• Philosophim
    2.8k
    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'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.

    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?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.

    Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality.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."

    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.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.

    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.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.

    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 objectionsCaerulea-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.
  • MoK
    702

    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.
  • Caerulea-Lawrence
    26
    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' — 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.
    Philosophim

    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.

    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.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
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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.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.

    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.
    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.

    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.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.

    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.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.

    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.
    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.

    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.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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you.MoK

    Thank you, I try.

    But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?"
    — 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.
    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?

    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.
    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

    Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?
    — 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.
    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.

    And how do we know what is a right action?
    — Philosophim
    This is a tricky part so I have to give examples of a few situations to make things clear. Think of a situation that you have 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.
    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.
  • MoK
    702
    Thank you, I try.Philosophim
    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.

    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?Philosophim
    Evolution is evil since the weak species suffer and eventually die out. Evolution is however positive.

    Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out?Philosophim
    We just couldn't have different sorts of species that fit very well with the different environments and hazards.

    Evil is not, "What is inconvenient".Philosophim
    It is given my definition of evil.

    What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all?Philosophim
    We cannot avoid evolution given the fact that the resources are finite.

    What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad.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.

    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?Philosophim
    Sickness and death are natural evil.

    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.
    Philosophim
    Hate is evil and in this case, is right.

    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.Philosophim
    Yes, the pain is evil and it is necessary for the reason you mentioned.

    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".Philosophim
    Evil as I mentioned is a psychological state and it is necessary. It is not 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.Philosophim
    Evil is involved in things like body and mental exercise. But the body and mental exercise are positive.

    It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good.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.

    Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good.Philosophim
    Punishment to teach and discipline is right. It is not good given the definition of right and good.

    Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil.Philosophim
    Punishment is generally evil. Punishment could be right or wrong though given the circumstances. Punishment for simply causing hurt is wrong.
  • Caerulea-Lawrence
    26
    Greetings again @Philosophim,

    

I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity.

    


    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.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? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. Just look, stare deeply into people’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t. 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 aren’t relative; they are absolute, and you can’t undo anything. And so, instead of using relative terms, use absolute terms for your beliefs, and they come closer to being useful knowledge:

    

- You don’t 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 don’t 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 isn’t present reality, and has never been.

    Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed.
    You can’t 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 isn’t progress, that is a perversion of morals. Unless you can make 100% sure that it isn’t 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 wouldn’t 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
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity.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.

    Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed.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.

    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? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc.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'.

    Well, reading that, how do you feel?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.

    By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals.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.
  • Caerulea-Lawrence
    26
    Hello again @Philosophim,

    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
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write.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!

    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.Caerulea-Lawrence

    I agree. Its only a start. Maybe one day it will be more.

    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.
    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. :)
  • Caerulea-Lawrence
    26
    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!Philosophim

    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
  • MoK
    702
    Good - what should bePhilosophim
    I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience.

    Existence - what isPhilosophim
    Correct.

    Morality - a method of evaluating what is goodPhilosophim
    Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong.

    1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"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.

    2. It is unknown whether there is an objective moralityPhilosophim
    It is known that moral facts do not exist therefore morality is subjective.

    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".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?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience.MoK

    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?

    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    — Philosophim
    Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong.
    MoK

    Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :)

    1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
    — 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.
    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'?
  • MoK
    702
    So is everything about our experience. How does good differ from happiness, sadness, like, dislike, etc?Philosophim
    We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil.

    Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :)Philosophim
    Cool. :)

    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?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.

    How does it divorce itself from an underlying assumption that if something is good, it 'should be'?Philosophim
    What do you mean by good and why it should be?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil.MoK

    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.

    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.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
  • MoK
    702
    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.Philosophim
    They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings.

    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.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.

    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.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?

    Good is what should be.Philosophim
    No, good is just a feature of our experience.

    And what should be is a right action.Philosophim
    No, the right action is what we should do and that should be based on moral facts that there is none.

    Evil is what shouldn't be.Philosophim
    No, we do evil actions in some situations, like punishing them.

    And what shouldn't be is a wrong action.Philosophim
    I am sorry for saying another no but here you go: :) No, a wrong action is what we shouldn't do.

    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.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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings.MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    702
    I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth?Philosophim
    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.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    You experience the rose.MoK

    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?
  • MoK
    702
    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".Outlander
    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.

    Perhaps that's your point?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.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    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.MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    702
    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.Outlander
    How come? Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. That is my main point that is against Philosophim's argument.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective.MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    702

    We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective.MoK

    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth?
    — Philosophim
    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.
    MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    702
    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.Outlander
    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.
  • MoK
    702
    I don't feel that the rose is red.Philosophim
    You experience that the rose is red. The redness is a feature of your experience. That is what I am trying to say.

    Red is not a feature of my feeling, its a feature of the light bouncing off the flower, a fact.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.

    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".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.

    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.Philosophim
    What is the other definition of good when it comes to morality?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I don't feel that the rose is red.
    — Philosophim
    You experience that the rose is red. The redness is a feature of your experience. That is what I am trying to say.
    MoK

    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?

    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.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?

    I am wondering how one can conclude that morality is objective when we accept that features of our experiences are subjective.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.

    What is the other definition of good when it comes to morality?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.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    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.Philosophim

    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...)
145678910
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.