities called 'existents'. So at that point I'm able to say, "This is separate from that" in existence. As we dig deeper, we find that some existents and their combinations result in over all more or less existence. For example, it is more existence for a father and son to live then the father to die and the son to live.
For now, understand that we are starting a base fundamental here, and the problem of the fundamental should be analyzed as it is.
Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions).
"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction).
What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion ("Once again, in participating here, you assume the validity of the previous conclusions.") You are pre-empting criticisms in order to extend your reasonings, which motivation I can understand. But some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out.
Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. Do you mean counting? Anyway, You "prohibit" people from making legitimate observations about any of your current ideas unless they are willing to already concede all your preceding assumptions? That's a poor idea. It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it.
Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all. Where is the contradiction here?
Quoting Pantagruel
Let me post these points from the OP again:
Quoting Philosophim
In sum, we work down to a fundamental question of morality, and realize there can be only two answers. Logically, if I demonstrate that one answer leads to a contradiction, then this means the other solution must be true if it does not lead to a contradiction. This is a basic Reductio Ad Absurdum argument. There is no begging of any question here.
Quoting Pantagruel
Why? The subsequent posts rely on the conclusions of the previous posts. This helps separate the arguments into chunks for better discussion, and helps focus the conversation on areas that people have difficulty with. I'm also clearly indicating that each post builds upon the last. If you don't agree with previous points, then you won't be able to understand how I build to the new points.
Quoting Pantagruel
Feel free to point them out. I have no objection to that. But specify them, don't generally accuse if you want to make a point. I'll answer as they come, and if you point out something I agree with, I'll let you know. Just post them in the section that best suits your questions.
Quoting Pantagruel
Feel free to post in that one about quantification of existence. I can refer to the OP points there, answer your questions, and go into detail. However, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that section, if you don't find the premises that build to it sound. Then we've just wasted both of our times when really we needed to agree to the underlying points first (Or at least assume it while discussing the next steps).
Of course, if in the later steps I contradict conclusions in the earlier steps, that's perfectly fine to call out.
Quoting Pantagruel
Nope. You'll find I'm straight forward with any issues or questions you have. Its just a simple A-> B -> C set of arguments, so if you're going to argue against point C because you believe point A is wrong, we really need to discuss point A before C. I am not claiming that you must agree to all the points in this, the first post. Only that if you want to discuss the later posts, its assumed that you understand and accept the premises of the previous posts.
The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. But only then. Otherwise, you have no business bringing existence into the domain of morality. None. That is the only sense in which "what ought to be" can meaningfully confront the question of non-existence.
Correct, and that is all this section is proving. The follow up post is where I try to logically build something off of this fundamental. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to post your critiques in that section and I'll address them to the best of my abilities.
Yes, what I do here is question the inherent goodness of existence, and determine that if there is an objective morality, it must conclude that existence, as a fundamental, should be. After the proof is finished, there is no longer any question. Even if my other proposals which build upon this fundamental are flawed, this fundamental answer to the base question stands.
Quoting Philosophim
I will continue our conversation here, till we are ready to circle back. I have been so busy with looking at morals now, that I totally forgot what you wrote in your last message, and zoomed in on this.
My ideas work more in the realm of hypothetical and possibilities, whereas your foundation is spot on when it comes to what is currently known. I do believe I have something to add here, and hopefully you can work with it.??
Ill start with the connection between objective morality, and existence being good. Wouldnt your argument work even if you changed objective morality with objective amorality/immorality/? Adding to this, there might be inherent conflict between the various objective moralities pertaining to the necessity for existence.
??Secondly, the connection between objective morality and existence. This simplifies what I see as a rather complicated line of connected assumptions. The reason why I assume many prefer the human-centric moral reasoning, is probably that it is hard to disprove that people with consciousness and moral ability exist, but harder to causally link existence and morality.
?Here are some issues that I see:
- The possibility that this universe, and life, operate on different morals altogether. Even when we are conditioned to the rules of the Universe, that does not necessitate that we agree. Similarly, growing up we are conditioned to our parental figures, but when we have the ability, skill, courage and wisdom to question them, we might strongly disagree with them. ?And yes, our lives and conflicts are very local in time and space, but is it safe to assume, based on life so far, that the Universe will ever change???
Secondly, objective and Fundamental. These words can mean very different things in this context. Are you talking in absolute terms, or in relative? If we look at the present universe, and us, we can talk about Objective in the context of the rules in our world, and what seems to be moral in this world.
?In absolute terms, we are talking about some absolute force capable of sustaining itself regardless of any laws, and would seem to be more like a God. ?The question you are asking; «Should there be existence at all?» doesnt seem to be the one you are answering. The question seems to be «Does conscious and moral existences contribute to the «moral» impetus of the Universe??? However, arguing that since conscious and moral entities contribute, it must be moral, is definitely a possibility, but not the most prudent one. Or am I misreading this?
??Well, with all these things said, let me try to remedy and build on what you have already written. Firstly, I dont find it objectionable to say that within the confines of this Universe that there are certain possibilities that are infinitely more moral to life than others. However, I find it very hard to argue that the Universe is moral. My hard stance on this is that the rules of the Universe are Amoral. And as such, a much more moral action than trying to be moral as an individual, would be to change the laws of the Universe perpetuating immorality by default. ?
We are cogs in a bigger machine, and are made of stardust, and so going against the rules of the Universe is folly. Which arent to say that it is wrong to do, or that we agree just because all our actions, if we are to live, go according to the rules of some grand fate.
For the reasons above, I prefer a more open approach when it comes to the Universe and beings capable of moral action. We might not be the same, similarly to how you arent your video-game character, even when you play it. This is an important point to me, because I do see a lot of «I love the earth» written many places, directly or indirectly. But all the 'accidents' that happen, that we are not protected from, why dont people blame the Universe? To me, this seems more like a serious bout of Stockholm Syndrome, where you make all sorts of excuses out of extreme fear, confusion and hopelessness.
And is our moral relationship with the Universe any different from the one children have with abusive parents? ??If anything, Existence the way it is structured, is inherently immoral to us. Our moral rules are constantly violated simply by the foundational rules that operate on us. None of the things a human being, in as much capacity as they are able to, views as sacred, by virtue of that action, is protected from sacrilege, devastation and/or entropy. Which is morally depraved, is it not??
The only difference is the lack of communication with the universe. If anything, panpsychism aside, the Universe is passive, and never 'intentional' in its actions. And so it is our imagination that gives rise to a personification of nature, the sun, the stars and the rules of the Universe.
?Hope this is useful feedback on this, and it is a contribution to the efforts you have put into this.??
Hear from you when youre ready, and as always, appreciate the interactions.
??Kindly,
?Caerulea-Lawrence
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Good and evil are psychological states of affairs and are features of reality.
Quoting Philosophim
Morality is about releasing what is a right action, good or evil, in a situation.
Read on through the rest of this thread, particularly page 2 (re: my proposals for "existence" and "morality" in the context of (how I understand) Western philosophy).
Morality is simply about evaluating what 'ought to be', so immorality would be its opposite or, evaluating "What not ought to be". Considering that we proved that the removal of all existence would be the removal of morality, we can know that if there was no existence, that would be immoral.
Adding to the inherent conflicts of other objective moralities...there are no other objective moralities. None. Its an area of philosophy, like knowledge, that still has a lot to explore and contribute. The problem until now is there has been nothing but a subjective foundation to all moral theories (that I know of).
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Yes, a good question for clarification. Objective in this case is 'What can logically be deduced apart from a singular viewpoint." And deduced is "A set of premises that lead to a logically necessary conclusion". So what I'm noting is that the premises do not require any one particular viewpoint. It is not an argument of opinion that requires any particular lived experience. There is no murky foundation such as, "We've always done it this way, common sense, or edict from God". It is a clear laying out of defined concepts, and a logical conclusion from those concepts.
To contrast, most moral theories' foundations are subjective inductions. They rely on rationalized feelings, cultural pressures, or myth and edicts. There comes a point in drilling into their foundation in which it begins to break down. "Why are our feelings an indicator of what is moral? Does that mean our feelings are moral themselves? So if I feel a particular way that is immoral, but act in a way that is moral, how did I know how to do that?" Just a loose example, nothing we need to drill into. :)
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
To clarify, this is not a complete moral system, this is an objective foundation. While I later build upon it as a proposal, here I am just laying groundwork. I have no illusions that what I've built upon this groundwork is anymore than a well reasoned rough draft, but I feel the groundwork here is solid. My hope is for people to understand the foundation, look at what I've built upon it, and add their own viewpoints, critiques, and possibly their own theories.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
The answer is, "Yes, consciousness and moral existences contribute", but I build to the reason why that is yes in the later posts. What I'm trying to do here at this point is ask the question, "Is there a possible objective foundation to build a moral theory off of? If so, what is it?" I can't prove that "Existence is good" based on pointing to a God or some law of nature that we've discovered. I only note that if an objective morality exists, any objective morality must logically include 'existence vs nothing' as 'good'. I also note that if an objective morality does not exist, then the argument would fail as well. But if an objective morality exists, this foundation I've pointed out is one logical conclusion that must be true.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Yes, we can always consider that possibility. Again, I am not claiming the entirety of the moral theory is sound, but I am claiming that logically, the foundation that "existence vs nothing" is good, is logically necessary, even if how we think the universe morally behaves as a total is different then we might think it is today.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
To be clear, I am not stating this. The moral foundation I've established does not require people. It would be a logical conclusion whether we exist or not. Just like the laws of physics would still exist without us.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Without an objective foundation, we cannot claim that the rules of the universe are moral or immoral, so the assertion that they are amoral is correct in this case. But if we have an objective foundation, "Existence is good", then we can look at the universe and see if certain rules and setups are more moral than others. But I'm not going that far in the foundation at this point. Building from that into a new theory is where I try that, which you'll see in the other posts. What we can conclude here is that compared to nothing, the universe is moral.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
True, without a moral foundation, we cannot judge. But with a moral foundation, we can. And if that moral foundation is sound, we can shape the universe around us to be better than it is as a non-conscious force. Just like we take rocks and turn them into statues, we can take the universe as it is and mold it into something greater than its mere existence.
I hope this helps to limit the scope of thinking at this moment to only the foundation. Once we come to a consensus on whether the foundation works, then we can build upon it to hit more of the issues you're thinking of.
It is fine to disagree. But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?" Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?
Quoting MoK
And how do we know what is a right action? Doesn't that require us to evaluate the situation? I do agree that we can also use morality in a sense that we have already determined what is good or evil. But this is the conclusion after evaluation. I do not mind either use.
What do you think about the logic of the rest of the post?
No, that is art. 'What one ought to do' is morality.
I am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you.
Quoting Philosophim
No. Good and evil are fundamental and they are both necessary. Think of evolution for example. The weak agents are eliminated in the process of evolution so room is left for the stronger to survive since the resources are finite. Evolution is evil since weaker agents are eliminated for the sake of stronger ones.
Quoting Philosophim
I have to first answer what good and evil are before discussing morality. Good and evil as I mentioned are two categories of psychological states. I cannot define good and evil but I can give examples
of psychological states in which a set of psychological states are good and others are evil. Good like love, happiness, pleasure, and the like. Evil like hate, sadness, pain, and the like.
Quoting Philosophim
Apparently, we cannot. We have to accept the reality as it is. Think of mental or physical exercises for a moment. Without physical activity which is tiresome and painful, therefore evil, you cannot have a body in good shape. The same applies to mental exercise. You must read, think, memorize, and discuss things to become mentally strong. This is also tiresome and painful, so we cannot avoid evil when it comes to mental exercise.
Quoting Philosophim
Sure, we need to evaluate the situation before deciding whether we should do good or evil.
Quoting Philosophim
This is a tricky part so I have to give examples of a few situations to make things clear. Think of a situation in which you have a nasty kid who breaks things and messes up your house. You don't reward him for what he does instead you punish him. The first act, rewarding, is good and the second act, punishing, is evil. Therefore, evil is right depending on the situation. Think of a person who is terminally ill. The act of killing any person is evil since it causes sadness to friends or relatives. But the act of killing a person who is terminally ill is right if she or he wants it. Here, I just gave a couple of examples of the situations in which evil acts are right. I am sure you can come up with situations in which a good act is the right choice.
Quoting Philosophim
I read your entire OP once but I have to read it a couple of more times before I become ready to discuss it in depth. For now, let's see if we agree on the definition.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good'.
You wrote about belief being necessary for knowledge, but also about the usefulness of gaining applicable knowledge:
Quoting Philosophim
If you start to believe in an unprovable and unsensible Objective morality, you start off with an indirect contradiction of your own belief by reality. What is then the applicable use of the rest of the 'Knowledge' you create, when it is indirectly contradicted to begin with?
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. Neither does 'proving the laws of physics' mean the results are the 'truth' of reality, it is just our 'human' understanding of the matter. Without the human element, any practical and useful understanding of 'what is good' breaks down completely, as you simultaneously argue that we don't need humans to evaluate morals, and that we as humans can understand fundamental morals. This is contradictory.
We are human, and as long as we are, we can only make 'human' claims about reality, not 'objective claims'.
Quoting Philosophim
We don't know if we can mold the universe or not, and believing we can, just because we believe in Objective Morality, seems no different from any other fundamental beliefs that start off indirectly contradicted by reality.
This seems to be an obvious categorical error of reasoning on your part. It is fine if you are post-hoc arguing, but that is a known fallacy, and it doesn't make any sense to me to build a theory that prefaces by making a known error of reasoning.
If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections, as there is nothing for me to add, and I don't want to build on such a shaky foundation.
If this is your faith, that there is an objective morality, and so existence must be good, I can respect that - but then it is Faith, and should be presented as such.
Faith doesn't have to be 'Logical' to make sense, after all.
Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence
As of now, I'm not claiming that. All I've claimed at this point is that there is a fundamental logical truth to any objective morality. When presented with the idea of existence vs total non-existence, "existence being good" is necessary if an objective morality exists. In no way am I measuring good relatively among existence itself. I start building that in the next post.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I'm not saying, "I have found and proven an objective morality". What I am noting is if (means its not necessarily true) that an objective morality exists, logically, the answer to "some existence vs non-existence" must result that "existence should be". So at a very basic level, existence is good, complete non-existence is not. There is nothing else more being stated than this at this time.
The argument being presented above is a logical argument. It demonstrates that any claim of objective morality which claims non-existence is what should be, indicates that the objective morality itself should not be. And if that objective morality should not be, then we should not follow it. In other words, it contradicts itself. Therefore the only objective morality that does not contradict itself, is one that concludes existence is preferable to non-existence.
In no way does this claim that God or anything dictated that existence is good. It is simply a logical consequence if an objective morality exists. It is not even a claim that an objective morality actually exists. It states, "If it exists, this logically must be."
We can take this with a more common knowledge setup to compare. "The definition of a bowling ball is that it is spherical, and matches what we would call a ball. Because a cube is not spherical, it cannot be a bowling ball" If an object is a cube, it cannot be a sphere, is a logical conclusion. Claiming a cube is a sphere is a contradiction in properties, therefore we know its wrong to do so."
Thus the argument above is a reducto ad absurdum argument based on the definitions we have. There are a few ways to counter it. We could change the definitions. We could demonstrate that an objective morality does not exist. But because we can neither confirm or deny an objective morality exists, we can
at least start with what is necessary for an objective morality to exist. And this basic foundation is essential to any objective morality.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Correct. But when we do not have proof of the fundamentals, we can take what we do know and conclude logical limits. Logical limits are starting points to build working theories of reality. That is all I'm doing here. The starting limit does not prove an objective morality. The starting limit does not prove that what I build further is true. But it does allow us to explore plausibilities. At one time, we could not travel deep under the sea. But logical allowed us to determine things on land such as "pressurized hulls". So in theory we could send something under the sea. We based it off of the things we logically knew, and adjusted as we went along.
The foundation here is that starting base. Its to say, "Hey, we can go under the ocean. I don't have all the details, and we might need to adjust as we descend, but logically, we can start with this as to why we should be able to."
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
What breaks down is the language and process to prove X exists. If X is real, it exists whether we are here to understand it or not. We need humans to understand the process to prove an objective morality, but it would exist (if it does) whether we did or not. Our language construction and applied knowledge to the world would not exist, but the world still exists.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
We mold the universe today. Our understanding of physics has allowed us to create the combustion engine for example. So let us imagine that we have a moral situation. "If a river if not diverted, will destroy a village. But if it is diverted, it will tear up a nearby road." The idea isn't meant to be complex or tricky, but note that we already do moral evaluations, and shape the world based on those moral evaluations. A road is nothing compared to an entire town, so we divert the river. The question then is can we build an objective morality from the foundation that I've laid out that gives us a clear answer as to why we should divert the river besides, "Its obvious, people are more valuable for subjective reasons, and so on"
If we could construct a morality that would objectively lay out why saving the village was more valuable, then we could indicate this across cultures and even species. That's invaluable. Does it exist? Maybe. But if it does, it should follow this foundation, so from this foundation we can see if other logical conclusions necessarily occur. Thus beginning to build a morality that we can debate, and of course test.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I surely didn't mean to dismiss your objections! If you think I haven't addressed or dismissed an objection, please point it out. Having read your response, I believe you think I'm stating much more than I am here. I am not saying an objective morality exists. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm very open to that. I am only saying, if I'm correct, and an objective morality does, this logically follows. Don't jump too far ahead to where you think I'm going, just re-read the argument very carefully and see if what I'm noting leads to the conclusion I've made. I look forward to hearing any critiques or questions.
I think the proper adjective for existence is positive rather than good. By positive I mean consisting in or characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features. This way, we avoid the confusion of the term good used in morality with positive which is related to existence.
The issue I have with this, @Philosophim, is that I find the whole concept revolting. The idea that existence is good and objectively moral - is abhorrent. To claim, even subtly or hypothetically, that existence is 'good', and make any claims whatsoever about truths that so incredibly awfully are contradicted by our lived experiences, is... horrible.
Quoting Philosophim
If you make 'moral statements' like this, apply your moral sense to them.
This isn't a logical claim. When you are making ANY kind of claim that has ANY kind of moral implications, it is a personal expression of your moral truths. It can be nothing else. That is what Moral means, what should be. And since you are writing this, it means what should be,To you. And if what 'Should be' to you is an objective morality, which legitimized all the horrors of our existence, and dissolves all the complexities of our existence into being 'objectively good', then I am rejecting it with my whole moral self.
When you make moral statements, or build a moral theory, you have to take moral responsibility, and you don't seem to understand the implications of how objective morality FEELS.
And I wouldn't care if you discarded my objections. I am horrified by the moral picture you paint of the world. Maybe I am more sensitive to moral arguments, but maybe you should be much more sensitive yourself if you are to step into the world of morals?
Every thought, every action, every idea, every concept in the vicinity of morals, Is your morals. There is simply 0 way we can 'discuss' a moral theory, when I find your primary tenants abhorrent. And I don't think I am off about this, I believe you are. By a mile. Seriously.
Take your moral theory and see if it alleviates any suffering, any grief or helps make sense of our helplessness and lack of understanding of the world. If we are going to talk about a foundation, add in that the worldly rules are fundamentally amoral, there is plenty of immorality, and morality isn't doing great. If you want to make any, ANY claim that makes abuse, violence, depravity, entropy, sadism, overwhelm, disease, weakness, trauma, war etc. GOOD, which is what you ARE doing by calling this a moral theory, and with a title saying:
"In any objective morality existence is inherently good", there is simply no way forward. There is no fucking way I am coming close to agreeing with that or discussing it further. Any moral is based on True, personal values - What should be, in actuality, not theoretically, what you actually, fundamentally and tirelessly work towards with every fiber of your moral being.
Logic isn't morality, morality is the faculty of you that make moral Choices. It isn't theory, it is your values.
Any moral statements have moral implications, and potentially intense emotional, physical and relational consequences - whereas logic does not. If we are to 'discuss' morals, we need to share our deeply help values, and be transparent about our actual actions, and see if there are kinks in our moral senses somewhere.
It has nothing to do with jumping ahead or reading anything into this; moral statements and logical arguments are simply incompatible, like the sun and an ice-cream.
I sincerely hope you take this reply seriously, because I'm very close to ending our long-standing inquiry over this. Which is really sad to say, to be honest, but your replies and these posts about morals have so far been quite appalling to me.
Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Ah, I see. First, let me tell you that I understand. Morality is arguably the underpinnings of everything we do. I can tell you right now, it is scary to delve into it. If I did uncover a foundation for morality, it is both potentially wonderful, and terrifying. People may not be logical enough for morality, and at the end of the day will twist anything to suit what they want. Present company not excluded!
I take your criticisms well, and am not offended. Thank you for being honest instead of trying to hide it under a poor argument. If it bothers you, I take no offense in the discussion ending, and you do not lose any respect from my end. If you disagree with what I write, you are not looked down on in any way. But for me, I have to look. I have to think about it. That's the nature of myself.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Its just a summary of the conclusion from the OP. The OP is the logical claim. If you are vehemently against it, and you can stomach it, examine it, and see if you can prove it wrong. I might be wrong after all, and this is an honest statement, not some lie of false humbleness. I take the idea of constructing a moral theory seriously, and I would not want to put anything out there that had a flaw at its core that I had not considered. I am interested in what works Caerulea, not that "I'm right". So trust me when I've come up with this as a genuine look at finding an objective foundation for morality, and would love feedback on the logic and premises.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
What may set your mind more at ease, is that this has nothing to do with quantified good. Let me see if I can explain. There's existence, and there are existences. Existence is a quality. Existences are quantities. Quantities can be compared and measured. Some can be larger or smaller than another. Intuitively, not logically, do you feel a slum of poor people who are sick and hungry is better than a town full of happy and well off people? I'm going to assume no. And as I continue my moral theory, I'll be able to show why that is.
You are thinking that my notion is quantity on my initial argument, when it is an argument of quality. I have not yet pointed out how to quantize good. But I have to build that from a logical start. Maybe reading my second post may give you more insight into what I'm doing if you're concerned, as that's where I begin to discuss quantity. My conclusions from the entirety of the theory is that our general sense of morality that holds across cultures makes sense because it creates more existences then not. Only instead of this being an opinion, I can arguably give a reason why backed by logic from the ground up. And it may not be right, my logic might be flawed here and there. But I feel its a start.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Yes. That's the point. If the theory as built up works, at least to its underlying core, I could communicate across cultures what good and evil is. I can show generally how we should use knowledge and push as a species. I can explain the value and good of the various plants and animals we live with. How mutual cooperative existence is almost always better on the calculus then the elimination of competition, and the elimination of difference. And most importantly of all, this would not be an opinion. Culture would be considered, but the moral theory itself would not be a culture, but a physics. Requiring careful proof, open to be challenged at any time, and steps from A to Z.
What your concern is, is where you think I'm going to go with it. You've prejudged, and this is normal when confronted with opening the machine of morality. I think its a good thing that people defend morals so closely, and are careful to have them questioned. As you said, an irresponsible person or bad actor could cause a lot of damage. I don't want to be that person.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Logic that does not consider this, is incomplete logic. All of that is part of existence, and any moral theory that did not consider it would be bereft in my opinion. Which is why I need discussion from other people. Its too big for one person to take on themself. Its not owned by anyone. Its an uniting force of the human race.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I would consider myself a fairly moral person. I donate to charity. I moved to a different city to help my sister when she was diagnosed as bipolar. I believe in the goodness of the human race. I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many. So i do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages.
So if you are willing, I would like you to stick with it a bit more. I only ask you because I think you have fantastic insight, and a great mind. Maybe it is trash, but I don't see that yet. Only in conversing with good people can I figure out if his is right or wrong. I leave it in your court and will respect whatever decision you make.
Thank you, I try.
Quoting MoK
Taken in that limited context, is that really evil then? Preferably, we would like there to be infinite resources. Then there would be no need for evolution. But if there are finite resources, and also threats that could potentially prevent beings from getting them, isn't evolution the best to handle a situation? Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out?
Evil is not, "What is inconvenient". What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all? What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad. Sometimes we might want something, but its not possible to obtain. We all want a world with no sickness or death. That would be a better world if it were possible. But since its not, does that automatically make our world evil?
Quoting MoK
Are those things that we do not want in excess, or are they evil innately?
If someone comes into your home to murder you and your family, hate can be the motivation that lets you fight them off. Sadness over the death of a loved one is a beautiful thing. Can you imagine someone close to you dying and not being sad? Pain lets you know when your body is injured. There are people who can't feel pain, and they often die young. Here's an article to ease into the concept. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain
Quoting MoK
So you see where I'm going with this. My goal here is to get to the very foundation of the words. At its very foundation I see good as "What should be" and evil as "What should not be". It keeps it clear, distinct, and allows clear identification. Because as you've noted, things that seem 'evil' in some circumstances, aren't.
Quoting MoK
It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good. Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good. Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil. But why? That's what I'm trying to do here. Set up a foundation and work to the point I can say, "This is why punishing your child as a form of teaching can be good." I believe my analysis can show depending on the situation, why that would be greater good then a child who did not learn their lesson because they were not punished.
Thank you. Before going further I would like to define other terms that I used in my previous post to help both of us understand each other better and communicate easier. I already define good and evil. I however use two other terms namely right and wrong which I haven't defined yet. Right is something we ought to do and wrong is something we ought not to do. As an example, think of the nasty kid. The punishment is evil given the definition of evil but it is right in this case. The reward is good given the definition of good but it is wrong in this case.
Quoting Philosophim
Evolution is evil since the weak species suffer and eventually die out. Evolution is however positive.
Quoting Philosophim
We just couldn't have different sorts of species that fit very well with the different environments and hazards.
Quoting Philosophim
It is given my definition of evil.
Quoting Philosophim
We cannot avoid evolution given the fact that the resources are finite.
Quoting Philosophim
I use the terms positive and negative instead of good and bad when it comes to evolution. Evolution is positive and it is not negative. I use these terms to avoid the confusion of using terms good and evil when it comes to morality.
Quoting Philosophim
Sickness and death are natural evil.
Quoting Philosophim
Hate is evil and in this case, is right.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, the pain is evil and it is necessary for the reason you mentioned.
Quoting Philosophim
Evil as I mentioned is a psychological state and it is necessary. It is not what should not be.
Quoting Philosophim
Evil is involved in things like body and mental exercise. But the body and mental exercise are positive.
Quoting Philosophim
The act of punishing the nasty kid or killing the person who is terminally ill is evil but it is right. These acts are not good. I already make a distinction between good and right to avoid confusion.
Quoting Philosophim
Punishment to teach and discipline is right. It is not good given the definition of right and good.
Quoting Philosophim
Punishment is generally evil. Punishment could be right or wrong though given the circumstances. Punishment for simply causing hurt is wrong.
??I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasnt really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. Ill do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we arent necessarily disagreeing about what is moral, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity.
??Quoting Philosophim
?Yes, but look at what you write, and put it up against the known reality. Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? Im not talking about if they try to, or you cant judge them because you dont know their life etc. Just look, stare deeply into peoples eyes and souls, and judge their actions and what you know. Yes or No.
??«I believe in the goodness of the human race.»
?Is the human race morally good, in this present moment? Or were there ever a time when the human race was morally good? Simply apply your moral standard to everyone, as is.
??«I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many.»?
Does everyone you know have the same purpose? No one exploits others for their own gains entirely, and dismiss any hints at intelligence, thought and progress for the purpose of benefitting anyone but themselves? No one sticks to a self-serving agenda till they die, and no one has?
«So I do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages."??
The kind of logic you are talking about isnt inherently wrong or immoral, but forgetting the absolute when it comes to moral reasoning, is what I see as a rational error, and a grave one.
Our lives are finite, our moral is immediate. Either you help your sister, or you dont. Our finite lives means our actions are absolute in [human] moral terms.
Your choices are absolute, and who you support, who you help, what you believe in and act in favor of, is absolute. ??Our actions arent relative; they are absolute, and you cant undo anything. And so, instead of using relative terms, use absolute terms for your beliefs, and they come closer to being useful knowledge:
??- You dont believe in the goodness of the human race, you act consistently and unilaterally in favor of what you view as the goodness of the human race, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards what you view as the immorality of the human race.
??- You act consistently and unilaterally towards intelligence, thought and progress benefitting everyone, whilst being irrevocably antagonistic towards the same being used for exploitation of the few on the many.??
And lastly, you are consistently and unilaterally in your support of a humanity that pursues ever-increasing understanding and application of [a good] morality, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards a humanity that is fine with the morals of the dark ages.??
Well, reading that, how do you feel?
Are you unaware of the opposite side, or are you simply so black and white in your thinking that you dont acknowledge the opposite of your beliefs as a possibility? People that would want nothing more than to finally have a world without police or jails to think about. Are you just ignorant of this???
Now, of course, an argument might be that, yes, humanity can be both good and bad, and it is just mental health disease or lack of education that makes it so. Well, again, just look at reality. Are we different, or are we the same???
By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals.
If everyone is on the same page, working towards the same goals, just from different angles, your moral arguments are fine, as they are applicable with reality, but that isnt present reality, and has never been.
Dont you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed.
You cant be like; oh, this powder, if mixed with water will cure all known diseases, but be careful, mix it with milk and people will be your complete, mindless slaves forever. That isnt progress, that is a perversion of morals. Unless you can make 100% sure that it isnt used for evil, it is an abomination of the absolute worst sort.
??So to talk about physics like it is neutral, is simply forgetting history. If science is so great, it wouldnt be used for so much trash. The atom bomb is much worse than an arrow, in scope, effect and evil, and science has enabled that.
And so, if your measure of good moral is science, I assume this might be as far as we go Philosophim.
Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Unvarnished truth is better than couched and unclear communication. I took no offense. :) I also understand where you're coming from completely. Let me explain.
I came up with the knowledge theory and then the moral theory years ago. When I first came up with the moral theory, I was terrified and put it down. The problem was if I didn't use it correctly, or set it up in a way where someone could manipulate it as a half truth as some people in power are want to do, it could be horribly misused.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I do. Its why I put it down so long. So what made me change my mind?
1. I wanted to know if I was wrong.
2. I have more experience in philosophy and a better sense of the big picture.
3. I've learned to trust humanity more.
4. AI is coming.
5. The standard for proof is high.
Generally humanity advances whether we want to or not. It is only by those who are careful, care about the outcomes, and have a vested interest in humanities prosperity over profit and exploitation that these advances are most beneficial. If I don't try, I'm leaving it in the hands of some who potentially does not have those considerations at heart.
I also believe in the human spirit more. There are evil people yes, but I would say the majority of us are neutral to good. Humanity always struggles with a new set of knowledge or technology, but ultimately benefits if they are willing to tackle it in the right way.
AI is also a real danger. I believe if AI advances without us having established an objective morality, we'll have the same situation that you fear. AI has no intuitions, no loyalty to humanity or life, and it may determine that if morality is subjective, it can be bent for its own benefit. If it has to reason though an objective consideration, in almost no scenario would it conclude that humanity, animals, or life on this Earth should ever be wiped out.
Finally, if I'm careful in the specifics, and continually expect a high bar to claim, "This is more moral", with it being open to being challenged with new information at any time, I believe the theory avoids easy manipulation. Once could manipulate it by 'lowering the bar', but people do that even with subjective moralities.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Correct. The moral theory is about existence being good. Meaning a person's existence is put into the equation. You can't say, "All people must do X", because not all people are the same. Its more about, "If you're X in this situation Y, and you have a choice between A and B, do B'.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I have no problem with it, except that I 'mostly' commit to those ideals. We are not perfect, nor should we expect to be.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I am measuring morals to the absolute reality of the situation. And in my experience, there is no other way. An absolute 'in every instance, do this' situation exists more rarely then you would think. We are part of existence, and thus we are part of morality. Morality does not have to be separate from us, but can be with us.
But I'm speaking in abstracts and feelings now. All I ask is for you to read the second part. If you read it and you don't like it, understood. But try to see what I'm doing first instead of fearing the unknown.
I did read the full theory initially, and I then went back to the first page.
From my experience so far, you seem conscientious and sincere in your pursuits, and I fully respect you for that - but that isn't enough for me. To work with someone, I need them to incorporate and work with all kinds of mediums, paradoxes and opposites, and the willingness to leave behind even their fundamental, partial, truths.
I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. I am not saying you don't read it and care about it, no, but you don't actually read it. You don't actually imagine a world where we, humans from each other, or humans from the universe, are fundamentally different, instead you believe you 'understand' me, when you actually have no idea. And so, we aren't really getting anywhere, from my point of view, and which is why I feel like things have come to an end.
Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. I am not discriminating between various types of knowledge, I am discerning for skill and complexity.
Is someone willing and able to incorporate multiple, mutually exclusive and seemingly paradoxical perspectives, is an important question, and can they do act and make decisions on multiple levels at once, whilst moving forward on questions that are hidden in many different pies, simultaneously?
I hope you find someone who can make this gem you care about shine clearer, but you will have to find someone else.
It has been a nice journey so far, and this is probably not the last you have heard of me, or that I am cutting you off or anything. I sincerely wish you well, but I respect my pursuit for what I believe in, and don't see you aiming for the same depth of complexity as me - without that meaning I disagree with you, just that I want to look at more sides of the elephant than one.
If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.
If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward!
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
I agree. Its only a start. Maybe one day it will be more.
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
You as well Caerulea! You have been a wonderful person to chat with, and I'm glad to have met you. Please continue on your path and feel free to share it with others here. I'll see you around the forums. :)
Hello @Philosophim,
It is with a greater sense of clarity, purpose, but also sadness I answer this time. I can only say likewise, and wish you the best as well.
This has been a long journey, a deep dive into sides of my own psyche that have long been underdeveloped, and it does feel good having come out the other end of this educational sparring with more insight. I thank you for that, and again appreciate the time, effort and conscientiousness you have put into not only your theories and models, but your answers as well.
I'll see what else there is to gain, and to share, with people here or elsewhere, and quite possibly we will virtually meet again.
I wish you all the best. It is a great gift to me knowing you do what you do, and I am glad to have met you, and have gained a lot from our interactions.
Take care.
Sincerely,
Caerulea-Lawrence
I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience.
Quoting Philosophim
Correct.
Quoting Philosophim
Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't think so. Morality is about given that intelligent creatures exist whether there are moral facts that we can derive what is wrong or right.
Quoting Philosophim
It is known that moral facts do not exist therefore morality is subjective.
Quoting Philosophim
No, you cannot derive moral facts from existence. The only relation that exists between morality and existence is that given that intelligent creatures exist then how are they going to decide in a situation?
So is everything about our experience. How does good differ from happiness, sadness, like, dislike, etc? If good is not what should be, then is it what shouldn't be?
Quoting MoK
Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :)
Quoting MoK
We'll have to come to an agreement on the definition of good first. Obviously if we have different definitions, we'll have different conclusions. So lets start there and then we can go back to your other points. What is your definition of good, right, and wrong? How does it divorce itself from an underlying assumption that if something is good, it 'should be'?
We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil.
Quoting Philosophim
Cool. :)
Quoting Philosophim
I defined what is good in my first comment in this post. We should do what is right and should not do what is wrong. So good and evil are features of our experience whereas right and wrong are features of our acts.
Quoting Philosophim
What do you mean by good and why it should be?
Then good and evil are just synonyms for feelings. At that point why even have the words? You haven't differentiated them from feelings, you've simply labeled them as feelings.
Quoting MoK
So we both agree that good is what we should do, while evil is what we should not do. If that's the case, then we have the same definition of good and evil. Lets analyze the word, "should" next. There is another word, 'want'. Want is an emotional desire to commit an action. Should is a question of whether following that desire results in an optimal outcome.
For example, I may want to pet a puppy. The outcome is that both the puppy and I will be happier without any cost. That's a positive outcome, so when faced with the choice, we should vs walking away. In this case what should be done aligns with our desires.
But sometimes we desire things that aren't good. A kid may be curious about the holes in the wall that we know as electrical outlets. They want to stick a metal object in there to see what's inside. The result will be electrocution and possibly death. Should they stick a metal object into an electrical outlet? No, because the outcome is much worse then them doing almost anything else.
Good is what should be. And what should be is a right action. Evil is what shouldn't be. And what shouldn't be is a wrong action. Good is not what we want, good is an action that leads to a right outcome. Evil isn't what we dislike, evil is an action that leads to a wrong outcome.
There is no question that morality can be subjective, as everyone has different views of what they consider a right or wrong outcome. The paper is noting however that this does not also rule out an objective morality. If there is an objective morality, the argument concludes that its most basic premise must conclude that faced with the option of there should be any existence vs there should be existence, the only logical conclusion is that there should be existence. If an objective morality does not exist, then of course it doesn't matter. Burn it all. :D
They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings.
Quoting Philosophim
No, good or evil could be right or wrong depending on the situation. Punishing a kid is evil yet we do it because we think it is right in a specific situation.
Quoting Philosophim
Desire is one factor that plays an important role in building a situation. The optimal outcome for who? An evil person who wants to commit a crime or a good person who wants to prohibit it?
Quoting Philosophim
No, good is just a feature of our experience.
Quoting Philosophim
No, the right action is what we should do and that should be based on moral facts that there is none.
Quoting Philosophim
No, we do evil actions in some situations, like punishing them.
Quoting Philosophim
I am sorry for saying another no but here you go: :) No, a wrong action is what we shouldn't do.
Quoting Philosophim
I disagree. Don't you punish your children when they do something wrong? Punishing children is evil since it is not pleasant to them and the parents, yet we do it because it leads to the right outcome.
I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth?
For the rest of your replies MoK, I'm just seeing restatements of assertions, not reasoning behind them. Believe whatever you want, that's fine. :) But if we're going to continue a reasonable discussion, you'll need to think a little deeper to back those assertions. At this point the only argument you've given is, "Good and evil aren't facts, what we feel is good, I feel this is right, so I am." If you want to add more we can continue, otherwise there's nothing to really discuss.
Let's say that you are looking at a rose. You experience the rose. This experience, however, has different features like the redness of the rose, shape, and the like.
What would stop one from say, comparing viewing the text of your reply (whether the viewer is fluent in the language of the text or not) as a similar "experience". There's a world of difference between processing sensory information and taking note of (or perhaps choosing to focus exclusively on) the emotions or feelings or otherwise change in mind or mood vs. truly "experiencing" something. Or is there not? Perhaps that's your point?
I say that we have the same experience when the features of our experiences are the same. We have the same experience of rose if the redness is similar to us, likewise the shape and other features of our experience.
Quoting Outlander
My point is that our experiences of what is good or evil are different. Good and evil are features of our experiences. I say something is good when it is pleasurable to a person otherwise it is evil. As I noted we are different when it comes to good and evil. For example, murder is evil to the majority of people. However, some people have pleasure from killing therefore killing to them is good. I hope that makes sense to you. If not please let me know so I can elaborate further.
Sure, people have different views, beliefs, and opinions. That's more or less common knowledge or sense. It's just words, though. You can call something that brings you "pleasure" either "good", "bad", "weird", "strange", or even "pineapple" if you please. That doesn't make it anything of the sort, of course. It's just you using words (that may or may not exist) that you feel happen to best fit. No relevance to anything, really, let alone philosophical concepts.
No need to elaborate, your point is solid and correct, simply, it's relevance to philosophy or greater logical progression is perhaps not as "involved in anything" as you may believe.
How come? Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. That is my main point that is against Philosophim's argument.
Opinion is not fact. That's the main point of contention here. Yes, you believe and feel and perhaps even engross such into your entire being to the point of your sole reality, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to absolute reality. No different than how the mindless bum on the corner reeling and withdrawing from drug use believes a random passerby is a monster or government agent trying to kill him. As you said, experience is subjective. Morality is not- otherwise, why waste time trying to pinpoint the borders or X, Y, Z coordinates of something that you admit to be fleeting and without borders, boundaries, or definition?
There has to be at least one concept that is pinpointed, absolute, and clearly-defined, otherwise we're just rambling about what color is best or not when you think about it.
We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective.
I never claimed to believe anything of the sort. Simply, to the best of my ability, offered an explanation why your claim to such is open to reasonable scrutiny and certainly doesn't quite meet the threshold of "reasonable fact" or "common knowledge", in my opinion. Sure, a word is bound to its definition. That doesn't mean, like in real life situations, the letter of the law can often defeat the spirit of the law, which any well educated person would contest as a mockery of justice and law itself.
But this was in regard to feelings. I don't feel that the rose is red. Red is not a feature of my feeling, its a feature of the light bouncing off the flower, a fact. I might like something, and it might have a feature that it is good or evil. These features would be facts, not feelings.
If you're saying that liking something means its good, then you've equated good = like without any real rational argument beyond, "Because I believe this". I could just as easily assert good = apple. There is not a single definition of good in a moral sense anywhere in the world that equates good with what people personally like, and as I've noted, any serious thought on the subject would erase that notion in any practical application.
If you believe that there is something underlying our like, and that underlying feature is good, that's a fact. But equating good to a simple emotion leads to Outlanders point. At that point you're just stating an opinion and feeling. That is not reason, nor approaches any viable philosophical discourse. Again, believe what you want, but currently it is not a rational argument or belief.
I am open to discussion. I am however wondering how could one conclude that morality is objective when s/he accepts that the features of our experiences are subjective.
You experience that the rose is red. The redness is a feature of your experience. That is what I am trying to say.
Quoting Philosophim
I think it is off-topic to discuss the philosophy of color here. But I have to say that the rose does not have any color and the color is a feature of your experience created by your brain.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, I equate like to good and dislike to evil. I however have a plan in my mind by such a definition. I can then discuss that these features when it comes to morality are subjective or person-dependent and not objective. We are also very dependent on our experiences hence their features. That is true since we interact with reality through our experiences. I am wondering how one can conclude that morality is objective when we accept that features of our experiences are subjective. You like this I like that. This is good to you but evil to me. Serial killers enjoy killing but I hate it. Etc.
Quoting Philosophim
What is the other definition of good when it comes to morality?
Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness. What you're saying is that liking the rose is the same as saying the rose is good. Are you saying that good is something apart from what you like, or is it the same?
Quoting MoK
Red is objectively defined as a wavelength of light. How we experience that objective wavelength is different for each individual but underlying it all, there is an objective definition of red. I think what you're doing is taking the idea that people interpret good differently, then saying there is no good. It would be like saying people interpret red differently, so there is no red. The wavelength is objective. The interpretation is subjective. The experience of subjective interpretation does not invalidate the underlying objective reality which we are interpreting. Does that make sense?
Quoting MoK
Just like we conclude every single objective fact despite the fact we're all subjective human beings. Rationality, consensus, testing, and the removal of personal biases.
Quoting MoK
Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be". There is of course a subjective view of what should be, but an objective view is what should be despite our personal biases and desires. The main reason people want to remove objectivity is because they think it gets in the way of what they want. This is just as short sighted as saying that any wavelength of light can be red because we want to. Objectivity is a reasoned ground to find a central understanding that hold between different subjective viewpoints.
One time I found a caterpillar on the ground that I decided to lightly brush with a leaf. It squirmed as if I attacked it. Again and again I brushed it hoping that it would learn it was harmless. It never did. That is because it cannot reason. It has emotions, impulses, and reactions. That is what you want to bring morality to, an unreasonable emotional impulse. And yet the countless centuries of study on it indicate it is not. We are not bugs, and we should not look to philosophies that compel us to act like ones.
Can you explain (and I think what I'm wanting here is a relatively content-less explanation that focusses on justification in reasoning, rather than "because of.." type reasons) why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)??
For context as to why: I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong. Many possible reasons.. which is invoked wouldn't change my position there. I cannot conceive an objective morality which isn't imposed from without (i.e divine, the simulation Lords etc...)
Good questions. Why I think there is a moral objectivity is based on patterns of discovery. Throughout history humanity has had states of being that were not completely understood though still a subjective way of viewing those experiences. For example, experiencing the color red. The color red is both a subjective and objective experience. Subjectively, the experience of red is unique to each individual. Objectively, red is a particular wavelength of light that enters into your eyes and is interpreted by your brain into that experience.
If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike.
As to your second question, my point was, "In my experience," I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. Many times the motivation boils down to the simple human emotion of, "I don't want to be told what to do." They think morality is a noose against their freedom, which depending if someone has asserted a moral noose on them in the past without rational justification, I can sympathize with. A rational objective morality is not a noose, it is understanding. Understanding is what leads humanity to true freedom.
The second most common type of argument for a subjective morality is a sense of tiredness. "I can't figure it out, therefore it can't be objective". Again, a very human notion of simplifying complex issues, and giving a rationale to abandon thoughts which are difficult to comprehend or demand a hard look at ourselves. Especially if there's the chance that an objective morality would hinder what we personally want, many people are weak and will drop rational thought for short sighted personal benefit. This does not further humanity, and if we took this attitude with everything difficult to understand we wouldn't have the wonderful advancements we've made today.
I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome.
Quoting AmadeusD
I find that amusing. Biology leads to efficiency over rightness. The preservation of calories, giving only the right amount of effort. Favoring pleasantries over difficulties and hardships. Yelling at people you argue with or calling them stupid when they make a point you don't like. Simple models in place of complex one's where possible. I would think that most people love their own sense of right and wrong because its already decided and they don't have to think about it further. Especially because many of our own personal opinions of right and wrong seem to favor the outcomes of what we want and don't as often tell us we need to change or alter our behavior. These are just opinions though, not facts.
I will tell you personally why I think there is a good rational reason to pursue objective morality. First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better.
Second, artificial intelligence. Its a ticking time bomb. Artificial intelligence does not have a consciousness or all the emotional things we take for granted that ensure we don't blow each other up in a nuclear holocaust. AI won't care about your subjective morality. Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. A lazy and indulgent viewpoint of "What I want is good," will be taken as the objective morality by AI otherwise. It will think, "If they say what is good is what they want, then what I want is good to. Thus I have all justification and no limitations in pursuing what is good."
Perhaps i'm not hte best one to take this up, given my anti-realist stance to color, but I don't think this is really doing a lot.
If two people experience the wavelength you're talking about as different things, then the 'object' is not redness, but a wavelength of light. It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here..
Quoting Philosophim
That's always fair.
Interestingly, I've never seen anyone seriously put forward either argument you make. The main motivator for the claim seems to be more an atheistic type of thinking. A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? I mean, doesn't align with your experience, but just as a response to the egoic type of charge..
Quoting Philosophim
I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. Not the rejection of the claim, surely? Proving a negative (which this amounts to) can obviously be done, but in this case it would require exhausting all possibility within our Universe before making a conclusion... surely, that's a less rational requirement. I think your position is fine, no issue, but impugning others on the basis that you require proof of a negative doesn't seem all that ...good?
Quoting Philosophim
This, I can accept. There is always good reason to 'align' or 'unify'.
I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality ;) ;)
Quoting Philosophim
What is the reason here? You'd have to already accept ab objective morality for 'ignorance' to even come up here, right? So, I can't see how this supports the point - just the activity of 'sussing out' morality generally. Which I agree with, fully.
Quoting Philosophim
This paragraph sounds like pure fear to me, and not a rational argument in any sense of the word. Its practical argument to avoid what you foresee as a negative consequence of a technology. ANd sure, for programming, ab objective morality is best. This, however, smacks of exactly my issue: There is no rational basis for the claim from within. Here, we, the people, are imposing "a morality" on the AI which we want to constraint. We're playing God. We, the people, don't have this constraint... Unless that's what you want to posit? Not wild - just one i reject on lack of evidence grounds. I understand the concerns around AI - I grew up with T2 lol - but, I don't think fearing a possible outcome of a technology has to do with the metaethics of our universe.
Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? I don't think you've done so. The three things I can see you've used to support here are are:
- Patterns of behaviour (this is one is unclear as your first para doesn't so what it says it will, so
I refrain from commenting further);
- An assumption that objective morality exists and gives rise to ignorance (which you reject - fairly, on it's face); and
- A fear of an unconstrained AI.
I can't see an answer to why you think there is an objective morality - but rather why you think it would be good to have one.
Right, but there is an underlying objective reality which is being observed to make this subjective experience. Just like a wavelength of light isn't what we think of when we're experiencing subjective redness, doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, there are good reasons to think there is an objective morality. As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication.
Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures. Don't lie for personal gain at your neighbors expense. Don't murder healthy babies. The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures.
Quoting AmadeusD
I never claimed an objective morality had been proved. All I've noted is it hasn't been proven that it doesn't exist, namely because subjective morality has not proven anything more rational then personal desires to do what one wants. Morality is the question of, "What should be,". And there is no one that agrees that what should be is whatever anyone's whims desire. Subjective morality can only give that answer, and its a failed one.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. If you want example of an objective morality, that would be the OP of this post. Feel free to check it out and see if its a good start.
FIrst response is out of order, for good reason:
Quoting Philosophim
Ok, right, I fully misinterpreted what you were saying in this case, so please sit with this part of my response first. Yes, I think there's a very good reason to pursue it. My outlook as a philosopher is that "I am sure there must be an objective morality, because of the bullets I have to bite" but in reality, I have no reason to think there is one.
Quoting Philosophim
I think you've captured my point while rejecting it - viz. yes, but that isn't redness/red - it's a wavelength. Otherwise, I agree with what you're getting at.
Quoting Philosophim
This doesn't, as far as I can tell, provide any reason to think morality is objective. Could you perhaps tie the point you're making (that there are objectives in the universe) to morality? I guess, hang about as further comments below will be relevant..
Quoting Philosophim
That is true. Hmm. I guess I think some of these are demonstrably destructive (eye for an eye is, at least socially, almost ubiquitous). Some are demonstrably the result of outside influence (judeo-christian Morality). But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here?
Quoting Philosophim
Hmm. Some are completely foreign, as between cultures. I think this is quite intensely overstating the overlap between various moral thought. Some of which is codified and hasn't 'developed' in any real sense. But, I take it the point is that your view is that these are actually extremely closely aligned, and so somehow speaks to an objective moral. I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it?
Quoting Philosophim
Its possibly, but equally I probably misread your intentionality. No worries - a good exchange imo :)
Fwiw, Yes, the OP is fun. Doesn't bear repeating for me.
While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, are there common core reasons underneath it based on that culture? Disciplining children is almost always done by parents to raise the kids to be successful in that culture. A lack of discipline in any culture is seen as setting your kid up for low status, spoiling them, and low respectability. Religions may change specifics, but underlying them there is almost always a sense of community, understanding of the self, and sense of purpose. An eye for an eye is about teaching others in no uncertain terms that if you cannot handle something being taken from you, do not take it from others, and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society.
Quoting AmadeusD
The analogy of red being an objective wavelength vs the subjective experience that we have of that wavelength called red. The objective combination of sugar and carbonated water in a coke vs the subjective taste of it. Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it.
According to the OP, the source of discover would be reason. I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. There is no force or intention behind the existence of a wavelength of light. It simply is. A subjective redness is a consequence of its existence, but there is was not intention or push that sent that red beam of light directly to you. Objective morality is the same. Its not determined by any being, it is a consequence of existence.
If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be. It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. That initial premise is worth exploring where this could take us. At the end, I think it takes us someplace beautiful. But most people can't get past this first part and I believe the post were I conclude the entire exploration were never reached. And who can blame them? People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience, not that its, to be metaphorical, 'a wavelength of light'.
Quoting AmadeusD
Likewise. :)
No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience.
Quoting Philosophim
As I mentioned in another thread, feeling and reason, are two fundamental things that affect us. And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good.
Quoting Philosophim
I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness?
We agree then.
Quoting MoK
And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?
Quoting MoK
Good is what should be. Rightness is the fulfillment of what should be. So good is helping a poor person get back on their feet. The action of helping them back on their feet is a right action. "Good" and "Right" are oftentimes also synonyms and interchanged in colloquial speech. How do you define 'rightness' MoK?
Cool. :)
Quoting Philosophim
Feeling good is a feature of our experiences.
Quoting Philosophim
To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing.
That's avoiding the question MoK. Liking something is a feature of our experiences. Is feeling that something is good exactly the same as liking it, or is it different?
Quoting MoK
No one defines good as reward and punishment as evil. That's simply an incorrect use of their definitions, even given the wiggle room they provide. If a man rewards a murderer with money, its not good. If a person who murdered someone is punished for their actions, that's not evil. Good and evil are descriptors of rewards or punishments. A good/evil reward, a good/evil punishment for example.
I may not be getting what you want me to get from this paragraph. I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. I mean, we could just drill in on the word 'success' as used here and be at a loss...
Quoting Philosophim
With you so far.. I agree with this, as a description of what objective could mean here.
Quoting Philosophim
Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? I'm unsure you can continue down an 'objective' path in this case, but that's preliminary thought.. Onward..
Quoting Philosophim
I'm looking for something that ties your belief to something objective (i.e what do you see which leads to this belief). I cannot see it I suppose. It seems to be reiterations of your belief/s in relation to morality.
Quoting Philosophim
Huh? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems helpful.
Quoting Philosophim
It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. I would add to this (as, imo a fairly knock-down type of point, to be sure) that if humans did not exist, there wouldn't even be the concept of morality so it stands to reason (in my mind) that existence itself carries no morality. It couldn't. It's chance, for lack of a better term. It doesn't act. This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points..
Quoting Philosophim
That is the only context in which morality obtains. So, I not only could I not blame, I couldn't argue with them. It is the only known place moral thinking exists. Not getting past this isn't a flaw, it's a correct reading of that position (whether you agree with the position or not!).
Quoting Philosophim
Yaaay! :)
That's fair, here's a nice little paper to get an idea of what I'm noting. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8710723/
Also I am not saying these commonalities underling different cultures prove there is an objective morality, only evidence of it.
Quoting AmadeusD
I do note in the sentence that its what I believe, yes. :)
Quoting AmadeusD
I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. At that point it can cause people to become more defensive to the possibility of a God then in exploring the subject of morality.
Quoting AmadeusD
There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question. Normally we're a lot higher up on the the chain such as, "Should there be an alien race that enjoys torturing and destroying all life it comes across?" "Should I save this dying whale that beached itself?" These are more relatable questions then, "Should there be existence?" but to truly answer any of them, its really the first question that has to be answered if there is an objective morality.
Quoting AmadeusD
That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully.
We like things because they make us feel good.
Quoting Philosophim
I have my definition of good and evil. I used these definitions to explain my coherent view when it comes to morality. Good and evil to me are subjective. Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion!
That's not what I asked MoK. I've tried twice, lets just let it drop then. :)
Quoting MoK
That's fine, we can conclude good and evil are synonyms with right and wrong and call it a good conversation.
But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all - I think asking the question is a farce, in some sense. Quoting Philosophim
That's a fair charge - but I don't think I'm quite doing that. I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. I can't see that it's an object or fact to be discovered.. That said, I don't fault belief generally.
Quoting Philosophim
Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? There are no morals outside of human minds, so I'm having a hard time understanding something other than mere projection. Could you specify where/in what you speculate morality obtains outside of human experience?
This is a fair question and let me see if I can show you what I mean.
Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. Perhaps someone answer with, "If you're nice to them, they'll be happy." Well why should they be happy? "Because it will brighten their day and they'll be healthier." Why should they be healthy? "Because they'll live longer." Why should they live? Because life is precious? "Why should life be?" Because there existence is positive. All the way down to, "Why should anything exist at all?"
There are a lot of implicit questions that we gloss over when operating with higher level moral questions. And this makes sense in anything we do. When I drive a car I just need to know how the steering wheel and pedals control the car. I don't need to know physics or why anything exists at all. Objectively, this complex composition of the car is needed for the car to drive, but my subjective experience of driving does not care for most circumstances. Only if it breaks down do I start to need to know something more, but for the most part we don't handle that part, only the fun part.
Subjective morality is the fun part. If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, I promise you there is nothing of the sort. There is no God or outside mover. This is about discovering what is within our universe, not a mystical push outside of it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Wild life once captured a bear sauntering along a river where a crow was flailing about drowning. The bear grabbed it with its mouth, put it on the shore, then walked off. What is that? The bear gained no personal benefit, not even a meal. Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
And if my theory holds, and existence should be, then there is a basic morality that can logically build up to intelligent morality. I think in a small way, any existence which follows this code, ends up being moral in the most primitive way. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For if it did, it would not exist. We know in our current calculations, that there was much more matter in the beginning of the universe than now? How can that be? Anti-matter right? But what if there are certain things that came into existence...then stopped?
If you have life that is built out of things that are difficult to change and actively continue to exist despite the forces around it, then does that trickle up to life and the conscious mind? Remember, we are not people. We are a combination of atoms, molecules, and energy that actively seeks to extend the life of its composition, and has the amazing complexity to realize what it is. That is what makes us up like the atoms make your car.
Hmm, right.. so, then
Quoting Philosophim
Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell.
Quoting Philosophim
I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it.
Quoting Philosophim
I see where you're going. Hmm. Ok, sentience might be the be-all there rather than human. But, i think it's quite hard to see a singular act by a singular bear as moral. There's no deliberation I don't think. It may have been visually annoyed. But you're right - that line of thinking is taken seriously in the Lit, so I was probably too quick there. Still, prior to sentience, I can't see room.
I apologise, But i cannot understand the relevant of hte remainder.
Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"
Quoting AmadeusD
Ask the same question to a truck driver who knows nothing of how their truck is made, and you'll get the same question. As I noted, I think it is a property of existence itself that slowly trickled up into sentience. If you don't understand it, that's fine. Its a novel way of looking at things. I go over how it builds up over the several posts, and you would honestly need to read those to see how it develops. I either haven't figured out a way to make it simple yet, or that's as simple as I can personally get it.
Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. It couldn't. It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. You're then insinuating something "without" has a mind to consider the question. Otherwise, its nonsensical. I'm not pointing at God here - the guys who run the simulation is more likely IMO anyway hehe.
Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. I understand that, spring-boarding from that question, there's a lot of work that can be done which might eventually result in a bridge between existence and morality - But i am sorry to say none of that is present here (i have read the OP...). I genuinely think I am not missing anything and you're barking up the wrong tree here, despite it being quite interesting generally.
What is a right action except an action that should be? I'm faced with making two actions, one wrong, and one right. One action is what should be, while the other is what should not be. That's morality.
Quoting AmadeusD
Not at all. If there is an objective reality to morality, then there is an optimal outcome to existence and its actions. Human thought wouldn't matter. Just like a wave of light does not depend upon us to experience it, an objective morality does not depend on upon us to experience it either.
Quoting AmadeusD
The key to any good discussion is an agreement on the definitions we're using. If you don't agree with my definition of morality, then you definitely wouldn't understand where I'm going with it. So lets start with the definition. Do you think good is 'what should be'? And morality the method and understanding of what should be?
Also, if we say that 'things shouldn't exist' cannot be an objective truth because it contradicts itself, then it does not exist... but it does exist, so it leads to further contradiction.
Quoting Philosophim
If you assume morality is either objective or subjective, then one can consider the metaphysical implications. This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false.
Regardless, what's the basis for the premise that OMVs exist? It's typically based on our moral intuitions. But in your op, you said:
Quoting Philosophim
I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings.
The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. It's consistent with the possibility that OMVs exist but doesn't entail their existence, and doesn't require simply assuming they exist (as you proposed).
The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality.
Quoting Relativist
No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion.
Quoting Relativist
Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality.
Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? That's why I brought it up, and also brought up intersubjectivity.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, and I disagree with most of it. For example:
"All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans. That's why I brought up "obective moral values" and the basis of morals being empathy.
If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective. It means morality is a consequence of our existence, and this is problematic for your claims.
Quoting Philosophim
We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion. IMO, empathy IS the base because it broadens our self-survival instinct beyond ourselves. The only further "beyond" to this is the reasoning we apply to develop morality more broadly.
I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence.
Quoting Relativist
"Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples.
Quoting Relativist
But you have not proven that, nor disproven the point of the OP yet. You've declared it, that's not the same as giving a rational argument which necessarily demonstrates your declaration is true. This is not a discussion of opinions.
Quoting Relativist
But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule? Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?
Objective morals are consistent with theism, and inconsistent with physicalism. They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence.
Quoting Philosophim
I should have said "seemingly incoherent", because I can't see how to make sense of them. But no, I can't prove objective morals can't exist independently of humans, any more than I can prove the nonexistence of gods, but "not provably false" is not a justification for believing something. So I don't believe such things exist. You seem to think they do, so tell me the justification for that belief.
Quoting Philosophim
This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. Consider that the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) is consistent with empathy- vicariously experiencing the suffering of others. That alone could serve as the basis for developing a moral system.
[Quote]Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?[/quote]
Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. As I said I presume our empathy had a survival advantage. I don't know that I'm right, but I think it entails fewer metaphysical assumptions than you would need. But you're welcome to provide a simple basis.
Sure. There are a few things that make me think there is an objective morality.
1. We are not magical creatures. We are made of the atoms of this Earth like everything else. Boil a person down to chemistry and you realize that life is the build up of unlife into a self-replicating and self-maintaining combination. It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about. I've always had a suspicion that the underlying aspects of life have something to them that we build on.
2. Even animals show aspects of morality. Not sophisticated like a human intelligence, but there are plenty examples of wild animals acting altruistic with no discernable personal benefit, even cross species. One example is a wild bear observed a crow drowning in a river flopping about. It went over, picked it up with its mouth, and plopped it on the river bed before walking on.
3. The failure of any meaningful or rational subjective system of morality to rise above "Might makes right".
4. The age old question if there was a God: "Is what God says moral because God says it, or because God is following what is objectively moral?" If morality only has teeth because God says it, then God could say murdering your neighbors while laughing madly is good. Again, just a devolution of might makes right which no one but psychos actively practice.
Quoting Relativist
True, but then that is equally not a justification for not believing something or rationally arguing against something either.
Quoting Relativist
My point is there is seemingly an objective reason beyond, "I feel its good." Subjective morality is the morality of a spoiled child. "I do what I want because I want to." An objective morality states, "You should do X because it will likely result in Y which is better than the alternative of Z." Then you can explain why Y is better than Z, not not simply, "Because I like it more."
So if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme."
Quoting Relativist
Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist. If a bacteria was able to be invented that wiped out 80% of all life besides human beings, and humans would still be able to live healthy lives, should we? Should we kill all the whales for fun if it amuses us? Enslave other people who are weaker than us? I can explain how all these things could happen, but it doesn't answer the question, "Should it be?"
At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes".
Why must there be reasons?
Quoting Philosophim
Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary. So a "should" (a reason) doesn't apply.
Quoting Philosophim
As you noted, empathy didn't appear suddenly when humans developed. In addition, parents of most species feel some sort of affection for their offspring. There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so. They may not contemplate the risks in advance, nor do they engage in a mental deliberation weighing the pros and cons before acting. They lack the capacity to do this. Be we have the capacity, and that's what we add to our instinctual inclinations- we intellectualize them, and think abstractly about them. What feels right instinctually IS right and good.
Quoting Philosophim
You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others. By analogy, each dog in a pack will fight for other members of the pack. I imagine that if they could speak, they would say it's the right thing to do
I get the strong feeling that you want there to be meaning to existence - perhaps you actually need it to be the case. Do you think this could be the case? If so, I think I can give you something more helpful than my expressing disagreement with you.
Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim.
Quoting Relativist
That is, (minus the infinite regress) essentially what the OP proves. Therefore we may be in agreement conceptually, just not semantically.
Quoting Relativist
Of course, but that doesn't mean there is an objective underlying reason why that feeling exists. We get hungry because we need to eat to survive. But if we only followed our feelings of hunger, we would eat ourselves to obesity or think, "That antifreeze tastes pretty good." Feelings are subjective digests, deeper thought and understanding is objective details. The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?
Quoting Relativist
No one objectively agrees to that. There are plenty of times that good feelings lead to bad outcomes. To be extreme, the joy of murder for some people. If you've ever helped raise a kid, sometime they think things are fun that shouldn't be done. I took my young nephew outdoors years ago and we found some pill bugs. He delightfully started harrasing and stomping on them. I had to teach him that we don't kill or bother creatures unless its necessary. He didn't have an innate instinct that killing innocent bugs for fun was wrong. His feelings lead him to do wrong, but a lesson fixed the issue.
Quoting Relativist
I do minimize the feeling of it. Whether its a strong or weak feeling, its still just a feeling and not anything reasoned through. We don't feel through engineering. We don't merely feel disgust at our significant other in the morning because their breath smells and divorce them. We don't cheat on our significant other because it would feel good. There are countless examples of good feelings that you can think of practically in your own life that compel you to do things that you know you shouldn't do. We shouldn't even be entertaining the notion that, "Whatever I feel is good, is good."
As for suicide, many years ago when I was younger that was an appealing option. I was not afraid. Fortunately, I thought about the consequences of it and decided it was wrong despite its allure. As for dogs, its best we don't attribute what they feel when we could never know ourselves.
Quoting Relativist
Another example of feelings being wrong. I find meaning in my own existence for myself. I do not need a God or something else to give me meaning in life. What I want to have is a rational standard of right and wrong that can help me approach choices in life that result in better outcomes for myself and everything else. I would be a fool to think my own emotional whims are the answer.
Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism. Naturalism would imply that what occurs is a product of blind, undirected nature - neither reasons nor whims.
Quoting Philosophim
Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality.
Quoting Philosophim
The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presence - demonstrating it being consistent with naturalism. In this case, there isn't a reason this particular trait evolved. Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce.
[Quote] The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?[/quote]
I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. A feeling can account for the concepts of "good" and "bad": hurting me invokes a "bad" feeling; helping me invokes a "good" feeling. Through empathy, these feelings get evoked vicariously. Neither concept can be understood solely by their dictionary definitions - the link to the feelings must be present. Sociopaths lack the link. They could be forced to memorize a moral code, but they'll lack the connection to their feelings.
This innate capacity for perceiving good and evil is a sine qua non for morality, but it's only the beginning of the story. From there, we then think abstractly, apply reasoning, and we learn things (including the morality further developed by others).
Quoting Philosophim
I was only referring only to the fundamental basis of right(good) and wrong (bad). We still learn things - such as what you've taught your children. And we have other feelings that lead us in other directions, and different people will apply different reasoning and differrent sets of beliefs.
A feeling and a reason are two different products of the mind. A feeling is an impetus or summary that compels a person to action. A reason is the result of an analyzed situation that one can decide to act on.
This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is.
Quoting Relativist
No, then you should agree with my conclusion that "There should be existence" is the logically necessary base of an objective morality. You'll need to give greater detail why this isn't the case.
Quoting Relativist
Right, the underlying value for having that feeling is the species survival. But should the species survive? If there was a cat that was born with the compulsion to kill all other baby cats, should that cat exist over a cat that has a compulsion to nurture newborns? This is a question that asks a rational response, and not an emotional answer.
Quoting Relativist
Right, the particulars may change, but isn't the underlying objective purpose to ensure the species continues? Why should any species continue?
Quoting Relativist
The feelings of morality are how we first subjectively experience morality. Just like the pleasant warmth of a sunbeam is how we experience the confirmation of objective health of vitamin D and temperature. The benefits to a sunbeam would be no matter how you felt about it however. As soon as you bring reason and learning into the mixture, you're talking about objectivity. And that's what I'm trying to pin down in the OP. The beginnings of any rational discussion of morality must conclude that given the options of existence vs complete non-existence, existence is better, and therefore the base of any good reason.
You had said: "Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim."
A whim is also a product of a mind - we would not describe the random result of a quantum collapse as a "whim". So both your options entail a mind. You seemed to imply that whatever happens has been caused or influenced by reasons/whims, and this would entail one or more supernatural actors. For brevity, assume one mind.
Although you haven't suggested that this mind created the world (which would make it a god), you nevertheless seem to think everything that exists is due to reason or whim. This would apply to this mind as well. Once again, a vicious infinite regress of minds to provide a whim or reason. The best solution to this is a single mind - a god, which exists necessarily - and not for a reason or due to whim.
Quoting Philosophim
Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind. But independently of this. if something exists necessarily, no reason is needed to explain it other than the necessity of its existence, it can't NOT exist. This is the traditional reasoning behind the deistic argument from contingency, but applies equally to any uncaused first cause, even a materialistic one.
Quoting Philosophim
No, not really- there's no purpose behind evolution that is directing it (intelligent design notwithstanding - unless you believe in a god); it only seems that way, because we often focus on the organisms that comprise a species. Here's biological view of it:
Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of alleles* (including the development of new alleles through mutation), within a gene pool** over time.
*An allele is a gene variant, such as the variant that results in red hair or blue eyes.
**gene pool: all the alleles in a population of organisms that interbreed.
When an organism survives to maturity and reproduces, it is inserting genes into the gene pool. The longer it lives, the more opportunity to reproduce and thus to propagate is genes. If certain alleles (individually or in combination with others) produces a survival advantage, then over time - these alleles can come to dominate. The average impact to a gene pool that one organism can have is proportional to the size of the population - this is simple probability (1 out of 1000 organisms vs 1 out of 1000000).
Over time, a subpopulation may become isolated from the mother population, and if this persists - that subpopulation's gene pool will evolve independently from the mother gene pool, and over time, this can result in a new species- the gene pool is quite a bit different from the original pool (a pool that may have also evolved away from what it was at the split).
This doesn't entail an objective, it just entails genetic mutations that occur in a gene pool that may or may not provide an advantage to organisms that effects how much they reproduce.
Quoting Philosophim
We all want to live, and most of us would like humanity to live on after our own deaths. I see no reason to think that this common desire exists independently of humans, and that's much of what I've been arguing. But I can agree that human (intersubjective*) morality is consistent with our drive/desire for humanity to continue and for it to flourish.
*In philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people's cognitive perspectives.
Either we're really not on the same page anymore, or you're purposefully avoiding the point. Emotions are not the same as reasons. Having an emotion, "I feel good, so its moral," is not the same as, "We should do this because this outcome is better than that outcome no matter how I feel."
I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion, and you keep insisting that one belongs in this discussion. I respect your beliefs, and this is not an attack on them. But for the discussion of the OP, a God is not part of the equation and does not address my points.
Quoting Relativist
Except I've told you I'm looking for something apart from mind. Something core to existence itself. I don't mind if you introduce a mind or think it cannot exist without a mind, but I myself am not implying an objective morality necessitates a mind.
Quoting Relativist
Correct. Again, this is the conclusion of the OP. So we are in agreement here.
Quoting Relativist
I still think you're not fully understanding the question. I'm not asking, "How does evolution work." I'm not asking, "Why does evolution work?" I'm asking, "Should there be any evolution at all?" If existence has the moral objective at its base that, "Existence is good," then evolution which entails greater existence would seem to be a good thing, while evolution that entails less existence would seem to be a bad thing. For example a creature that forms that created matter, vs a creature that formed that would inevitably destroy all matter it could.
Quoting Relativist
Once again, that's not the question I'm pointing out. Why is the desire to live good? Why is life good? Why is existence itself good? I'm not asking for feelings, but objective answers.
I agree, and I tried to address this when I clarified that the fundamental basis could be as simple as: the true meanings of good/bad entailing the feelings they invoke with respect to some very simple situations: the vicarious feeling we get when considering someone suffering in some way (i.e. empathy).
This doesn't mean we must trust our feelings as moral judgements in all cases - it just means the meanings of good/bad the words have a non-verbal/emotive aspect to them. A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions.
I also discussed the fact that we also apply learnings (what we teach your children and what our society teaches us) and reasoning when making moral judgements - so it's certainly much more than feelings.
It seems that I didn't get my point across before, but I hope I've succeeded now. If not, then ask.
Quoting Philosophim
You asked me to explain why I suggested it ("This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is"). I did just that: I showed that your unsupported assertion (that reason or whim must be involved) entails a God. I provided my analysis so you can identify a flaw in it. Instead, you're just complaining that I said it.
Quoting Philosophim
How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds? Before humans existed, was bank fraud wrong? Was altruism good, when there were no humans?
As I've tried to explain, it appears to me that human morality is entirely a human thing: it relates to human actions, and it entails human judgement. If you think it's more than that, then explain how that can be. Explain how bank fraud or murder is wrong even if there are no humans.
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement? If so, who's judgement are you interested in? Are you just asking because you want input to help you form a judgement?
If you think "should" questions are something other than human judgements, explain how this can be.
No, that's just a subjective experience. Let me use another example I gave another reader. You and I have a subjective experience of seeing red. But there is an objective wavelength of light underneath it that is what allows us to see red at all. If I'm color blind, that wavelength of red still exists. If I'm dead, that wavelength of red still exists. It is irrelevant whether there is something there to observe it or not, that wavelength of light persists. What will not exist is the subjective experience of red, but the objective reality of a red wavelength will still exist.
Feelings are simply subjective experiences of reality. My point is that we may have different subjective feelings as to what is good, but there is an objective reality to good underneath it. Just like the experience of a red wavelength is not the same as the dry analysis of what is objectively red, the experience of an objective morality is not the same as our subjective experience of it.
Quoting Relativist
Correct. But if there is an objective morality, it won't need emotions. Whatever AI's subjective experience of an objective morality would be, it would still have an understanding of that underlying objective conclusion.
Quoting Relativist
As I've noted before, if we supply reason beyond emotion, then we are asserting an objectivity to morality beyond feelings. If I have a son or daughter that cannot feel empathy, I can teach them how to behave in social situations regardless. But I have to give them more than, "You have to behave this way because I feel its good, or others feel its good." Why should I listen otherwise? Most other people's feelings are irrelevant to me, and in many situations, should be. If moralities base is on feelings only, then the only reason to shape or follow any moral code is feelings. That's not how societies work. That's not how people work.
Quoting Relativist
I simply don't understand the point then. Emotions and reason's don't require a deity, and I still don't see why you think this does.
Quoting Relativist
Did the wavelength of red exist prior to human beings observing it? Yes. If there is an objective morality there is no need for beings to observe it for it to exist. This is not to be confused with labeling it, understanding it, or having the subjective experience of it. All of those require an observer. What is being observed does not depend on us.
Quoting Relativist
That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation. The OP only introduces the ground floor of morality which is answering the first and most basic question, "Should there be existence?" I do eventually build up to human morality and I start that in the second post linked at the end of this one. I get it, you want to dance in the human subjective experience, but to get there we have to build to it. I would try to explain more here, but that's why I wrote a few other posts. :) The point of this particular OP is, "If there is an objective morality, then its fundamental question, "Should there be existence," is "Yes". From there we can build, and I start doing so in the next post.
Quoting Relativist
No. Should entails what is optimum for a system. In this case the system is "existence".
So it appears you have some sort of hypothesis that goodness is some sort of existing entity that we perceive, or perhaps that its a physical property of...something (what?) Clarify exactly what you're proposing exists, and what facts this hypothesis is supposed to explain.
Offhand, this just seems like an assumption you make because you want to believe there is some objective basis for morality. So please clear this up for me.
Quoting Philosophim
If you were to have a child who lacks empathy, I would suggest consulting psychologists with expertise with trying to teach morals to sociopaths, since that is the defining feature of sociopaths. My understanding is that it would be very challenging (which is partly why I believe morality is rooted in the feelings of empathy). My non-expert opinion is that you should teach them there's a God who will punish them for their sins (appealing to their personal self-interest). Even if you don't believe it, it's a very common belief - so it's socially acceptable and has the potential for getting support from the members of the church you would join.
Quoting Philosophim
I see no reason to believe there is an objective foundation. You haven't provided one. I await your clarifying your hypothesis, and its factual basis.
[Quote]"Should there be any evolution at all?"
Philosophim
Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement?
Relativist
No. Should entails what is optimum for a system. In this case the system is "existence".[/quote]
Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists? Or that everything that happens to exist does exist? Or perhaps that humans exist, or maybe that you (yourself) exists?
Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)?
Certainly, that's the focus of the OP. I believe goodness is the physical property of continued existence. Let me see if I can explain. Its amazing that we have a reality in which there is a law which states, "Matter can neither be created or destroyed." Except that philosophically we know that one part of this is false. As you noted, logically the ultimate origin of existence must not have a prior cause. Meaning, matter was 'created', 'incepted', or whatever you want to note. Read here if you're unsure what I'm talking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
Scientifically, we also know the second part of this law is also theoretically false. The math that we understand at this point in history demonstrates that there should be a lot more matter left over after the big bang. One proposal to this is that there were nearly equal parts anti-matter which bound with the matter that existed, cancelling the matter out. By this, its been casually admitted that matter can be destroyed. But if we take the conclusions of matter formation we realize something that is logically possible. Matter does not have to form that cannot be destroyed.
Just as matter could be incepted without prior cause, it could also break down or simply cease to exist. Now it wouldn't be the same type of matter we have today, as this is the type of matter that doesn't break down, at least for this long. But what if some matter did break down? That it wasn't antimatter, just the properties of that particularly formed matter that did not continue?
If that is the case, what we have today is matter, or existence, which has as its core the resiliency to continue to exist in the face even extreme energy concentrations. Everything that exists is built out of this. This resiliency is the core of morality. The logic of the OP is to say, "If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" And what must be true if there is an objective morality is that "Existence should be."
Quoting Relativist
The reason to believe there is an objective basis is the patterns I've been noting. The fact that a subjective morality based entirely on emotions breaks down to where even you admit 'reason' gets involved. In other words, there is no concrete proof that morality is only purely subjective emotions. Do I have proof of an objective morality? Absolutely not, that's never been the goal of this paper. My point here is to say, "If one exists, what must be its base?" So the question we are debating is not whether one exists, its whether you think its possible for one to exist, and if so, does the logic I've put forth put forward a reasonable base to start from.
Quoting Relativist
In the OP, it is a question of, "At least some existence" vs "Non-existence". That's as far as the OP starts.
Quoting Relativist
That's what I explore after establishing the base. That starts in the next post linked in the OP. Of course its moot if you don't at least agree that the OP is worth consideration.
It's anachronistic. Per general relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable. What is conserved is the total amount of mass+energy (see this). Regarding the matter/anti-matter balance issue, it's an open question in theoretical physics.
Quoting Philosophim
This seems a product of your misunderstanding of the fundamental conservation law. Why did you write "matter, or existence"? How are the two related, particularly under the understanding that matter and energy are just different forms of the same thing?
Quoting Philosophim
Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause.
Quoting Philosophim
What you've noted is scientifically inaccurate. But if even if there were some so-called "resliency", it's ad hoc to claim this to be the "core of morality." This seems like a "objective morality of the gaps", although you haven't really identified a gap.
Quoting Philosophim
I'll set aside the objections raised above, and just consider your sentence, ""If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" The answer depends on what objective morality IS. This was another of my questions. Is it a set of moral values (e.g. murder is wrong; altruism is good), or something else?
Quoting Philosophim
Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex.
This gets back to what I said in my first post: the existence of objective morality can be used to argue for the existence of God:
P1 If there is no God, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2 Objective moral values and duties exist.
C Therefore, God exists.
You're proposing that morality exists without a God. I agree that is logically possible, but it has a fatal implication: they exist by chance, so they are arbitrary. Arbitrariness is the base, if there is no God who designed them for some greater purpose he has in mind. I expect you wish to assume they are non-arbitrary. How can that be, if they weren't the product of design? It seems to me, the above argument shows that the best explanation for the existence of non-arbitrary morality is that a God exists. (personally, I don't think a God exists - and that's why I inferred the presence of intersubjective moral values. They aren't arbitrary - they are consistent with survival).
Correct, which is why I just used the term matter and instead of "Matter and energy". They're the same thing. Just giving a concrete to the abstract of existence as an example.
Quoting Relativist
What caused the energy to exist, which is matter? As you noted, all causality at the end boils down to an uncaused reason for existence.
Quoting Relativist
That is exactly what the OP walks through and concludes. I'm not intending to be short, I just don't have a lot of time to re-summarize tonight.
Quoting Relativist
Of course. But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right. Anything else that does not involve feelings must be dropped. My proposal lets us consider things other than feelings. Subjective moralities conclusion is ironically at odds with our feelings and practice, as well as the many other reasoned approaches we make towards morality.
Quoting Relativist
Everything exists by chance. "Arbitrary" would apply to everything then and is a pointless criticism to morality in general. Of course its not arbitrary, or you would have hung up on this discussion long ago. Further, if a God formed, it too would be an arbitrary formation, and we're stuck with the same pointless argument.
Quoting Relativist
Why is your survival not arbitrary? Why are your feelings not arbitrary? By reason, how is a subjective morality not arbitrary? As you can see the arbitrary argument leads nowhere.
It boils down to an initial, uncaused state of affairs. What that might be is unknown, but whatever it is, it exists for no reason. This is because to have reason would require there to be something existing ontologically prior to it, which is logically impossible.
Quoting Philosophim
That is categorically false. Self preservation, extended through empathy to the preservation of life in general, is the strongest mutual feeling that we have. It's sufficient to account for the "golden rule" (treat others as you would like to be treated) that has been developed in various cultures- apparently independently. All generally agreed moral values are consistent with it. Indeed we have other feelings/urges that we often act on that are inconsistent with our moral feelings, but we still make moral judgements of those actions - and never claim it's OK because we "felt like it".
Quoting Philosophim
You side-stepped my objection. Moral values that exist due to the blind forces of nature would be completely random. Some value happens to be good because some force of nature randomly with in the direction it did, and it could just as easily gone in another direction.
[Quote]Further, if a God formed, it too would be an arbitrary formation, and we're stuck with the same pointless argument.[/quote]
This is the Euthyphro dilemma, but it doesn't apply to my model of intersubjective moral values. In my model, good=directed positively toward life (preserving life and helping it flourish). It's fundamental basis is a properly basic belief- one that is innate and incorrigible. An act is right and good because it is consistent with this properly basic belief. Within the scope of humanity, no moral value is arbitrary because it is necessarily consistent with this this properly basic belief.
In a broader sense, beyond the scope of humanity, the existence of humans is arbitrary. We happen to exist by a chance series of events in evolutionary history, and in cosmological history. So in this cosmic sense, there are no objective moral values. But our scope of interest is humanity: our basic moral value is an intrinsic part of being human. As a properly basic belief, a moral value is right because we all believe it to be right, and it is a belief that has no defeaters. It's reasonable and rational to retain a properly basic belief that has no defeaters.
So my foundation of morality is epistemic. You're inventing an ontological basis for it, so you need to account for why natural forces would just happen to produce the values that it did, and provide some rationale to consider them non-arbitrary. There are, BTW, theistic arguments that deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. You can google them if you like, but you'll find they won't fit your paradigm. You're on your own.
Quoting Philosophim
I answered this above. Our survival IS arbitrary in a cosmic sense, but it is NOT arbitrary in the only sense that's relevant to humanity. We judge morals in terms of who and what we are. Now you answer your own question within your paradigm.
We're in complete agreement here.
Quoting Relativist
You declared it to be false, but your admittance that its 'the strongest mutual feeling we have' means its true. You essentially said, "Its not only feelings, but the majority of us have a strong feeling". In other words, might makes right. As long as the majority have that feeling and can enforce that feeling, that's morality.
Quoting Relativist
Then what you're saying is morality is not based on our feelings alone. This is the problem again with subjective morality. The only answer is, "Whatever I feel, whatever I enforce." No one likes that, so there is an attempt to sneak 'other reasons' in. What are those other reasons if not feelings? In which case we have a morality that does not rely on feelings alone.
We've gone around this a few times now, and I feel this probably won't alter your point. If there's anything new to add feel free, but I think we're probably at odds for now.
Quoting Relativist
No, they would be consequences of that nature. Because again, the argument of, "completely random" would apply to everything even apart from morals and is a dead end.
Quoting Relativist
So based on an 'arbitrary' feeling. Of course it applies to you. If everything is arbitrarily made, so are your feelings. You like preserving life only because you feel it. You can't give me an actual reason why life is positive beyond that. Its fundamental basis is purely emotional and nothing more.
Quoting Relativist
But it is arbitrary to say the scope of humanity matters at all. That humans should exist at all. Of course I don't believe that, but we need more than feelings to explain that.
Quoting Relativist
Its not intrinsic, and we don't all believe it. It is no more than a feeling, and is easily defeated by any other feelings and basic logic. If I can find one person who disagree with what is moral then you, then you're wrong. I disagree, therefore you're wrong.
Quoting Relativist
No its not, its a belief based on a feeling. An assertion no more foundational than belief in a God.
Quoting Relativist
That was a criticism of your point, not mine.
Quoting Relativist
Only because you feel that way. I feel there is morality that is not relevant to humanity, and would exist even if we were gone. And since you believe morality is subjective based on feelings, I guess I'm right eh?
The paradigm I have presented is the OP and a note that a subjective morality does not serve any rational purpose, but is just a surface level feeling that fails upon close inspection. Feel free to go back to the OP at this point if you're interested. If not, I'm not sure there's anything more that you can add, and I'm not sure I can either.
Your paradigm assumes there are moral values existing external to humans that were caused to exist by undirected natural forces. You have not explained how these moral values are non-arbitrary. In the case of a God, the answer theists give is that God is Goodness. You don't have that.
You haven't even said what you're referring to as existing externally to us. I have used the term "moral values", and you haven't disagreed. If it IS moral values: what are they? For example, does every statement "x is wrong" "y is good" correspond to some object existing out in the ether? Or are there just foundational moral statements existing out there?
You also haven't explained how we know what these moral values (or whatever it is) are- how they influence our moral judgments. You seem to deny feelings are involved, so what is it?
I'll refrain from responding to your criticism of my paradigm until you fully address this.
My point is that noting the natural world is 'arbitrary' doesn't make any point. We both agree that the universe is uncaused, meaning we cannot look outside of the universe for explanation. We can only look within it. The term 'arbitrary', if you are to use it against morality, would apply to everything in the universe at its core. You could just use the word 'random', but arbitrary adds an unneeded emotional element of dismissal to it.
As I pointed out earlier, the subjective experiences we have are based on underlying objective reality. Like a wavelength of light that we classify as red allows us to subjectively experience the color red. Of course, we could also say that the wavelength is arbitrary, the subjective experience is arbitrary, and people are arbitrary too. After all, its all ultimately the result of an uncaused event. This is of course nihilism, which I don't think you agree with either.
Further, I'll mention again that I believe morality is a consequence of existence that 'just won't quit'. We are made out of this existence, and this property of continued existence repeats across what is. While it may have been random that some existence formed that doesn't quit, vs possible existence that formed and did quit, the existence we have today at its base, is resilient in its continued existence.
After establishing here the base idea that if there is an objective morality, then the rational base of any objective morality would be, "There should be existence", I expand logically from there. In the second post I go through and think, "If this is a base level of goodness, what can we build from that?" I would actually love your thoughts on that there, as I am not 100% convinced I'm doing that part right and actually want some decent criticism to refine or abandon it for another approach.
In the second post I find some rules and patterns for existence as 'existences', or identified differences within the whole of everything. Are there certain interactions or setups that create more overall existences within existence than others? As a basic example, a universe with the same mass as ours that is only full of hydrogen atoms vs ours with 100+ elements.
After establishing some of those base patterns in existence, I move up to life and demonstrate these patterns repeat. Finally I get to human morality and show these patterns continue in personal and societal evaluations as well. If you're interested in exploring that, there are only a few things we need to settle here.
1. You believing in exploring a potential objective morality.
2. You believe that the argument given in this OP is rational enough to view as a starting base to continue with the next post.
And that's really it. If you're interested, read the next post and post your criticism there. As I mentioned, I do not think I 'nailed it', and I need other people to really hammer into it. So if the two above conditions have been satisfied for you, I'll take further questions and points there. If you still have questions on the first two points, then address them here.
I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind. You sidestep this with vagueness- a belief that this vague moral object exists and in some vague way, this is involved in our moral judgements.
This is relevant to your question about the implications of there being objective morals. If objective morality is rooted in a mind, it would have different implications than if there is no mind. But it appears to me that objective morals entaiis a mind because it would have to be the product of intent. Since you deny that, your position seems incoherent.
Does a red wavelength of light have intent behind it? No. Is a red wavelength an objective entity? Yes. My intent is to find a morality that exists like a wave of light. We may subjectively interpret it in different ways, but its something underlying that we're all observing.
Quoting Relativist
I've mentioned this a few times, and will do one more time in case you have any fears I'm going to recant later on. There is no mind that intends morality. There is no God. This is not my opinion or way to shape you into doing what I want. This is an objective exploration into the nature of morality as existence itself. You may note that my positions may be incoherent in the next post and you might be right. As I've noted, I need other people to look at it besides myself. But I feel its fairly clear hear that it is not.
You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like moral imperatives. Correct me if this is not what you mean.
A red wavelength of light exists by brute fact. Its existence has relevance to the deterministic chain of causation, but it entails no "shoulds" outside of this. So if your morality exists like a wave of light, it may have some relevance to the deterministic causal chain, but there are no "shoulds" outside its role in causation.
Quoting Philosophim
I asked you this before, but I don't believe you answered. What do you mean by "existence"? For example: are you referring to the totality of existence? The fact there reality exists rather than not? Or perhaps you're referring to OUR exististence? I have followup questions, depending on your answer.
Right, this is the logic. Morality is what should be. If there is an objective morality, then we boil every moral question down to what should be implicitly answered first. "Should there be existence?" And by existence we mean, "Something vs nothing". So not any one particular set of existences, only existence vs nothing at all. The OP concludes that if there is an objective morality, the only answer which would logically make sense is "There should be existence".
How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically? You compared it to a red wavelength of light, but that entails nothing like a moral imperative - it just entails some role in the deterministic evolution of the universe.
*If the moral imperative is random, it's irrelevent - there can't have the sort of meaningful implications that you're looking for. The imperative "don't steal" could just as easily come out "do steal".
Everything comes from an undesigned universe that evolves 'debatably' deterministically. I don't want to sidetrack too much, but if an undesigned universe can incept without prior cause, what's to stop other things from also happening later in the timeline? Such things would be completely unpredictable. Again, not a design intent, just random additions.
So if everything comes from this, what do you mean by relevant? Everything is relevant to that. As I've been noting, from the logic I've established above I hypothesize that morality at its base is the result of matter that has existed without cessation for 13.8 billion years. It is this unexplainable continued existence that is the base of all morality. Its not that there is a want, or desire, or conscious impetus. Just like there is no want or conscious impetus behind atoms grouping into molecules, molecules grouping into DNA, and ultimately creating life. I believe it is simply a consequence of 'eternal' matter. This is of course completely my musing after exploring the topic more fully and I genuinely wonder what you'll think after looking at the whole thing as well.
One major problem at this point is you're trying to figure out everything from my one little post noting that at its base IF there is an objective morality, existence is good. I've just told you 1+1=2 and you're asking me how its possible calculus can come from that. You're not really going to understand until you go through the rest. I'm not trying to trick you or do some, "Gotcha!" at the end. I'm genuinely exploring an idea that no one has ever had before. And I need other people to give it a genuine look. Your criticism has been understandable and the questions good, but you'll probably do better if you keep reading. For all I know my continued reasoning from this point is like most philosophers, "A solid start that loses steam midway through".
You're not confessing I'm right by moving on. I hope these explanations give you a 'good enough to explore it more' vibe and keep going. So if you don't mind, would you read the next section and point your criticism there? I'm not sure there's much to explore in this post at this point, and I would love it if someone with a keen mind took a look at where I go from here.
A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won.
No, I don't think so. If I'm right in the logic put forth, in at least any universe we can imagine, 'existence should be' is the necessary base answer to any objective morality. Second, all objective conclusions are within the universe that exists. This 'arbitrary' argument is pointless, which I've noted several times now. You still think morality comes from something else. I'm noting its a property/consequence of existence itself. It doesn't matter how that existence formed.
Now we've gone around on this point for a couple of posts, and I've noted that if you want a better understanding, its best you read the second post linked in the OP. I'm not sure there's anything to add either way from what's been noted in the OP at this point. If you're willing to think on something new and explore, I think you'll enjoy it, for the novelty at least. If you're here only to insist I can't do what I'm doing, you really don't have the understanding you need to convince me at this point. Not that I can't be convinced in later arguments, I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong and adapt where needed. But I feel we've reached the limits within this particular post.
Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition".
The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good."
It's merely an occasion sentence.
Further morality also measures what is bad too.
And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.
Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows.
Good and Bad are what should be,
The Good and The Bad are intrinsically linked, you cannot have a good example without a bad example.
P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.
P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other
C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad.
The problem with this statement is that you haven't just declared that an objective morality cannot exist. This statement declares that nothing objective can ever exist. Its the same thing as saying, "An objective evaluation of light waves can never occur because its completely random that light waves were made."
Your central argument here is you think how something came to be as the same as its possibility to be. That's false. Morality as I've noted, does not come from an intelligent being. It doesn't come from outside of what exists. It is found within existence. So whether that existence formed is random or not is irrelevant to its existence. Same with a wavelength of light. My point is that if existence is, there is a rational initial proposal to objective morality that we can reasonably look at and explore.
Are you willing to move on Relativist? This doesn't mean you admit that I'm right. But for the last time, I will ask that I would like someone as keen as yourself to look at the next steps that I'm proposing. I think it would help you understand a bit more what I'm talking about overall, where I'm going with this, and possibly give you the ammunition you need to point out issues with it that I'm not seeing as I move along with this. You may have an underlying point that you're not quite able to communicate because you're coming from a stance that from my viewpoint, is limited in understanding what I mean by a non-entity pushed objective morality. I look forward to it as I think you're one of the few people who can understand and evaluate what I'm doing.
It's merely an occasion sentence.
Further morality also measures what is bad too.
And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.[/quote]
Ok, I appreciate this critique. First, what is an 'occasion' sentence? Second, the evaluation of what is good by consequence includes the evaluation of what is bad. If good is what should be, bad is what should not be. Third, if good is what should be, then what should be must involve the context of the situation. So for example, if a person is starving and will die, the objective morality I ultimately conclude here would say stealing food to live is good. In the case of a person who can buy food and just doesn't want to, it would be bad. An objective evaluation requires careful evaluation.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
This is a fantastic argument, and I'm glad we've started here. Without an agreement on the definitions, there's no point in moving to the next steps. Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here.
They exist together or not at all is my point.
And what's good for me may be bad for you.
Can you have a "Good" without defining "Bad" if valuation is done between opposites. Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. We can, with the right amount of will power prevent bad impulses. But what's stronger? Sometimes a person's will to survive. Because for them the Good is not starving but taking from someone.
And we agree!
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
True. A subjective morality is merely opinion though while and objective morality would be a reasoned fact. If you're starving without alternative, its good to steal food. If I'm not starving and have money, its bad for me to steal food.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Good is what should be. "Be" is exist.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
That would be a moral decision. So for example, I might have the intent at an outcome, but fail. So I may intend to do good by donating to an organization, but it turns out that organization was corrupt. I may have had the intent to do good, but the money ended up not being used the way I intended. What should be is that I donate money to an organization and they use it as promised. What is bad is the organization not using the money as promised. My intentions, or moral action, was good, but the outcome was not good because the organization lied.
An objective morality would be a reasoned methodology that allows an assessment of what is good and bad beyond subjective emotional experience. With a subjective morality, we can never reasonably state that an organization scamming a person's donations is bad. With an objective morality we can.
Well scams inherently feel bad but can be aimed at doing great things. A person who donates for x but that donation goes to y. There are historical examples, quite a few.
Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense.
That produces inability in action, often through shame and guilt. Because humans are irrational even at the best of times.
Even if it does workout in logic, logic has its shortcomings in not exactly reflecting reality. Like communism could work... but humans invariably form into Heirarchies where a government is merely an organizing surface.
And since there will certainly be examples of "bad" humans in this "Good should exist" scenerio, and bad should not exist ... well, what then?
That's why we're careful here in our definitions. Is good what should be, and is bad what shouldn't be at its very basic? Do you feel we've reached an assessment of the definitions which allows you to continue on with the rest of the OP?
No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad."
It "shouldn't" but it does.
And without that which shouldn't be there would be no Good. Due to a lack of evaluation.
The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.
Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.
I think that's fine. What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?
The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.
Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.
For some, what is "good" is literally that which is deemed "bad."
That didn't answer the question. If you don't give an answer to that question, then that means mine has every reason to stand.
It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. You're trying to kill off half of human nature by saying it shouldn't exist.
It will exist regardless because bad is intrinsic to human nature as we base it off of human actions (at least in part [nature is bad too]). It doesn't reflect reality.
Its like saying everyone should be white, or everyone should be muscular and fit.
Alright, that's one part, but you didn't provide your own definition.
First, I'm not defining good and bad as you think I am.
Good - What should be
Bad - What shouldn't be
Its not that good WILL be and bad WON'T be, its that good is a more favorable reality then bad.
That's not idealic, because I'm noting there is possibly an objective evaluation and means of measuring this. Thus its not an ideal based on human emotion or desire, but rational thought.
My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement.
Good and Bad should be. Since you can't have good without bad.
You're trying to sneak around that last bit of the conclusion.
You're like, I agree, but I think afterwards we kill that bad!
Not how logic works. That's ultimately a different conclusion and requires different premises.
And I presented to you a counter that you have not fully addressed. So until then, my point stands.
No it doesn't. I accepted that a moral value can exist. But if it's a product of "random existence", there are 2 implications:
1) it's existence is contingent. It didn't have to exist.
2) it's value is contingent. Its converse could have existed.
The same would be true of anything else with "random existence". But if "don't steal" could have randomly come out as "do steal", there is no objective reason to follow it.
Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist. This is not an argument against the existence of an objective morality. A red wavelength of light never had to exist, yet its still an objective classification. You have not answered this counter point the last few times I've pointed this out and only repeated your own. If you simply list the same argument again without answering this I will assume at this point that you understand the point and are unable to adequately challenge it.
Quoting Relativist
No, it could not have. First, you don't even know if this initial point leads to whether stealing is right or wrong. Second, the OP's claims is only about whether there should be existence. That's the entire point of the OP, to demonstrate an objective morality has a logical and certain answer to this question. An objective morality cannot exist that states "Existence should not be" as that is a logical contradiction. Go back to the OP and bring up the points if you wish to counter this conclusion.
"Should" only applies only to choices made by beings that can make choices. It would make no sense to claim an electron "should" be attracted to a proton. That attraction is a necessary fact.
To suggest that "existence should be" is incoherent because it would imply a being exists who makes the choice for there to be existence. It's self-contradictory.
Quoting Philosophim
If there is an uncaused first cause, how could it have NOT existed? What accounts for its contingency? What is it contingent UPON?
Even if you believe the actual uncaused first cause is contingent, how could there be a state of affairs of nothingness- an absence of anything at all? Existence itself (the fact SOMETHING exists) is metaphysically necessary entailed by the fact that we exist and something cannot come from nothing. Quoting Philosophim
Your op only claims "existence should be". You haven't explained how that entails the moral imperative "don't steal".
Secondly, you had referred to moral imperatives being the product of randomness- and THAT is the basis of my claim that each moral imperative could have come out as its converse. If that is not the case, then explain what you mean by "randomness" in your context. Why couldn't this imperative have come out as "do steal"?
I have several times noted that 'should' does not involve beings. If you are saying it does, and I'm presenting the entire argument that it does not, you need to challenge my point why I say it does not. You have not done that. You are creating a straw man by stating, "Should requires a being, therefore you contradict yourself," when I have noted, "Should does not require a being, but a logical state of existence."
If I was noting that an objective morality requires a being, you would have a point. But I haven't, I won't, and its not going to change. So this criticism does not counter my point. If you merely insist that it requires a being, please point out logically why it does while keeping within the definitions I listed. If your argument is, "Morality is only subjective, therefore it requires a being," that's just circular logic. You're going to have to first note that an objective morality could exist, and why it would require a being for it to exist. If your argument is instead just another roundabout way of saying, "I insist morality is subjective," that's not a viable argument.
Quoting Relativist
You may want to read my post on this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 I go over the logic of uncaused origins and what it entails. I'll try to summarize the point here.
When thinking upon the fact that the universe was ultimately uncaused by anything else, you realize that anything could have happened. Odds are calculated based on contingencies. There are four jacks in a deck of cards, which is why if we don't know the shuffle order we say pulling a card bling has a 4/52 chance of being a jack.
An uncaused universe has no odds. It has no reason that it should have formed, and it has no reason that it should not have formed. There is no limit as to what could form, and no limit as to what could not form. There is no cause behind it, so there is no rule behind it besides the fact that it now exists. How it exists is where further causality and rules of the universe are made. It is contingent upon nothing prior.
Quoting Relativist
How could there be a state of affairs that there is existence at all? The same as a possible state of affairs in which there is no existence at all. There is no contingency for existence. No prior causation. It simply is, and it had no reason to be or not be. We believe something cannot simple 'be' without prior cause in the universe, but logically, its the only conclusion that works.
Now if you are talking about, 'what is', that's a different story. And that's my point on an objective morality. It is 'what is'. We do not include any reference to a prior cause of the universe because that's pointless. An objective morality if it exists is within the universe that is, just like everything else. It does not exist on some outside intention, but would be an existent thing in the universe just like a wavelength of light.
Quoting Relativist
Correct. Thus why your point is a straw man. If you want to figure out what I ultimately conclude on that, you'll need to read the next section. I've mentioned several times the limited scope of this particular OP, and noted that if you want to answer some of your other questions that go beyond the scope of this OP, you'll need to read the next section.
Quoting Relativist
No, I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness. So saying that the universe had no intention or causation behind its 'origin' of existence is the same argument that be applied to anything in the universe. Since an objective morality does not require an intention or prior causation, it is a logical part of existence if it exists. I've stated this again and again. Perhaps you just can't comprehend it, it is very different from the normal subjective argument of morals you're likely used to. Bend your mind a bit. And if you still can't understand it, just go with the basic premises of the OP for now and read more. Maybe you'll understand better, have your questions answered, and be able to make a point that demonstrates I'm wrong. Read on to find out why eventually I can make a reasoned conclusion that "do steal" is not an objective moral notion.
Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows.
I encourage you to review several posts back where I agreed with your points 1 and 2 and laid out that your conclusion did not not make sense. I'll be more explicit here again.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
P1:All concepts of evaluation that have opposites require contrast between opposites.
P2:Good and bad are opposites of each other
Therefore good is what should be and bad is what should not be.
How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's Bad.
I'm a little lost. Good is defined as what should be, bad is defined as what shouldn't be.
And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist (to you)
You have a fundamental problem because bad exists.
We observe human nature and detail "good" and "bad" by detailing what exists already
Thus bad exists and thus "bad be," regardless of if it shouldn't or not.
It simply cannot not exist without altering human nature fundamentally.
"Should" does not mean "does". If what is bad exists, it should not exist. If what is good does not exist, it should exist. Does that address your issue?
That is precisely what I've been challenging! The very point you're responding to is such a challenge! Your response should be to explain how "should" applies to objects that lack minds. Asserting it does not explain it.
For reference, here's how it applies to objects with minds (some of them, at least): If John should do X, then he may or may not do X. The should influences his choice; but other urges and desires may also also influence his choice. His choice is contingent, not determined external to himself.
Quoting Philosophim
My point is that you haven't shown how objective morality applies in the absence of minds that have choices to make.
Quoting Philosophim
Here's where you go wrong. A material first cause entails an initial uncaused state, not a "happening". But this is an unnecessary tangent. I'm willing to accept your claim as a premise that the initial state could have been something else. I don't see how this helps your case.
Quoting Philosophim
There are no discrete odds only because your premise implies there are infinitely many possible initial states. This translates to an infinitesimal probability - but it's still a probability.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm glad to hear you say "there is no contingency for existence", because it sounds like you're agreeing with me that existence is metaphysically necessary. Is that correct?
However, if existence is metaphysically necessary, how does "should" apply?
Quoting Philosophim
I have accepted your premise that moral imperatives exist, but I've argued that everything in a contingent universe is therefore contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree? If not, why not?
Quoting Philosophim
I wasn't making a strawman argument, I was explaining what I inferred from your statements - to afford you the opportunity to correct my understanding. You asserted that objective morality somehow comes forth from your premise "existence should be". That makes no sense to me,
If EVERYTHING came out of randomness then this includes all moral imperatives.
Quoting PhilosophimYou've repeated it over and over, but you haven't explained how it is reasonable for a random moral imperative is an OBJECTIVE moral imperative.
Having objective EXISTENCE does not entail there being something objective about the moral imperative. I've said that a moral imperative pertains only to choices made by things that can make choices. I don't think you've stated either agreement or disagreement. So tell me now.
I've been trying for quite some time, and I've brought to your attention the reasons I think your premises are incoherent. I could have walked away from this discussion on that basis, but I've been willing to hear you correct whatever misunderstandings I have. Instead, you just fall back to repeating the same (seemingly incoherent) premises.
I infer that you're saying your basic premise doesn't account for all moral values that most of us accept. I presume that you're only saying that moral values which are entailed by your premise are objective values. Is that correct? It would certainly narrow my objections, but you still need to answer the questions I raised above, and will repeat here:
1) How does "should" applies to objects that lack minds. IOW, explain what it means to say "X should Y" where X is an object lacking a mind.
2) You seemed to agree that existence is metaphysically necessary, so how does "should" apply to the fact of a metaphysically necessary existence?
3) everything in a contingent universe is contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree?
4. You said, "I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness." So please confirm that you agree that moral imperatives (including your foundational one) came out of randomness.
5) Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is both contingent (see #3) and random (see #4)?
Then I have misunderstood. First, I've already told you this is not a proof that an objective morality exists. This is IF an objective morality exists. If it exists, we can construct a necessary initial premise, then try to build from there. The 'should' is entirely logical. As I've tried to communicate a couple of times now, my theory is this is consequence or property of existence itself. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is an exploration into what an objective morality would have to necessarily entail if it existed. That's all it requires from you to explore it. To my mind, if there is an objective morality, this is the best place to start. I have seen no criticism from you thus far that has countered this point.
Quoting Relativist
No, existence is not necessary in any regards. It exists today, but it was not necessary that it ever existed at all if we're tracing back to an origin.
Quoting Relativist
I explore that in the next post by looking at the idea of existences within existence. This involves identities and quantities at an attempt at some type of measurement. Does a certain combination of basic matter result in overall more existences within a set existence? Again, you'll need to read there, I'm not summarizing an entire post. :)
Quoting Relativist
Correct. And all probabilities would be equal as there is nothing which would influence one over the other.
Quoting Relativist
This ironically goes too far for me. I really am only asserting IF an objective morality exists. This is not an assertion or proof that an objective morality exists. I have noted that Subjective morality has many problems, and I don't find it impossible for an objective morality to exist. Therefore we do what we can in philosophy, reason though what would necessarily be if it did exist by noting a fundamental question that all moral systems must answer at their base.
As for contingencies, I'm not sure what you mean here. My note was that if we are talking about the origin of the universe's existence, the only thing we can conclude is that the ultimate origin is uncaused and contingent on nothing else. What do you mean when you say a wavelength of light is contingent within the context I'm noting?
Quoting Relativist
Correct, I've said that several times now. My note is that this does not diminish its existence if it is real, like it doesn't diminish any other existence if it is real.
Quoting Relativist
For the same reason that a random appearance of a red wavelength of light is still an objective red wavelength of light. If an objective morality is real, it is as real as a wavelength of light. Do you understand?
Quoting Relativist
And I have not made that claim. I'm noting IF such a thing exists, what logically must the answer to the question, "Should there be existence" is.
Quoting Relativist
I have told you from the beginning up until the last post that it does not because the logic of the OP does not require a person to make a judgement. Its simply a logical conclusion. I have told you I personally believe it to be a consequence of existence itself, like a property, and informed you that if you read more, you might better understand what I'm trying to tell you. I have noted this first post is a very limited scope argument, and I build upon it in that second post. If you refuse to read that post, when I am telling you that is part of the answer to your question, then insist I'm not answer your question, then don't be surprised if you don't understand it.
Quoting Relativist
And I have answered. Go read the second post. Then continue. If you don't, this conversation will go nowhere as I cannot answer your questions fully from this initial post alone.
Quoting Relativist
Correct! Its not an inference, I've been telling you this repeatedly. :D
Quoting Relativist
No. IF there is an objective morality the only thing this post has asserted is that the answer to, "Should there be existence," is yes, because no contradicts itself. I have asserted no more than this at this time.
Your remaining points I've already answered or you'll need to read the next post. And I do appreciate your engagement in the conversation.
Quoting Philosophim
It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"?
But clearly the electron has no choice in the matter, so it is more precise to say ""an electron will be attracted to a proton".
This is my issue: "should" typically connotes an outcome that is contingent upon a choice. Broadly speaking (setting aside your premise), this is what is generally meant by moral imperatives: a person may choose to do the right thing, or he may not.
No, should would denote a more positive state of existence. But for there to be a more positive state of existence, it must be at its base that existence is itself good, versus there being no existence at all.
Quoting Relativist
But since you know I've stated repeatedly that it does not require a being, its a state. Compare state 1 and state 2, and one would be logically better than the other. Go. Read. The. Second. Post. :D Heres the link so you don't have to go back to the first page. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
You had said, "The 'should' is entirely logical." I'm trying to understand what that means. So I gave you an example which you rejected with a reason that I can't understand. What is a "positive state of existence"? What makes one state more positive than another? Give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds.
You referred to your second post. In that post, you said,
"If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself."
It's fine to define good as "what should be", but this doesn't explain how "should" applies in the absence of minds to make choices. Equating it to "good" doesn't add anything - because that's still a judgment.
Have you read the entirety of the second post? Do you understand the example of atoms versus molecules that I put forward?
I then went that that other thread you referenced (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1) , thinking that might be what you mean. The only reference to molecules mentions nothing about atoms.
Why can't you just give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds, as I asked? Seems like a simple request.
You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other.
Pretty simple to see
1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning
3. If good has no meaning then the statement "good should be" is meaningless and holds no value.
More or less, you've committed the is-ought fallacy...
You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is".
Bad is what should not exist. By virtue of good things existing, there is a state of being that would be a possible negation of that good existence, and should not be. I'm not denying any half of an equation here.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I've never assumed anything like this. This is your thing, not mine. :)
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I don't understand how you're getting point 2 from what I wrote. Bad and good are direct opposites of one another.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
No I'm noting that what good is, is what ought to be. What evil is, is what not ought to be. I don't understand the issue.
Cause otherwise if you assume you can axe the bad. It's just never going to happen ever. Bad will always exist, and can never not exist, regardless if ot should not, it can only be minimized.
The post I intended you to go to is at the end of the OP, which is the second part of this. Now I understand why you haven't gone there. :D Here, I'll link it one more time. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
Quoting Relativist
I have, its that link. Once you read it if you wouldn't mind, post in that thread so I can keep this one's ideas separate from that. This should give you a much better understanding of what I'm noting, and we'll continue there if there are further questions and critiques. I look forward to it as I need a lot more feedback on that one. I'm not sure how tight it is, and I would love someone else to critique it.
Its about states of existence. As a very simple example imagine a state of existence where someone is murdered, vs where they are not murdered. The good state is what should be, the bad state is what should not be. This is at a very basic level again, which the OP goes over. The link at the end of the OP goes onto the second part.
If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too.
And this is just to draw out the absurdity of suggesting nothingness can have a value, as if there can be an evaluator or evaluation system in an otherwise empty void.
If you eliminate all things to be measured, you also eliminate the measuring sticks.
You're close. The OP notes that if there is an objective morality, then the only answer which isn't a contradiction is that there should be existence. If its good for there not to be existence, then that means that morality shouldn't exist. But if your morality says there shouldn't be existence, then it, itself, shouldn't exist. Thus it contradicts itself leaving the only rational answer being "There should be existence".
So if you're saying, "There should be no good," what you're saying is, "It should be, there there should not be." Which means "It should not be, should not be." meaning its nonsensical.
And let's not pretend we have a conceptual grasp of nothingness. We must impart existence upon any concept for any understanding of it, including the concept of nothingness.
To the question of is something better than nothing, I can't evaluate the something universe from the nothing universe to compare them.
Feel free to move onto my next post where I would indeed say that nothingness is zero. I actually introduce a method to quantify existence and compare whether one state is better than another. These were always meant to be read together, I just split it up so people wouldn't balk at the long read of everything together. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
Quoting Relativist
I don't get how you draw that from my last reply, but if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, have a nice day.
If you didn't want to read it, that's fine. Have a good one Relativist.
And absolutely nothing to say after having much to say prior? We moved from existence as abstract into quantity and now have a means of measuring particular states of existence as better based on the initial principle. I thought showing you how good and bad were quantified states of existence would be a prime example of how a should can exist apart from a mind. Such morality does not need intelligent creatures, but is a consequence of the notion that existence is good.
The quantification of existence also demonstrates that within any set existence, the way their potential and actual combinations can result in more quantified existence in any moment T, thus demonstrating a better vs lesser outcome. I was hoping this would answer most of your five points you wrote earlier.
1) How does "should" applies to objects that lack minds. IOW, explain what it means to say "X should Y" where X is an object lacking a mind.
I've explained before I believe the should is simply a logical property of existence. And I showed you an example of that logical property in action through quantification. So you got to see how it works with an example.
2) You seemed to agree that existence is metaphysically necessary, so how does "should" apply to the fact of a metaphysically necessary existence?
I never stated existence was metaphysically necessary. I'm noting that for existence to continue, it must exist. And that continued existence is the source of good on the abstract level. The quantification of existence allows us a next step from that abstract into a live example. While its not yet life, life follows the same pattern as the underlying matter. Was that too boring to consider? Did the math through you? I'm genuinely asking this as I've wondered if people can get past this part when most everyone is chomping at the bit to get to the higher level stuff with animals and people.
I think your 3 and 4 are covered by the above.
5) Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is both contingent (see #3) and random (see #4)?
Lets simplify this. Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is merely a property of existence, and has no punishment, reward, or someone waiting on the other side to enforce it? We should through reason. Just like we do anything else in life. We didn't have to ride horses, we could have just walked. We didn't have to build cars, we could have just rode horses. Understanding how the universe works allows us to construct and approach methodologies and technologies that drive the human race forward.
There is nothing to compel us to moral decisions besides the atoms we are composed of. Besides the fact that our bodies work every day to continue this chemical interaction that constantly needs to seek out energy and repair. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the existence in this universe, and the underlying reality that existence is what should be vs not be is what keeps us going. Understanding that and exploring the logical consequences of that can allow us an independent analysis in many situations, especially when conflicts of moral feelings occur.
If the atomic analysis is not to your liking, the next post linked at the end of that OP goes into how this applies to life, and then ultimately human and social interaction. The plain analysis of matter can be difficult for many to wrap their head around as its a completely new notion and feels disconnected from the moral questions of our subjective existence, so reading ahead might give you the 'aha' you need to go back and see the building blocks how we get there.
It is of course up to you. Perhaps you're bored with the topic, or its gone to a place you just don't want to go. It is as always an opportunity to think, to stretch your mind, and to consider a new possibility for morality.
1. My previous post was an exploration, not a proof. It is a different approach then what I've presented here and my views have changed. Presenting feedback of an is/ought fallacy there would have been good criticism. Going to a previous post and using elements of that there which I do not use or claim here is a straw man fallacy. If you had to go to another post and pull points there that I don't claim here, this only gives me confidence that the points I've presented here are sound.
2. I never insulted you for your criticism and treated you with respect, asked for follow ups when I didn't understand, and tried to answer your questions honestly. Your accusation of this being a farce is immature, disrespectful, and uncalled for after committing a clear logical fallacy. If you're here to discuss for your personal ego, leave. I'm here for intelligent people who want to think and talk respectfully to one another.
You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion.
Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. You post about it in anything else you're in just about trying to funnel traffic here to continually discuss and perpetuate this post.
"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good.
It's perfectly fine to maintain this as an opinion and world view, but you don't have an actual argument. Just opinion.
You may not be aware of this, but the first person to start using derogatory remarks as an argument is the person who has lost the argument and is having a hard time coping. That's you to be clear.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I want you to reread the last post where I stated that your is/ought fallacy was correct for my previous post. Read it again. You were correct for that post. See how I'm very willing to admit my shortcomings? Its nothing to be wrong. However this post contains a different approach and content to my previous one. In philosophy it is often that we begin looking at an idea one way, then evolve as we discuss with other people.
That post was specifically a post directed to explore the idea. It wasn't an assertion of a proof, just a supposition. You are correct, my supposition there could not be a proof as it wasn't intended to be. You could have rightly noted it was an is/ought fallacy for proof, and you would be correct. I have explored the idea much since then, and wrote this paper with a different approach that does not commit the is/ought fallacy. Or if it does, you haven't pointed out where here. If you can, I'll accept it without issue. That requires a good argument from your part about THIS post, not another post with a different argument and approach. If you don't know what a straw man fallacy is, its raising up an argument the poster is not using, beating it, then saying this unrelated argument defeats the argument of the poster. Its a simple mistake to do, but since I've pointed it out, you shouldn't insist on holding it if you're a fair thoughtful person to talk to.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I do not present this argument anywhere in the OP. Therefore you are wrong. It should be a simple enough thing to admit, "Yeah, ok," and try another tact. That's a thinker. You and I both want to view yourself as one, so just be cool, ask questions, try different tactics, and drop the derogatory remarks.
Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit.
Continued red herring after red herring in an attempt to maintain your fallacious argument.
"Existence is, thus it ought to be good."
We no reason to even move beyond this fallacy to which you use to perpetuate other fallacies and circular reasoning.
You there's a reason you've not put together valid and sound premises that necessarily conclude your point.
Because all you have in an opinion.
You cannot get beyond the fact that "bad should be" because without it, Good is meaningless, and thus saying "Good should be" is meaningless.
I'll try one more time just in case you didn't understand. I don't use any claim in this OP that what ought to be is because it is. Please point out where in the OP if you believe I'm doing this. Use quotes and citation so you can prove exactly where I do this.
Doesn't matter how you word it... the holophrasticity of language shows it's what you're declaring.
You're saying "cause I only use Ought, I can pretend there is no is"... but to derive at "good should be" you did so by having some argument before begging this question... as to why good should be...
I don't see how that is. If good = what should be then bad = what shouldn't be. Thus there should be some states of existence that are more preferential than others right? The OP is noting a very specific instance, the choice between any existence at all and no existence. The conclusion is that if there is an objective morality, the only conclusion is that in this very specific instance, its better for there to be existence than nothing at all.
The second post goes into more detail in how we can look at existence and break it down into quantities. After breaking it into quantities we can ask if there are certain states which are preferable than other states of existence. And indeed, I do find this.
But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it.
You say "Good Should Be"
This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, "why good should be?" which always points back to the is-ought fallacy of your initial argument as to why "good should be".
Of course you don't point to it in the OP, the OP is predicated in the fallacy of the argument that leads to "good should be."
I'm starting with the definition that good = 'what should be'. Like in the dictionary. Do you have another definition of good? Then I ask, "Should nothing be, or something be?" You can most certainly disagree with my definition, but I still don't see how I'm making an is/ought fallacy by noting a definition. I'm starting to feel we're having more a linguistic misunderstanding at this point then difference in arguments.
I'm still not seeing this and your answers are becoming shorter and shorter. There is no reason, no quotes, and no further explanation behind this statement. Its sounds like you're done. If so, I appreciate your second attempt and hope to have another nice conversation another time.
"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought.
And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good.
More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies.
You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be"
This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts.
You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though ...
Quoting Philosophim
Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought.
Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce.
Its just a definition. And its that the term is defined as "What should be." I'll ask again, do you have another definition of good? If you have an issue with my definition that's fine. Me proposing a definition that many would agree with is not a logical is/ought fallacy.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Ok, now this is something we can discuss. So you think the definition of good is what we desire. So if I desire to murder a child is that good? What is your justification for noting that anything we desire is good?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Again, this is not an argument of supposition, it is an introduction to a definition and then logical arguments from there. Feel free to disagree with the definition and what you would propose instead. My definition does not fall into the is/ought fallacy as it is merely a definition, but you can propose another we should work with and why you think that's better.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Once again, I'm going to type out a more complete representation here. I say the definition of good is "What should be". You have not asked me to justify this until now. Instead of saying, "You cannot state," simply ask me to justify it first.
At the heart of every claim to good, there is the notion that what is good is a state that is preferable over another. Lets start basic. Good is making a child laugh with joy. Bad is murdering a child for fun. The intent conveyed behind something that is considered good is that good is a 'positive' state, and a positive state is what should be. Of course, knowing objective what a positive state is and how to evaluate it is a tall order. But few disagree that what is good should 'should be' while what is bad 'should not be'.
This leads me to point 1:
Quoting Philosophim
So, you can feel free to disagree with my definition, but put what you think works best in its place. Can it avoid the decent into asking if there should be existence at all?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I'm going to try with you one more time. This smacks of a petty ego that is jealous or envious that this post is so popular. Don't. What's important is a good discussion, not a post that has a bunch of replies.
Again, I have invited you to discuss with me as an equal. I'm listening to your points with respect, asking questions, and trying to answer yours the best I can. And you spit on me. I treat you like an equal, and you act like an inferior. Because only an inferior descends into ego and insults when trying to have a discussion with an equal. This is not Youtube, Reddit, or any other place on the internet. This is a place where people get to discuss intellectual topics and think about things. If you cannot rise to that, then I am sorry I ever thought you could. One last chance. Lose the derision and I will continue to discuss with you respectfully. If not, then I was mistaken and I will end this conversation.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
1. I have never mentioned anything from Plato.
2. "Moved on" is not an argument.
If you see something I'm saying is illogical, just point it out, and why its illogical. If you want to note its like Plato, point out how exactly it is like Plato, and why Plato had difficulty with this concept. As it is, this didn't say anything useful to the discussion.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You only took half the quote in a catered reply to another forum member. You left off the last sentence: Quoting Philosophim
And what was I referencing? The conclusion of the argument in the OP, not an is/ought. If you want to show that I'm committing an is/ought fallacy, reference where in the OP I do this. Incomplete references to other members out of context is not an honest or viable point. This is the third time I think I've asked you to reference the OP. I'm assuming you're not stupid, so that only means you can't find an actual reference in the OP. Scrounging around anywhere else to try and back a point you find in the OP just confirms to me that you don't have a point. It might be better to admit at this point that maybe I don't have any reference in the OP that leads to an is/ought fallacy and try something else.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Tut tut. Using a straw man argument from another thread or an incomplete quote out of context to make your point is the farce. I'm trying to be more polite about it. I ask you again to be an equal with me and bring that same politeness and respect to the conversation.
I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists.
But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.
That existence should be.
How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists?
Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be...
I cant bridge this...
"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence.
In fact every term in your argument shifts around...
Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be
Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence...
Straight fallacy. That's how you move the goalpost... your definitions are all interchangeable with each other and are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.
Also good goes from description to prescription in your model. As 180 Proof stated right off the bat... he axed one of the issues but you arrogantly blew him off cause you thought you justified your position via your circular logic.
Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion.
Not a worry, we'll tackle it that way then.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Correct, we're assuming there is an objective morality, but we aren't asserting there actually is one. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is assuming that if an objective morality exists we can find something necessarily true about it.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Sure, let me go over it.
Quoting Philosophim
My point is, take any moral question and it will have a cascading set of implicit questions that have to be answered first if it is to be objective. If I'm asking whether I should steal for my own benefit, I have to first know whether I should be concerned about my own benefit. Of course, this means that I should also know if I should exist. But for me to exist, there must be matter that exists as well. Should that exist? Until eventually we ask the question, "Should anything exist at all, or should nothing?" If there is an objective morality then there are only two answers as its a binary, yes or no.
At this point, I have not declared that the answer is yes. That's the remaining letters. Does this clarify what I'm doing at this point? Any problems that you see?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
To be clear, this isn't what we're asking. We're starting at a very simple base right? We can't solve calculus until we start with what the number 1 means, and then 1+1=2. I'm claiming nothing more at this point then the question of, "Should there be existence, or none?" So its important not to take anything more than that in the current OP. I build on it into something more in the second post linked in the OP, but for now, its just this one lone basic question.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
No, its an answer from a very clear yes or no question that was setup through a and b. Reread the other letters to see why "Existence should be" is the only logical answer we can give.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
A correction, morality is the methodology used to evaluate what is good. Good is defined as "What should be" "Existence" on its own does not necessitate that it should be. These are the definitions I start with and are not interchangeable.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
None of this follows from my initial definitions, nor do I claim this. Reread it with the proper definitions I've given, not summaries of your own.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
And I am not envious of your flaw that you cannot keep a conversation civil and need to insert insults like a monkey throwing poo. I have been polite about your reading comprehension so far because the way you type indicates that English is likely your second language. Your sentences often lack clarity, appropriate detail, and I am trying my best to infer what you mean. A little self-reflection and humbleness that you may not be grasping the full context or communicating accurately what you intend may dispel YOUR delusion that you have any right to be making claims that I'm perpetually deluded.
Take what I've written here, think about it some more carefully, and write a response that is polite like a basic civilized adult. English as a second language doesn't mean you have to be a piece of trash in conversations. If the next response indicates an obvious lack of reading comprehension, straw man argument, or another monkey throwing poo session for you, my patience and this conversation will be over.
Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. It simply is, so you're asking meaningless questions that beg questions due to missing leaps in logic that even connect sentence 2 and 3 with "should," let alone how they connect with 1. Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, or for it to even be meaningful. Morality is a subset of the domain of existence not the other way around.
In your argument morality defines existence because it is so easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions that you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve, which we can see because good should be. Saying you don't use the Is-Ought fallacy is like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it's literally in your definitions for all to see, as plain as day as Hitler was a Nazi.
I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition for adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. Sorry mate, I'm not that dumb...
I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP.
1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be (line 2 of OP)
5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4) (and the Is-Ought fallacy)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5)
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round (morality doesn't evaluate existence)
But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence...
Complete utter nonsense.
Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:
"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"
then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence.
You should read Quine, and learn a thing about analytics.
Your argument he been a perpetuated farce of fallacy. And you're purposefully dishonest when you swap the adjectival definition of good for the noun of moral good.
You don't think anyone who's lived has ever asked, "Should I be alive?" People commit suicide all the time Egg. Its a viable question of morality that is asked and should have an objective answer. Just because you're simply alive, doesn't mean that objectively you should be alive. "Should" entails that given the option in the next second to continue living or end your life, you should continue living.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
This isn't about justifying existence. Whether existence should be or not is irrelevent to the fact it exists.
I'm wondering if you understand this distinction in my terms, as I think you keep mixing up 'should' with 'is'. You are ironically, committing an is/ought fallacy. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should exist. So the fact that existence is, doesn't mean we can't ask the question 'But should it?" You precluding asking the question and assuming because it is, its justified in existing...is an is/ought fallacy. I am not doing this. I am separating the fact that existence is from the question of whether it should be.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
This is a run on sentence that doesn't have a cohesive point. Let me break it down for you to see if I can get to what you're trying to say here.
"In your argument morality defines existence..."
No, I do not use morality to define existence. Existence is, whether it should be or not. Morality is the question of whether it should be. A separation of the is, from the ought.
"Easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use"
I've given you clear definitions in a recent post. An assertion without evidence doesn't work in a discussion like this. Maybe you're right that I have something ambiguous, but if you don't point out exactly where it is, I won't know if you are correct or had a question I can easily answer and clarify.
"Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be"
Except for the fact that I never note that the fact that existence is, is why it should be. I've told you this several times now and asked you to cite in the OP where I do this. You have not been able to, which means currently you are wrong. Point to the evidence in the OP and give your reasoning.
Please spend a little more time reviewing paragraphs like these before you post. I'm trying to figure out if this is what you're trying to say instead of you clearly communicating your intentions. Let me know if my assessment captures what you're saying, and if not, clarify more carefully please.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. Attacking something you think I'm going to say doesn't really work. If I say it, fine. But I'm not saying that.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
What is line two? This? 2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality. Part b? Please clarify.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Lets clarify 5. Existence is, and it should be. But I do not make the claim "Because existence is, its good". I make the claim that existence is through parts c-g. 6 I'm not really making. Morality evaluates what should be. But non-existence is on the table. So it doesn't evaluate existence, but also whether existence should be.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Are you saying I do this, or are you saying this is what you believe? If you think I do this, you'll need to demonstrate where this happens in parts c-g.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
No, I never make this claim. Again, as I mentioned last post, this is answering a very specific and base question. "If there is an objective morality, faced with non-existence vs existence, should existence be?" This is existence in the abstract, not quantified specifics. You're predicting where I'm going to go afterward, then criticizing me. That's wrong. If I haven't stated it, then you're arguing against something I haven't said That's a straw man. Only address the logical conclusion made at this time. Is the logical conclusion from steps c-g flawed? That's what you can reasonably criticize.
You see I divided the entire theory up into a few posts. If you look at the end of the OP, I have another section linked. This post is only meant to establish a base. The second is to explore what that means. There I introduce quantity within existence, and demonstrate that some states of existence should be over others. So no, if existence is good compared to nothing, that does not logically lead to the idea that all states of existence are equal and some states cannot be more good than others.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Yes, attacking something I didn't say is complete and utter nonsense. Work on your reading comprehension and sentence structure over sweeping assertions meant to belittle. You look like an idiot.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You could presuppose that, but you can't make a logical argument for it because of sections c-g. The conclusion that existence should be is from c-g, and since you aren't citing how c-g leads to your supposition being logically proven, its not. Please clarify what an 'occasion sentence' means as this is a nonsense phrase and not proper English.
So in summary, read parts c-g as that's the actual argument, not an argument through definitions alone.
Quoting Philosophim
So necessarily existence shouldn't be...
Ty. I knew you'd say it my way eventually.
Try not moving goalposts.
And the audacity to try to use it logically against me in the beginning of your argument and then say I can't use it logically against you... to show that existence isn't necessarily only a "should be"... cognitive dissonance and fallacies with you mate.
Bob Ross and the OP correctly identify the ontological need for existence to affirm itself to avoid contradiction, forming the beginning of a moral foundation.
Synthesis advances this insight by focusing not on abstract existence, but on life - the evolving, self-organising, meaning-bearing form of existence, and shows that value, truth, and flourishing must be judged in relation to lifes continuity and expansion.
Ross sees the frame; Synthesis shows the living picture.
Life is Good.
You can find the formal paper HERE