Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism.
— Relativist

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. — Philosophim

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.

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. — 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.

Right, the underlying value for having that feeling is the species survival. But should the species survive? .... isn't the underlying objective purpose to ensure the species continues? Why should any species continue? — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — Relativist

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.

Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind. — 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.

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. — Relativist

Correct. Again, this is the conclusion of the OP. So we are in agreement here.

Why should any species continue?
— Philosophim
No, not really- there's no purpose behind evolution that is directing it (intelligent design notwithstanding - unless you believe in a god) — 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.

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. — 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.

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." — Philosophim

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.

I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion, — 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.

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. — 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.

"Should there be any evolution at all?" — 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.

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). — Relativist

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.

A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds? — 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.

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. — 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.

"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".

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. — Philosophim

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.

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. — 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.

That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation. — 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.

"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".

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)?

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. — Relativist

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."

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. — 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.

Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists? — Relativist

In the OP, it is a question of, "At least some existence" vs "Non-existence". That's as far as the OP starts.

Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)? — 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.

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. — Philosophim

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.

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." — 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?

Just as matter could be incepted without prior cause, — Philosophim

Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause.

The reason to believe there is an objective basis is the patterns I've been noting — 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.

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." — 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?

The fact that a subjective morality based entirely on emotions breaks down to where even you admit 'reason' gets involved. — Philosophim

Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex.

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.

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).