Then the arithmetic is not crucial, and your justification based on the arithmetic is not valid. — unenlightened

That's a statement, not an argument. Please explain how the arithmetic is not crucial when the example only indicates the number of the people on the track. Again, this specific example. Not variations or additions from what the OP proposed.

The sameness in the scenario is that one acts to deliberately kill one person not in danger, in order to save 5 people who would otherwise die. — unenlightened

Its not the same, its a variation with a similar theme. My answer is to the specific scenario they gave. Of course the answer is different with a different scenario. Changing the scenario is not an argument against the answer given for the specific scenario given. To be clear, you seem to think that from this specific scenario, I am declaring a global moral decision apart from all context. This is a contextual moral decision from a contextual context. Nothing more.

And yet doctors are not permitted to sacrifice one person to save five lives with organ transplants. — unenlightened

That is a different scenario. What you have is one person on the tracks that can walk away vs five tied down. You're asking to switch the track and tell the person they need to stay there. We can't change the analogy as an argument.

Here's a fun little game to play that might answer your question. https://trolleyproblem.io/

If of course its simply a matter of numbers, the answer is obvious. The one over the five people every time. The complications come in when you consider the value of the individuals on the tracks. Hope you enjoy the game. :)

I was an American high school algebra math teacher for five years. One of the problems with the way we teach math in the West is we teach formulas for students to memorize. The alternative is how to arrive at the formulas, and why they are needed.

I had a day early during the school year in which I would take my spare tire into class and lean it against the wall. People would come in wondering what it was for, and I would make up some lame teacher joke like, "In case I need a quick getaway."

I would then take the kids out to a back field in groups of 3 with meter sticks, as well as the tire under my arm. I would place the tire down and then tell the kids, "Today we're going to measure the length of this field!" After students would grown, they would start to use the meter sticks to attempt to measure the field. After about a minute or two, I would shout, "Wait, wait, wait! This seems pretty hard right. Is there a better way we could measure this field?" Then I would slowly look at the tire.

We look at the tire, and I would ask them questions about the distance of one rotation on the tire: Circumference. Ok, how do we measure it? Some kids would try to get the radius, but there's no center area of the tire. Diameter. We would mark the side of the tire afterwards, a volunteer would roll it while another counted, then we would go back to the classroom to find out how long the field was.

Never had a student forget circumference after that. Math makes sense when you show how the formula is formed, and why its useful to them in particular. So yes, etymology added into the classroom could possibly help substantially. I would add that's just one part: the history and practical application are paramount for real understanding.

The problem of course is that math classes are jam packed with formulas and theorems. A careful explanation of how these form takes more time then a quick, "Memorize this formula and practice 30 math problems in your homework until you have it down." We need real educators cutting down exactly what we teach in math, focusing only on the most important aspects that would apply to practical life, as well as further possible academic exploration.

There's an interesting question. Is there lack of evidence of other intelligent life because it is so rare for it to get started? — Apustimelogist

Genuinely rare. We're freaks of nature. Intelligence at our level is highly difficult to achieve when you consider all of the demands of basic survival. The human brain is not only intelligent, but remarkably efficient in its energy usage. We have to remember that we evolved in a world that did not encourage intelligent, rational thoughts, but immediate survival.

Not only that, the world of today still encourages that. Most people work paycheck to paycheck. They do not have spare resources to think about or spend money on things that would be more efficient. Its up to those at the higher levels of society to make that happen, but our leaders are often no better than the rest of us. They might have spare resources, but have internal pressures from different self-interested factions.

What we need is an intelligence that can see the long term consequences of reality, communicate it in a way that lets people see the immediate danger, then also is able to allocate the needed resources to make it happen. We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.

Just letting you know I read it. I got my gloom shot in the arm for the day from it! Yes, I'm aware of all of these things, but humanity finds a way. Often stumbling and with the grace of a moose, but it will get there.

Timothy, I'm not really seeing you address the idea of innate ideas. You're more addressing the idea of innate nature. Locke doesn't deny we have innate nature. There's a reason humans are different from chimpanzees. Its whether there is some idea that is innate to all people by dna, and I think Locke nails that we don't.

What we have are certain innate capacities. For example, we have the ability to discretely experience like most living things. I can look at something and say, "This" is different from "that". One person might say that sheep and goats are the same animal while another might say they are separate. The ability to distinctly and discretely separate identities is innate, but the idea of what should be separated, what it should be called, and its rules is not innate. That is for us to determine.

Thank you for the kind words T Clark! I am trying to cut some of these larger ideas into more manageable pieces, and the feedback really helps. :)

↪180 Proof What are you talking about? — bert1

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.

Didn't you tell me earlier you believed what was moral was for humans to flourish? How exactly are you helping that right now? Enough trolling my threads. You've said your piece, we've discussed, move on.

Have you read any Schopenhauer? I couldn't think of a better philosopher that presents an exact counter to your claim that existence is inherently good — schopenhauer1

To note again, there is a previous post that puts out the proof that existence is good in any objective morality. Its the link at the top. Feel free to go there and post a counter. Otherwise you're not talking about the OP, but some other idea in your head. That's a straw man. So go read please.

I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion — schopenhauer1

The quote is an opinion that does not address the logic that I wrote which lead to the conclusion. Here is the original logic if you were unaware of it. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug* — DifferentiatingEgg

How is it not necessarily so? Where's the fallacy? If all are true, then the logic is true no? If you have an issue with one being true, which one? If you are in this thread, you are assuming that "Existence is good," is true from the argument where it is concluded here btw: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise. — DifferentiatingEgg

If good = "What ought to be" and
Existence = good then
More existence = more good

↪Philosophim Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, that's not a fallacy. Feel free to challenge the definition. If you can give a reasoned counter why that should not be the definition of what is good, that would be an appropriate challenge to the theory. But if its not challenged, then it stands.

However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity. — Benj96

Absolutely. Its partly why I'm posting it here. Looking for criticism and challenges.

So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it! — Benj96

Thank you, those are kind words. I don't want to leave the intro just like that though, it needs to be built up more like I'm doing here. We'll see if it works out in the end.

I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts. — Benj96

Correct. But this is simply 'might makes happens'. Its not really a morality, its simply an exertion by force of how another person should act in society. There's no objective reason behind the enforcement besides the fact one faction feels others should follow their precepts.

Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is. — Benj96

No doubt. But consensus only means consensus of opinion, not of fact. There is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean its flat. If they took over the world, they could very well decide to enforce this precept, and kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. If this was the subjective consensus, then this is a subjective morality enforced upon others. We can't say they're objectively wrong for enforcing such morality upon the rest of us, as no one has any greater justification for their personal moral belief than any other person.

Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality. — Benj96

Did you read the original post? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 This is where I prove my point.

So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality. — Benj96

Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is blue.

Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality period. Only those who make the rules, and those who have to follow them. I find most people do not think this is correct.

Consider the example at the end with the submarine. I'm able to come up with an objective conclusion as to what is most moral in that situation. You can only come up with an opinion that holds no more weight than emotional self-satisfaction. What do you think would be better for society overall?

Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence? — DifferentiatingEgg

The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no.

People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality." Fact is, the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality. — DifferentiatingEgg

I would say our opinions do not determine what is objective. Objectivity doesn't care. However, society does not have to accept objective conclusions. We know that smoking objectively will give you a much higher chance of cancer, age you prematurely, etc. But people don't have to accept it.

That's the difference between subjectivity and objectivity though. If I say, "Blue is the best color," society has all reasonable rights in rejecting it. If I say, "Blue is a wavelength of light," society can reject it, but it does so unreasonable and wrongly.

That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. — DifferentiatingEgg

No doubt our prejudices incline us towards wanting certain outcomes. But I try to hold myself to a higher standard than that. If you read the OP, you'll see, and Benj96 agrees, that if there is an objective morality, the conclusion that existence is good is logically sound.

I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust. — Benj96

Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical result. So if you decide to believe there is no objective reality, then yes, we devolve into subjective reality and whatever anyone thinks is good and evil is. We win, the Nazi's win, we all win. :)

One thing I would consider though, is aren't we made up of rocks and dust? When does is transition from the matter we're made up of into subjects?

I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.

Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living. — Benj96

This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction.

Not a problem, ask questions as needed. There's a tiny bit of math and this is a new concept.

↪Philosophim (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ... — 180 Proof

Alright, I've been polite and you insist on trolling. What a waste of an intellect.

Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that: — 180 Proof

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.

If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges. — DifferentiatingEgg

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.

Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.. — 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.

As I noted in the OP, if you have an issue with existence being good, please go back to the previous thread to discuss.

True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable — Janus

So then its possible. Do you see you keep making contradictions to yourself?

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. — Janus

So we can imagine without an image. Which is still just imagining something.

Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical — 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.

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. — 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?

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP.
— Philosophim

Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here. — 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 is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. — Janus

Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right?

For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, — Janus

So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one.

At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis. — 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.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists.
— Philosophim

That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words — 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.

The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence. — Janus

Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion?

But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.
— Philosophim

You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. — Janus

No, I've heard clearly and addressed it clearly.

The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed. — 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.

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! — Bob Ross

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.

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. — Janus

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...

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 — 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.

8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
9. X should exist, and Y should not exist.
10. Y should not exist, but is good. (6 & 9)
11. Good is ‘what should be’.
9. 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. That’s blatantly not the point. — Bob Ross

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.

If what is morally good (let’s call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence is not what is morally good—it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good. — Bob Ross

Let me take the first part of your sentence.

"If what is morally good (let’s 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.

Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded. — Barkon

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.

Ha ha! Thank you for the pleasant post Kizzy! To your reference to Janus, the current setup is a base, and we will tackle the idea that some existences are going to be better than other. I look forward to your contributions when I post it this weekend. :)

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. — Janus

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.

Existence is "What is".
— Philosophim
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll: — 180 Proof

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.

↪Philosophim The only existence we know is our empirical existence and so the question, "should there be existence?" if it doesn't refer to that empirical existence, is meaningless. — Janus

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.

If something morally objective exists it could not be an empirical existent. — Janus

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.