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
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
Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence
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
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
If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections — Caerulea-Lawrence
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you. — MoK
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
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
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
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
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.Thank you, I try. — Philosophim
Evolution is evil since the weak species suffer and eventually die out. Evolution is however positive.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
We just couldn't have different sorts of species that fit very well with the different environments and hazards.Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out? — Philosophim
It is given my definition of evil.Evil is not, "What is inconvenient". — Philosophim
We cannot avoid evolution given the fact that the resources are finite.What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all? — 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.What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad. — Philosophim
Sickness and death are natural evil.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
Hate is evil and in this case, is right.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
Yes, the pain is evil and it is necessary for the reason you mentioned.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
Evil as I mentioned is a psychological state and it is necessary. It is not what should not be.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 is involved in things like body and mental exercise. But the body and mental exercise are positive.It keeps it clear, distinct, and allows clear identification. Because as you've noted, things that seem 'evil' in some circumstances, aren't. — 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.It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good. — Philosophim
Punishment to teach and discipline is right. It is not good given the definition of right and good.Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good. — Philosophim
Punishment is generally evil. Punishment could be right or wrong though given the circumstances. Punishment for simply causing hurt is wrong.Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil. — Philosophim
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
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
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
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
Well, reading that, how do you feel? — Caerulea-Lawrence
By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals. — Caerulea-Lawrence
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
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
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
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
I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience.Good - what should be — Philosophim
Correct.Existence - what is — Philosophim
Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong.Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — 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.1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim
It is known that moral facts do not exist therefore morality is subjective.2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality — 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?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
I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience. — MoK
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
— Philosophim
Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong. — MoK
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 say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil.So is everything about our experience. How does good differ from happiness, sadness, like, dislike, etc? — Philosophim
Cool. :)Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :) — 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.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
What do you mean by good and why it should be?How does it divorce itself from an underlying assumption that if something is good, it 'should be'? — Philosophim
We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil. — MoK
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
They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings.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
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.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
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?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
No, good is just a feature of our experience.Good is what should be. — Philosophim
No, the right action is what we should do and that should be based on moral facts that there is none.And what should be is a right action. — Philosophim
No, we do evil actions in some situations, like punishing them.Evil is what shouldn't be. — Philosophim
I am sorry for saying another no but here you go: :) No, a wrong action is what we shouldn't do.And what shouldn't be is a wrong action. — 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.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
They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings. — MoK
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.I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth? — Philosophim
You experience the rose. — MoK
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.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
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.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. — MoK
How come? Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. That is my main point that is against Philosophim's argument.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
Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. — MoK
We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective. — MoK
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
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.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
You experience that the rose is red. The redness is a feature of your experience. That is what I am trying to say.I don't feel that the rose is red. — 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.Red is not a feature of my feeling, its a feature of the light bouncing off the flower, a fact. — 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.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
What is the other definition of good when it comes to morality?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
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
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
I am wondering how one can conclude that morality is objective when we accept that features of our experiences are subjective. — MoK
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. — Philosophim
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.