Your awareness of an idea is as irrelevant to its life, as it is to my own. — Shamshir

Why would you figure that there are ideas no one is aware of?

I wouldn't say that "benefit" is the same thing as "flourishing." — Terrapin Station

I didn't say that benefit is the same as flourishing. As a general rule, beneficial actions lead to flourishing, harmful actions lead to languishing. Of course people can flourish in adversity and languish in succour; but that is not a moral issue. Flourishing is the state that generally ensues when sustained benefits are enjoyed. Languishing is the state which generally ensues when sustained harms are suffered. I say "generally" because, remember we are talking about communities in which outcomes are averaged out.

Because I think that the idea of good and bad moral action, the inherent logic of it, if you like, is based on the idea of benefit vs harm, i.e. flourishing vs languishing. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this. — Janus

I know what you think, but if you worded yourself better to begin with, then you could likely avoid these kind of objections, and then you wouldn't have to keep clarifying in response.

And also that's different to what you said earlier, which was about benefit or harm to others, or of a community, rather than benefit or harm generally.

My definition is in explicit accordance with the definition in the dictionary. — Marzipanmaddox

You said that the sole definition of life is to flourish competitively. That's not true, and that's not to be found in any dictionary definition. That's just what you imagine the purpose of life to be. The world "definition" was the wrong word to use.

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel at all. I'm trying to argue that the scientific method should be applied to process of making wheels. I'm trying to improve upon the process from which wheels are made, using a systematic approach that has been explicitly proven to function.

The wheel has been improved greatly by the scientific method. There is no reason that morality should not be subjected to the same system of improvement.

To say that this is reinventing the wheel is to say "All wheels must be made of wood or stone, this is how wheels have always been made, if a wheel is not made of wood or stone it is not a wheel at all."

If this were the case, then all wheels would still be made of wood and stone, when in reality very few wheels are made of wood or stone today. Philosophy here is this wood/stone wheel. I am arguing that the utilizing the scientific method to define, refine, and improve morality would produce a much higher quality product, a better and far more functional form of morality. It's hard to have a car with wooden wheels, and the same can be said about using traditional/non-scientific morality to govern our society.

My argument is that simple. "Apply the scientific method to morality in order to study, formalize, refine, and improve our understanding and ability to utilize morality." — Marzipanmaddox

That's all well and good in theory. Apply the scientific method, you say, as though it were that simple.

I'm not arguing in favor of altruism. — Marzipanmaddox

Then why define morality in accordance with altruism, as you did in your opening post? That is to argue in favour of altruism. You're not making any sense.

My definition of morality is "That which holds the groups together, thus enabling them to dominate the individual." — Marzipanmaddox

But this is the problem. I don't accept that definition. That could be used to describe a whole number of things. So you'll just be talking about something else and calling it morality. Why don't you just make your point without trying to redefine morality? That's not a feasible approach.

Once an individual is part of a collective, they are no longer an individual, they are a part of that collective, and they cannot exist without the collective so they are not an individual. — Marzipanmaddox

But that's nonsense. Of course I'm an individual, and whether I'm part of a collective or dependent on the collective for survival is logically irrelevant.

I don't think anyone has considered the basis of morality, which I argue is empathy. If we lacked empathy, there would be no morality. Morality is the intellectualization of empathy, turning it into a calculus.

It is no coincidence that a variety of cultures independently developed the "golden rule". — Relativist

This is a wonderful thing to think about. Yes, every culture developed "the golden rule", and I would argue that this is empirical in the exact same sense that every culture was able to come to same conclusions about basic addition, that 2+2 = 4, wherever you go, everybody could agree upon that.

This widespread independent result from attempting to understand morality suggest that morality is actually something quantifiable, something defined in a very hard, measurable, calculable, and logical way. The fact that people could independently verify the legitimacy of the golden rule just speaks to the extent that morality is not entirely subjective or entirely up to opinion. All of these societies realized that a standard such as the golden rule is incredibly beneficial to society, so they all implement this rule universally and independently.

The fact that common sense among ancient cultures produced the same universal replicability that the scientific method is able to create with regards to science speaks to how there truly is a legititmate and correct version of morality, one that is not subject to opinion. Just like all cultures could agree on basic addition, all cultures could agree on the golden rule. I'm just arguing that morality should be formalized in the same manner that allowed mathematics to grow beyond basic addition and into a profoundly complex science.

"If we lacked empathy, there would be no morality."

I would argue this is false, because I define morality purely in an objective manner, where the subjective psychological experience of the human mind is irrelevant. Regardless of how people feel, moral societies have proven to be more productive and successful than amoral societies, and the more flawed a moral system used to govern a country is, the less prone that country is to success.

I argue that morality is just a method of orchestrating human behavior within a group of people that leads to greater success for that group of people as a whole. Even if people had no feelings, murdering each other randomly would still reduce the success and capabilities of that society when compared to a society that doesn't murder people randomly.

Even without feelings involved, morality still produces a clear and measurable benefit to society. Even if people were completely emotionless, the objective benefit of a moral society such as increased yield, stability, power, and success justifies a society acting in a moral way, despite lacking any sort of emotional stimulus that would cause them to feel a certain way about doing so.

That is why I try to reason with this, by saying that morality should function objectively, free from any sort of influence of the subjective experience. I argue that the objective and measurable benefits of morality are what need to be used as the definition of that word, because regardless of the subjective effect of an action within the human mind, reaping the greatest objective benefit from the manner in which we organize and stabilize society is what the true benefit of morality is.

Subjective/empathetic morality is relying upon human instinct such as empathy to infer what is a moral action and what isn't. The issue with using instinct is that these instincts are not designed to function in a civilized and technologically advanced society. The same instinct that allows dogs to find food in the wild is also what causes them to drink antifreeze and die in a technologically advanced society. Our instincts are valuable, as clearly that dog needs to eat, and it would die if it lacked the instinct telling it to do so, but by no means are these instincts perfect and they should not be relied upon when we have the capable to utilize a far more systematic, objective, and verifiable system such as the scientific method.

The difference between being 'X' and being called 'X' is determined by whether or not we are the deciding factor in what counts as 'X'. Elemental constituency.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to the very first report/account of them.

Morality is one of these things.
— creativesoul

My understanding of your statement is that morality is defined entirely by humans. That humans define morality, and without human definition it would not exist or have meaning, something like taste in art, which would not exist without humans to create this standard of taste in the first place.

Either this is your point, or you are agreeing with me, that morality functions independently from human life, and functions independently from any subjective human experience.


I would argue that morality would always function, in the same sense that mathematics always functions, whether or not anything or anyone actually exists. I am arguing that morality functions as a means to optimize a system, essentially it is just rules applied to a naturally chaotic system of equations that optimize the output of that system.

Something like.
3 - X = Y
Y * Z = M

Where M is the output of the system. Naturally you can plug any number, say [-10,10] into any of these variables. Naturally people do that, they are very random, some are more social and beneficial to the world, while some are worse and are not beneficial to the world.

Simple Morality here would be applying constraints to the natural range that can be plugged into the system. Something like X must be less than negative 2. Saying that Z must always be a positive number greater than 0. Already, with these constraints, you produce a much higher yield on average than putting in the entirely random numbers.

Despite having no humans or conscious experience happening within the system, I woud argue that applying those constraints upon the random numbers that are input into the system qualifies as morality, because this is controlling the natural behavior of a system in order to increase the yield of this system.

Looking at morality like this, when you can calculate it in this manner, that means there is a way to compare one action to another, one input to another, and determine which of these two inputs is actually more so moral than the other one. This also means there is a way to calculate the maximum amount of yield, and thus know what actions are the most moral possible actions.

While human society is far more complex than this, I would argue that it is no less explicitly finite and explicitly subject to being measured, analyzed, studied, refined, and optimized in the same manner that this simple system of equations is.

Human society is just the summative result of all actions that occur within it, and these actions all influence the result of subsequent actions, and this is identical to a system of equations in that regard. Knowing this, I would argue that nothing is truly defined by subjective or opinionated arguments, but rather we use these simpler and more accessible forms of arguments as a substitute for hard, measurable equations that we don't have. We create rules of thumb that are generally of reasonable quality, but often times these rules may not be completely accurate due to the profound volatility of the results.

Using this simple equation as an example. Say you have 100 people, and 95 of them operate at a value less than 3, meaning they all produce a positive yield to the net result M. However, you have 5 people who have an X value greater than 3, you have 4,5,6,7,8 for the X value. When these people go through the system they all have a negative influence upon society, provided the value of Z, say, technological ability of society, remains positive.

Though morality, on the whole, says "Murdering people is wrong", this is true 95% of the time according to this example, because 95% of the time those people provide benefit to society, and thus live in accordance with morality. The issue is that 5% of the time where the people harm society, they produce a negative result. Morality would cause people to object to murdering them, but if you used this calculated morality, you could easily justify murdering these people.

The moral action produces a higher M value, so by killing these people, reducing their X value here to 0, then you have effectively increased the total M value produced by society. When "Increasing M value" becomes the sole definition of morality, it clears up many issues where the general rules of thumb utilized by morality fall short, or are not in accordance with this empirical definition of morality, and thus cause major arguments due to this, such as the death penalty for example.

based on the idea of benefit vs harm, i.e. flourishing vs languishing. — Janus


I wouldn't say that "benefit" is the same thing as "flourishing."

A benefit of x is anything that S (some subject) desires that's provided by or that's an upshot of x.

Flourishing has a connotation of a sustained desired state.

Things that S considers a benefit might not actually be things that would lead to a sustained desired stste for S. S might even desire things that would be harmful in S's view if sustained. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this. The point here is about maximizing the extent that a society will flourish indefinitely. Giving people a personal benefit is often contrary to this. Think of people personally benefiting from high wages or corrupt courts.

I would go so far as to argue that flourishing is even independent from any subjective experience associated with that.

Say that a rabbit suffers for its entire life, it feels pain every day, it has no desire to be alive. Subjectively, perpetuating the species provides no benefit to any member of the species, but in regards to flourishing, perpetuating the species is the correct thing to do. I would argue that flourishing is more important than any subjective or desired benefit, as the sustained flourishing of life has been defined as a baseline characteristic of all life, such as single celled non-conscious life, and thus ensuring that life flourishes is always more of a baseline and justifiable intent than ensuring any sort of desired benefit.

This argument is akin to ensuring that the car runs, rather than ensuring that the car is comfortable. Even if the car is uncomfortable, the purpose of a car is to be a means of locomotion, the comfort is just a secondary aspect of the car. A car that is comfortable but does not drive does not qualify as a car in my eyes.

What about ideas that do not possess electrochemical properties?
What about ideas: not felt, not imagined, not pondered, not spoken, not heard; lone, floating somewhere, somehow? — Shamshir

I would say you are justified in this sense. There are an infinite number of numbers that exist, regardless of the fact that no conscious entity will ever be able to comprehend and process this information, the numbers all still exist regardless of being acknowledged or thought about. Ideas here exist in the same right as numbers, there are an infinite number of ideas, as these can all be conceptually represented akin to numbers, using something like a computer programming language. regardless of whether or not anything has ever had or thought of these ideas, they still exist, just as a possible combination of numbers/code/etc.

What a great question (s) and debate! I hate to ask this somewhat rhetorical question but after reading some of your analysis; what is the human phenomena called Love? Is it subjective, objective, or a little of both (?). And if you believe it's both, in the spirit of ethics and/or morality, how should we exclusively parse that in your mind?

I apologize again in advance for that question however I'm just trying to understand your argument in favor of objective exclusivity... . — 3017amen

Love is just sustained passion within the human mind, passion here being the equivalent of instinct. It is something that encourages people to act in a certain way. Something like psychochemical cocaine, it feels good, you crave it, you chase after it, and by my standard this love would produce results. You love your wife, you create children. You love your children, you create higher quality children.

This is the basic instinctive level, it is a strong chemical force within the brain to compel us to do certain actions. Naturally these actions would be largely rooted in reproductive and familial success. A family that loves each other will be more prone to mutual success and survival than one who doesn't. When a trait increases the survival rate of a species, this trait gets passed down and concentrated due to increased survival/reproduction of the carriers when compared to individuals that lack these traits.



This instinct is actually a very beneficial one that usually provides good results in society, even if love can often lead people astray, it can also lead people down incredible paths of discovery that lead to the advancment of the human race. Say a person loves science, or math, they can use this love and passion for these subjects to actually produce high value products, in the same sense that human romantic love produces the high value product of human children.

Love, I would argue, is an instinctive response that can be measured and understood objectively, but love itself as humans experience it is the subjective interpretation of this entirely objective process. Something like cocaine. The chemical cocaine is entirely objective in nature, but the human experience when insuflating cocaine is a largely subjective one.

While it is true that if we had an infinite amount of computational and analytical power, we could likely map and analyze the the brain and human body to the point where we could predict each and every person's subjective experience when doing cocaine with 100% accuracy. We are not at that point, but even still, that would just be an objective representation of the subjective experience. Even if the data can predict how you will feel, the data truly cannot feel high, it cannot feel the pleasure of cocaine, and that experience of feeling is what I would call subjective.

You said that the sole definition of life is to flourish competitively. That's not true, and that's not to be found in any dictionary definition. That's just what you imagine the purpose of life to be. The world "definition" was the wrong word to use. — S

That is a fair semantic argument, and I will admit I easily misused the word definition there.

The point being that definition, meaning the defining trait of life, that in it's purest essence, life is just flourishing competitively, indefinitely. I would argue that anything that does this qualifies as life. Even if robots exist, exterminate humanity, but still have the drive to ensure that they flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time, then i would argue that those robots are still life. Not organic life, but life none the less.

The dictionary definitions of life are going to be broad, they're going to cover a lot of ground. If we took all of the intricacy, all of the localized meaning of life, and we boiled it down to the key traits of life, what would be left?

"the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." is listed as the basic traits of life. I would argue that "to flourish competitively" is a fair comprehensive description of these things.

As for applying the scientific method.

Step 1: Make observations. Observations can be qualitative or quantitative. ...
Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis. ...
Step 3: Design and perform experiments. ...
Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis. ...
Step 5: Development into a law and/or theory.

I would argue that there is enough information about the general tendencies of life to support my points. Qualitatively, life competes and life flourishes, one could quantify this and I'm sure many people have, such a the wolves and rabbits simulator. This is basically the key unifying feature of life which I just happen to emphasize. All life is unified in this pursuit. I am just arguing my theory right here.

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/RabbitsAndWolves/

That's a quantification that displays 3 things, grass/rabbits/wolves all competing in order to flourish competitively.

The point being that definition, meaning the defining trait of life, that in it's purest essence, life is just flourishing competitively, indefinitely. — Marzipanmaddox

But there are plenty of examples in nature of life that is far from flourishing. Animals can live for significant periods without flourishing or excelling, when they're malnourished, struggling, and just about surviving.

I'm not arguing in favor of altruism. — Marzipanmaddox


Then why define morality in accordance with altruism, as you did in your opening post? That is to argue in favour of altruism. You're not making any sense. — S

The two definitions of altruism here. The reason I am drawing this semantic line is because there are some significant differences.

-the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

This is somewhat accurate, but my argument isn't inherently altruistic. It is Disinterested and selfless concern for the success of society, of the human species, but not for any individual human. Nothing about my argument defends anyone's well-being. If there is a trade off between the indefinite success of society and an individual's well-being, society is what is defended and the person's well-being is disregarded.

Altruism here promotes a sense of caring about other humans, having compassion for others. Altruism would be associated with the strong protecting the weak and vulnerable. That is not my argument at all.


2-behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

This would not really benefit any other animal, as everything is done with respect to society as a whole. Any benefit to any animal is done because this benefit to the animal is measurably beneficial to the overall success of society as a whole.

It is perhaps societal altruism, but the word gets associated with very sympathetic and empathetic arguments which I condemn.

My definition of morality is "That which holds the groups together, thus enabling them to dominate the individual." — Marzipanmaddox


But this the problem. I don't accept that definition. That could be used to describe a whole number of things. So you'll just be talking about something else and calling it morality. Why don't you just make your point without trying to redefine morality? That's not a feasible approach — S

It's fair that you don't accept the definition, but I lack a better word for this concept. Morality has always been the fabric of individuals banding together and cooperate. Morality is easily the only thing that produces this result, and this is why I equate morality to this process, and this is why I equate anything that accomplishes this to morality.

Once an individual is part of a collective, they are no longer an individual, they are a part of that collective, and they cannot exist without the collective so they are not an individual. — Marzipanmaddox


But that's nonsense. Of course I'm an individual, and whether I'm part of a collective or dependent on the collective for survival is logically irrelevant. — S

That is a very broad sense of individual. I see an individual as something that operates entirely independently. Something like a car part. True, independently these things do exist, but without the car they functionally have far less value and have very little justification for their existence. This is why I see the individual human as something akin to a car part, yes, an individual car part, but the car is what is providing value here, the car is what legitimizes the existence of the car part. Without the car, that individual part is not comparable to functional car part, the carburetor that functions inside of a car provides far more value to the owner and to society than the carburetor that sits in the junkyard.

As the car part cannot be divided from the car and retain the same degree of functionality and value, it cannot provide this value without the existence of a car to exist within, that is why I argue that the person, so inherently co-dependent upon the society it exists within, cannot be respected as an individual. The society is what gives the person such a high degree of value, as without this society the value of a modern person plummets significantly. Without the car, the car-part is just scrap metal, but within the car, the part is able to provide legitimizing and competitive value that justifies its existence.

In a world where the independent individual has become functionally irrelevant in the face of society, this is why I argue that no human can be an individual, because existing within this car, providing value to the society, has become a definitive trait of the modern human.

But there are plenty of examples in nature of life that is far from flourishing. Animals can live for significant periods without flourishing, when they're malnourished, struggling, and just about surviving. — S

This is temporary struggle, and this is largely irrelevant. Flourishing here occurs over the period of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years. It is the collective performance of the speices over this very long period of time that defines whether or not they have flourished or failed to do so. If the animals consistently struggle and suffer to the point of failing to compete for this entire period of time, then they are more than likely will go extinct.

Even if the animal suffers every second of their life, this is irrelevant so long as their numbers are increasing. Flourishing here just referring to the increasing density of the animal population over an indefinite period of time.

Look at Africa, while they may be struggling, malnourished, and suffering, the fact that they continually cause their population to increase means that this population is flourishing. This is the only real metric of flourishing, at least so long as their overproduction doesn't cause the human race in Africa to go extinct, which it likely wont.

This is opposed to places like Europe and Japan, where the birthrate is below replacement, and as this causes their populations to decrease, despite their own well-being, success, happiness, and comfort, these societies do not qualify as flourishing because despite their success, their populations are decreasing rather than increasing.

This is temporary struggle, and this is largely irrelevant. Flourishing here occurs over the period of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years. It is the collective performance of the speices over this very long period of time that defines whether or not they have flourished or failed to do so. If the animals consistently struggle and suffer to the point of failing to compete for this entire period of time, then they are more than likely will go extinct. — Marzipanmaddox

It just sounds to me like you're trying to do in different words what Darwin already did, and did better. Survival of the fittest.

What's that got to do with morality? Darwin wasn't a moral philosopher. He was doing science, not ethics.

None of that science will ever be logically relevant in ethics because of the is-ought problem. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is".

It's fair that you don't accept the definition, but I lack a better word for this concept. Morality has always been the fabric of individuals banding together and cooperate. Morality is easily the only thing that produces this result, and this is why I equate morality to this process, and this is why I equate anything that accomplishes this to morality. — Marzipanmaddox

Why don't you just say something along the lines that you value collectives and cooperation, that you think they're a good thing, and that you think that an ideal society could be founded on that basis?

That would be fine. It would just be your opinion, and it would be up for debate. But you keep overstepping your bounds by saying things like that's morality itself. No, it's just your opinion.

That is a very broad sense of individual. I see an individual as something that operates entirely independently. Something like a car part. True, independently these things do exist, but without the car they functionally have far less value and have very little justification for their existence. This is why I see the individual human as something akin to a car part, yes, an individual car part, but the car is what is providing value here, the car is what legitimizes the existence of the car part. Without the car, that individual part is not comparable to functional car part, the carburetor that functions inside of a car provides far more value to the owner and to society than the carburetor that sits in the junkyard.

As the car part cannot be divided from the car and retain the same degree of functionality and value, it cannot provide this value without the existence of a car to exist within, that is why I argue that the person, so inherently co-dependent upon the society it exists within, cannot be respected as an individual. The society is what gives the person such a high degree of value, as without this society the value of a modern person plummets significantly. Without the car, the car-part is just scrap metal, but within the car, the part is able to provide legitimizing and competitive value that justifies its existence.

In a world where the independent individual has become functionally irrelevant in the face of society, this is why I argue that no human can be an individual, because existing within this car, providing value to the society, has become a definitive trait of the modern human. — Marzipanmaddox

Look, you can come up with some lengthy and elaborate explanation for why you said what you did, but none of it matters. If you end up concluding that I'm not an individual, when I clearly am, then you've obviously gone wrong somewhere, whether that's due to bad logic or due to defining words in unusual ways.

Marzipanmaddox said:

"While it is true that if we had an infinite amount of computational and analytical power, we could likely map and analyze the brain and human body to the point where we could predict each and every person's subjective experience when doing cocaine with 100% accuracy. We are not at that point, but even still, that would just be an objective representation of the subjective experience. Even if the data can predict how you will feel, the data truly cannot feel high, it cannot feel the pleasure of cocaine, and that experience of feeling is what I would call subjective. "

M, Thank you for your reply and elucidation. Just wanted to make a 'succinct' point about some dangers of dichotomizing... . And to your point, it would be nice to be the so-called designer of the big cosmological computer [our mind] to gain such volitional knowledge and awareness of ourselves and behavior... . (Actually a friend of mine is developing some newer software that would predict market buying patterns in relation to a given set of criteria.)

It just sounds to me like you're trying to do in different words what Darwin already did, and did better. Survival of the fittest.

What's that got to do with morality? Darwin wasn't a moral philosopher. He was doing science, not ethics. — S

The entire point of this argument is saying that morality can be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. Of course I'm going to use arguments rooted in known science to validate my point...

None of that science will ever be logically relevant in ethics because of the is-ought problem. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is". — S

Again. You "ought" to change the oil on your car consistently. This is an "ought" point. An ought point is just a very vague and non-formalized version of an "is" point. "It has been proven that changing the oil of a car after X miles, say 5,000, significantly improves the life span and health of the car. Failing to do so will result in severe damage to your car."

This is the basis of my argument here. Ever "ought" statement can be formalized into something that is no longer opinion based and is formalized using impartial and objective data.

Why defend vagueness over specificity?

"A person oughtta do some things and oughtta not do other things." - This argument is the "epitome" of philosophical morality when you defend vagueness, generalizations, opinions, and other sorts of non-impartial and non-empirical metrics to function as the basis of your argument. It emphasizes the vague generalization that philosophy defends when they try to argue that philosophy some cannot be subjected to impartial, empirical, and scientific formalization.

"I figure." is the epitome of any arguments regarding subjective philosophical reasoning to explain anything.

Philosophy is sitting between these two poles, these two finish lines. One is the extremely specific, empirical, impartial, calculable formalization. The other is all-encompassing vagueness. Philsophy tries to draw a line in the sand between the two ends and then argue that line is the "finish line" thus philosophy has won, and is now the pinnacle of legitimacy.

Lines in the sand are logically fucking nonsense. You're either trying to discover and explain truth in a formalized and verifiable manner, or you're trying to make vague, general, baseless, all-encompassing statements. There's no middle ground here.that has any legitimacy.

Either be the tallest or the shortest. There's no value in being "average sized" here. Science has proven that being the tallest provides an incredible amount of measurable value to society. Being the shortest here, it serves at the very least to prove a point. Being "average sized", doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that you're not optimized with regards to either of the possible standards of legitimate optimization.

The only optimization that philosophy may be able to claim is accessibility and communicability. Why is a system that optimizes accessibility and communicability over veracity and functional legitimacy still respected by anyone seeking any sort of truth or insight?

Consulting philosophy for truth is itself illogical because philosophy does not produce truth, it just produces communicable and accessible statements. There is nothing that exists, of yet, to actually measure philosophical arguments in a way that serves to prove them in objective and impartial manners.

It is inherently possible to do this, but philosophy makes no attempt at doing so. It's shameless really to claim you are somehow a source of truth when you have absolutely no standards by which the truth is accurately measured and validated.

Why don't you just say something along the lines that you value collectives and cooperation, that you think they're a good thing, and that you think that an ideal society could be founded on that basis?

That would be fine. It would just be your opinion, and it would be up for debate. But you keep overstepping your bounds by saying things like that's morality itself. No, it's just your opinion. — S

Because it's not a fucking opinion. It's an impartial, objective, measurable quality of cooperation within a society. It's not up for debate whether or not ten people can pull a cart with greater speed and efficiency than an individual. The only way the individual can pull the cart farther is when those 10 people all kill each other. Hence, this is why I argue that morality is the system of rules/equations that allows these 10 people to not kill each other.

I don't value anything personally. I loathe the human race. I'd rather not see them exist. I'm just arguing an entirely objective point for entertainment sake.

Look, you can come up with some lengthy and elaborate explanation for why you said what you did, but none of it matters. If you end up concluding that I'm not an individual, when I clearly am, then you've obviously gone wrong somewhere, whether that's due to bad logic or due to defining words in unusual ways. — S

At this point it is a matter of semantics. Is an organ an individual? I can divide the organ out of a person's body.

My point is that the organ does not exist or survive without the human body that it is contained within, thus the organ does not function as an individual. It cannot be divided without losing the inherent justification and purpose of its own existence.

A non-functional kidney lying in the street is not a kidney. It's just essentially just fertilizer, it does not function as a kidney, it does not provide any function that is different than fertilizer, thus it qualifies as fertilizer, but not a kidney.

M, Thank you for your reply and elucidation. Just wanted to make a 'succinct' point about some dangers of dichotomizing. — 3017amen

If this word means what I understand it to mean, then in essence this is the basis of my argument. Dichotomizing meaning, from what I can infer, things existing in a paradoxical state, in one that is simultaneously two contradictory things.

I see morality as no more separable from natural, physical law, no more separable from impartial, empirical, mathematical logic as the existence of a rock, the trajectory of a thrown rock, or anything else that exists within this world.

The experience of a rock is in no way defined by subjective interpretations of that experience, and by the same logic no physical, material entity within the universe is in any way influenced by subjective interpretations of the experience of said object. Humans are explicitly physical, material entities, and thus every aspect of their existence is just as much defined entirely by impartial, objective, empirical logic as any rock on the ground is.

Sure, we can safely say our consciousness breaks many rules from say formal logic. For instance, statements about self-reference is one unresolved paradox.

Accordingly, and since we're talking morality, I will defer to existentialist philosopher-psychologist A H Maslow who deserves much of the credit here. At the risk of repetition from other threads, formal logic and computers and most mathematical formulas are more A or B to function properly. Human life and conscious existence is more A and B to function optimally.

Your last paragraph I would not be on the same page. The reason is that most truth's are both objective and subjective viz. our perceptive cognitive thought process. In part, the reason simply lies in the subject/object
phenomena.

But I'm thinking you might be aware of that...

The entire point of this argument is saying that morality can be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, I suppose morality, as in people's judgements about right and wrong and that sort of thing, can to some extent be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. But somehow I doubt that that's what you meant to say, and even if it was, so what? That seems fairly trivial unless you use it as part of a normative ethical argument.

Of course I'm going to use arguments rooted in known science to validate my point... — Marzipanmaddox

In what way do you think that the mechanism of natural selection "validates" your point?

This reply of yours is once again far too verbose, and fails to show that one can derive an "ought" from an "is". Empty words, and far too many of them.

Why don't you just say something along the lines that you value collectives and cooperation, that you think they're a good thing, and that you think that an ideal society could be founded on that basis?

That would be fine. It would just be your opinion, and it would be up for debate. But you keep overstepping your bounds by saying things like that's morality itself. No, it's just your opinion.
— S

Because it's not a fucking opinion. It's an impartial, objective, measurable quality of cooperation within a society. It's not up for debate whether or not ten people can pull a cart with greater speed and efficiency than an individual. The only way the individual can pull the cart farther is when those 10 people all kill each other. Hence, this is why I argue that morality is the system of rules/equations that allows these 10 people to not kill each other. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, it is an opinion. It is just an opinion which you are calling impartial, objective, etc., etc., when it isn't.

And raising merely descriptive facts which in themselves have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics, i.e. about what is moral or immoral, or what we should or shouldn't do, is to raise points which miss the point. You would have to draw a valid and logically relevant conclusion from them, which you cannot do. You do not seem to understand that it doesn't matter, in itself, in the context of ethics, that ten people can pull a cart faster than one person, or that people in those sorts of situations can cooperate with each other. That doesn't validly support any normative ethical conclusion, about what is good or bad, right or wrong, about what should or should not be done, regardless of whether or not I happen to have any view about the merits of cooperation, or about the fundamental role that it has in societies.

I don't value anything personally. I loathe the human race. I'd rather not see them exist. I'm just arguing an entirely objective point for entertainment sake. — Marzipanmaddox

But the only objective points you've made are ethically irrelevant. It is an objective point that ten people can pull a cart faster than one person. It is an objective point that there exist societies full of individuals who cooperate in many respects, and who by and large follow a set of rules. So. Bloody. What?

It almost seems futile to get through to you. You just keep responding with lengthy blether and more insistences that you are being objective, impartial, scientific, blah blah.

At this point it is a matter of semantics. Is an organ an individual? I can divide the organ out of a person's body. — Marzipanmaddox

An organ is obviously not an individual in the sense that I was using that word, but yes, an organ is an individual organ.

My point is that the organ does not exist or survive without the human body that it is contained within, thus the organ does not function as an individual. It cannot be divided without losing the inherent justification and purpose of its own existence. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, I already know your point. I am simply criticising it on the basis that it clashes with how we ordinarily talk. The problem stems from your idiosyncratic definition of an "individual", which should be rejected because it leads to absurd conclusions.

A non-functional kidney lying in the street is not a kidney. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes it is. See? This is your problem.

Nah, it's just your comprehension skills are shite.

Nah, it's just your comprehension skills are shite. — Janus

Nah, it's that you repeatedly make the same error of wording statements stronger than is warranted, then get called out, then backtrack.

You'll probably do it again in the next ethics discussion. You remind me of a puffer fish.

So there was more than one question raised:

Why is subjective morality respected?

Why use or defend a subjective metric in a universe that has proven to be entirely defined by objective metrics?

Is subjective morality respected, and if so, who respects it and who does not? In my mind, the question reads more like "should subjective morality be respected", and to carry that forward in accordance to the actual title of the post; "Should subjective morality be respected over objective morality?". Morality is simultaneously the principles we use to guide our actions and choices and what we use then to judge said actions and choices. That being said, the question can be reduced to; "How do we judge how to judge?". The first question as originally stated almost presupposes that objective morality and subjective morality exist in mutual exclusivity within individuals who "subscribe" to either one or the other, as if this dichotomy represents a real or conscious choice in most people and as if this is a distinction that most people make insofar as to which one to respect as being valid. The original post then quickly moves on to more of a commentary on ethics. This, of course, is always the efficacy and progression when speaking to morality, as ethics represents what one actually does or chooses to do. I don't think it can be said that all actions and choice are driven solely by morality, nor do I think all actions and choices could be said to not have some consideration to one's morality.

One of my pet peeves is the use of the term "common sense" in lieu of "conventional wisdom" when the latter is almost always what means to be conveyed. In that light, I think the one who posed these questions and I have different associations in certain relationships between morality and ethics. I've always associated objective morality with deontological ethics and subjective morality with utilitarian ethics. My thinking here is that deontological ethics seem to rise from something relatively tangible, so to a sense, objective. For example, a written religious or doctrinal code or set of laws. (I'm not going to bring up metaethics vs normative ethics because: reasons :p) Subjective morality, in terms of my association with it and utilitarian ethics, seems to be driven more by consensus or the judgment (conventional wisdom) of the "collective" and not a tangible or explicitly written code or doctrine.

Laws, then, can be said to derive from both "schools of thought", as some seem to be more universal (deontological) and some are relative and evolve over time (utilitarian)(and I'm aware that this statement does not encompass the primary distinctions between the two). Aside from the extremes of fundamentalism and radicalism/absolutism, I don't believe that it is a question of which is superior (subjective or objective morality), rather it is an observation of the hybridization of the two within cultures, societies, and legal systems. Now this is sort of digressing to discussing moral relativism which may be simultaneously relevant to the topic and tangential to my points. I suppose what I am trying to say is that in practice and in my observations, most people tend to vacillate between deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics... essentially moral particularism, regardless of what they consider their morality to be. This, of course, leads to Trolley Problems and all those neat little things that attempt to exemplify each course. So, to answer the first question: It's relative! (don't hate me).

So, on to the second question... This again represents a dichotomy that may not be mutually exclusive. I think it speaks more to intent vs. action, which again is related to deontological ethics vs. utilitarian ethics. If the intention or imperative in one's mind is adherence to deontological ethics, then the consequences and results of their actions are immaterial, and conversely, if they are adhering to utilitarian ethics they are only concerned with the consequences and intended outcome. Moral particularism takes the question of superiority out of the equation and also removes the assumption of the mutually exclusive dichotomy. Is there a metric that measures existence or the weighing of a choice within one's mind? A metric can be a way of saying a judgement.. an observation.. perception itself.. So then, this maybe becomes a discussion on objective existence and subjective existence. I think the sentiment behind the second question may be partly influenced by certain sentiments in modern politics, which is that acting or thinking based on feelings (or emotions) is weak in comparison to adhering to a set of values in accordance to a set of beliefs or a creed... or at least I see some commonality. Therein lies the problem in my opinion, in this conflation. It seems we are arguing within the scope of how objective and subjective are used in regard to social phenomena and policy as if they are applicable in the same way as empiricism and theory are in the broad field of physical science. So to answer the second question; I don't believe there is a need to defend one over the other, rather one should be able to weigh each individual choice or course of action as a confluence of experience, beliefs, ideas, thoughts, education, theories, and perception of reality. I don't believe there can be one overarching way to "calculate morality" and take all the nuance out of something inherently more complex than a simple dichotomy.

This is my first time here and my first comment. I am not formally educated in any of this and so hopefully I don't come off as too much of a noob.