You had said: "Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim."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
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.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
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: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
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.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
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
Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind. — Relativist
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
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
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
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).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
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.I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion, — 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?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
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?"Should there be any evolution at all?" — 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). — Relativist
A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions. — Relativist
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
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
How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds? — Relativist
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
"Should there be any evolution at all?"
— Philosophim
Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement? — Relativist
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.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
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.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
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.That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation. — Philosophim
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?"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".
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
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
Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists? — Relativist
Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)? — Relativist
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.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
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?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
Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause.Just as matter could be incepted without prior cause, — 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 reason to believe there is an objective basis is the patterns I've been noting — 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 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
Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex.The fact that a subjective morality based entirely on emotions breaks down to where even you admit 'reason' gets involved. — Philosophim
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: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.
Per general relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable. — Relativist
Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause. — Relativist
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? — Relativist
Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex. — Relativist
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. — Relativist
that's why I inferred the presence of intersubjective moral values. They aren't arbitrary - they are consistent with survival — Relativist
It boils down to an initial, uncaused state of affairs. What that might be is unknown, but whatever it is, it exists for no reason. This is because to have reason would require there to be something existing ontologically prior to it, which is logically impossible.What caused the energy to exist, which is matter? As you noted, all causality at the end boils down to an uncaused reason for existence. — Philosophim
That is categorically false. Self preservation, extended through empathy to the preservation of life in general, is the strongest mutual feeling that we have. It's sufficient to account for the "golden rule" (treat others as you would like to be treated) that has been developed in various cultures- apparently independently. All generally agreed moral values are consistent with it. Indeed we have other feelings/urges that we often act on that are inconsistent with our moral feelings, but we still make moral judgements of those actions - and never claim it's OK because we "felt like it".But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right. — Philosophim
You side-stepped my objection. Moral values that exist due to the blind forces of nature would be completely random. Some value happens to be good because some force of nature randomly with in the direction it did, and it could just as easily gone in another direction.Everything exists by chance. "Arbitrary" would apply to everything then and is a pointless criticism to morality in general. Of course its not arbitrary, or you would have hung up on this discussion long ago. — Philosophim
This is the Euthyphro dilemma, but it doesn't apply to my model of intersubjective moral values. In my model, good=directed positively toward life (preserving life and helping it flourish). It's fundamental basis is a properly basic belief- one that is innate and incorrigible. An act is right and good because it is consistent with this properly basic belief. Within the scope of humanity, no moral value is arbitrary because it is necessarily consistent with this this properly basic belief.Further, if a God formed, it too would be an arbitrary formation, and we're stuck with the same pointless argument.
I answered this above. Our survival IS arbitrary in a cosmic sense, but it is NOT arbitrary in the only sense that's relevant to humanity. We judge morals in terms of who and what we are. Now you answer your own question within your paradigm.Why is your survival not arbitrary? Why are your feelings not arbitrary? By reason, how is a subjective morality not arbitrary? As you can see the arbitrary argument leads nowhere. — Philosophim
It boils down to an initial, uncaused state of affairs. What that might be is unknown, but whatever it is, it exists for no reason. This is because to have reason would require there to be something existing ontologically prior to it, which is logically impossible. — Relativist
But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right.
— Philosophim
That is categorically false. Self preservation, extended through empathy to the preservation of life in general, is the strongest mutual feeling that we have. — Relativist
Indeed we have other feelings/urges that we often act on that are inconsistent with our moral feelings, but we still make moral judgements of those actions - and never claim it's OK because we "felt like it". — Relativist
You side-stepped my objection. Moral values that exist due to the blind forces of nature would be completely random. — Relativist
This is the Euthyphro dilemma, but it doesn't apply to my model of intersubjective moral values. In my model, good=directed positively toward life (preserving life and helping it flourish). It's fundamental basis is a properly basic belief- one that is innate and incorrigible. — Relativist
Within the scope of humanity, no moral value is arbitrary because it is necessarily consistent with this this properly basic belief. — Relativist
But our scope of interest is humanity: our basic moral value is an intrinsic part of being human. As a properly basic belief, a moral value is right because we all believe it to be right, and it is a belief that has no defeaters. — Relativist
So my foundation of morality is epistemic. — Relativist
There are, BTW, theistic arguments that deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. You can google them if you like, but you'll find they won't fit your paradigm. You're on your own. — Relativist
Our survival IS arbitrary in a cosmic sense, but it is NOT arbitrary in the only sense that's relevant to humanity. — Relativist
Your paradigm assumes there are moral values existing external to humans that were caused to exist by undirected natural forces. You have not explained how these moral values are non-arbitrary. In the case of a God, the answer theists give is that God is Goodness. You don't have that.I feel there is morality that is not relevant to humanity, and would exist even if we were gone. And since you believe morality is subjective based on feelings, I guess I'm right eh?
The paradigm I have presented is the OP and a note that a subjective morality does not serve any rational purpose, but is just a surface level feeling that fails upon close inspection. Feel free to go back to the OP at this point if you're interested. If not, I'm not sure there's anything more that you can add, and I'm not sure I can either. — Philosophim
Your paradigm assumes there are moral values existing external to humans that were caused to exist by undirected natural forces. You have not explained how these moral values are non-arbitrary. — Relativist
I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind. You sidestep this with vagueness- a belief that this vague moral object exists and in some vague way, this is involved in our moral judgements.My point is that noting the natural world is 'arbitrary' doesn't make any point. We both agree that the universe is uncaused, meaning we cannot look outside of the universe for explanation. We can only look within it. The term 'arbitrary', if you are to use it against morality, would apply to everything in the universe at its core. You could just use the word 'random', but arbitrary adds an unneeded emotional element of dismissal to it. — Philosophim
I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind. — Relativist
This is relevant to your question about the implications of there being objective morals. If objective morality is rooted in a mind, it would have different implications than if there is no mind. — Relativist
You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like moral imperatives. Correct me if this is not what you mean.Does a red wavelength of light have intent behind it? No. Is a red wavelength an objective entity? Yes. My intent is to find a morality that exists like a wave of light. We may subjectively interpret it in different ways, but its something underlying that we're all observing. — Philosophim
I asked you this before, but I don't believe you answered. What do you mean by "existence"? For example: are you referring to the totality of existence? The fact there reality exists rather than not? Or perhaps you're referring to OUR exististence? I have followup questions, depending on your answer....morality as existence itself. — Philosophim
You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like a moral imperative. Correct me if this is not what you mean. — Relativist
How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically? You compared it to a red wavelength of light, but that entails nothing like a moral imperative - it just entails some role in the deterministic evolution of the universe.Right, this is the logic. Morality is what should be. — Philosophim
How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically? — Relativist
A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won.Everything comes from an undesigned universe that evolves 'debatably' deterministically. I don't want to sidetrack too much, but if an undesigned universe can incept without prior cause, what's to stop other things from also happening later in the timeline? Such things would be completely unpredictable. Again, not a design intent, just random additions. — Philosophim
A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won. — Relativist
Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition".No, I don't think so. If I'm right in the logic put forth, in at least any universe we can imagine, 'existence should be' is the necessary base answer to any objective morality. — Philosophim
Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim
Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition". — Relativist
The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good." — DifferentiatingEgg
Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows. — DifferentiatingEgg
P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.
P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other
C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad. — DifferentiatingEgg
I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here. — Philosophim
They exist together or not at all is my point. — DifferentiatingEgg
And what's good for me may be bad for you. — DifferentiatingEgg
Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? — DifferentiatingEgg
Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. — DifferentiatingEgg
Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense. — DifferentiatingEgg
No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad." — DifferentiatingEgg
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.