Emotions and Ethics based on Logical Necessity

Qmeri

It is easy to see mechanical systems behind our rational thinking and our vision and our hearing, as we have computers and cameras and microphones that do just those things. But our feelings seem different, although their explanation is much more simple – stability – a fundamental property of every possible thing since every possible thing is by necessity either stable or unstable. Every possible thing either tries or doesn’t try to change its current state. Stability also corresponds with our emotions completely. Instability is the negative feelings we try to get away from and stability is the positive feelings we try to stay in. And since there is an infinite number of ways to be stable and unstable and the combination of those two, stability explains every possible emotion that can ever be experienced. Stability does not explain every possible experience - just how good or bad any given part of a complex experience feels. From joy to hunger. From hate to love to guilt to feelings of right and wrong.

But what is Right and wrong? – I have a logical solution for that. The greatest problem of morality is the basic-assumption-problem. All moral systems assert goals. What should be and what shouldn’t be. All of them need to be justified. And all of the justifications need to be justified and so on, ending up in the basic assumption of that moral system. Luckily, the basic-assumption-problem can be solved by a logical necessity. And we already described a logically necessary goal – stability. Everything tries to get away from instability to stability by logical necessity since instability means that the system is trying get change its current state. In emotional terms stability is happiness.

But what is so moral in achieving your own stability – your own happiness? Since happiness is the only logically necessary goal, one should try to change all their other goals to serve this purpose. And what is the most efficient way to achieve happiness? To create a stable state – not only for you, but for everything else that you interact with – happiness for everyone. Because a stable system inside an unstable system will be affected and destabilised by that system. As incompatible goals compete with each other making the achievement of such goals hard and inefficient and forcing some to be always unhappy, one should change their changeable goals to be compatible with others and one should change others to be compatible with oneself. This creates harmony and sustained happiness. Cheaters can of course isolate themselves from others, so they only have to make themselves compatible with their environment.

Still, this is a complete moral system since every action of everyone can be objectively evaluated by how well it serves ones logically necessary goal and since the optimization of this creates happiness and harmony between all those, who interact with each other in this world. This shows that there never was a need for some external objective moral goal for the world. The unchangeable desire for personal happiness and the optimization of it was all that was ever needed.

SophistiCat

↪Qmeri

This is just foundationalist utilitarianism, with your preferred utility inexplicably declared as "logical necessity."

Qmeri

↪SophistiCat

The goal of personal stability is a logical necessity for everyone, since every possible system tries by necessity to achieve stability, since instability means that the system is trying to change its state and stability means that the system is not trying to change its state. Also, every system has the property of stability by necessity since every possible system is either trying to change its state or not. This was explained in the text before.

The idea of foundationalist utilitarism is not new - the idea of basing it upon stability as a logically necessary personal goal for everyone (stability) and also explaining what emotions are through stability is quite new, to my knowledge. Since the logically necessary personal goal of stability/happiness is not a choise unlike other goals, it doesn't have to be justified as a choise like other goals. It's not my preferred utility, it comes from logic. My preferred utility would be humor, but one can only dream.

khaled

Luckily, the basic-assumption-problem can be solved by a logical necessity. And we already described a logically necessary goal — Qmeri

What's logically necessary about it? I wouldn't call it "logically necessary". In the same way that food isn't "logically necessary" neither is seeking a more stable state. Sure you try to do both, but there is nothing logical about that

Everything tries to get away from instability to stability — Qmeri

In actuality it is the opposite but I get that what you mean by instability isn't exactly entropy

Also even if we give that this is the case what does that have to do with morality? "Things fall" is not a statement about morality. "People seek more stable emotions" shouldn't be either

And what is the most efficient way to achieve happiness? To create a stable state — Qmeri

Unsubstantiated claim

and forcing some to be always unhappy — Qmeri

You could argue that others being unhappy makes you happy (which is the case a lot of the time, just look at the sweatshops making our clothes). So if your goal is to seek your own stability/happiness the most efficient way to do so is not necessarily to please everyone. Slavery had been a part of stable states for some time but I don't think you'd call it moral, even though it checks all the boxes (increases stability of state and of slaveowners and so would be their goal to achieve it)

Qmeri

What's logically necessary about it? I wouldn't call it "logically necessary". In the same way that food isn't "logically necessary" neither is seeking a more stable state. Sure you try to do both, but there is nothing logical about that — khaled

Stability is a logically necessary property of everything since everything either is trying to change its current state or isin't. Therefore everything is trying to achieve stability since instability means that one is trying to change its current state. Therefore everything has a goal of achieving its own personal stability by logical necessity.

Unsubstantiated claim — khaled

This I partially agree with. Even my text describes how to cheat this moral system by isolating yourself from the suffering of others. The point of this moral system is to solve the Hume's guillotine by showing that there is a logically necessary personal goal for everyone and the choice of it doesn't need to be justified like Hume demands since it's not a choice. No objective ought was ever needed to make logically justified choices. The fact is that in most cases (not all) trying to achieve personal sustained stability is intuitively moral. (has to be proven empirically, but we do see people usually achieving sustained happiness in communities which are not too unstable. Even dictators are usually more happy when their community thrives. And slave-systems and others with much unhappiness do see revolts and instability reliably.)

I actually usually call this just a "goal system", but since it does solve the Hume's guillotine and since it actually promotes intuitive morality like happiness and harmony as a bonus, I also call it a moral system. It kind of does make other moral systems redundant, since one can judge every action of everyone by this system. And unlike others, it's based on logical necessity.

SophistiCat

Stability is a logically necessary property of everything since everything either is trying to change its current state or isin't. Therefore everything is trying to achieve stability since instability means that one is trying to change its current state. Therefore everything has a goal of achieving its own personal stability by logical necessity. — Qmeri

You keep repeating this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. It is trivially true that every thing either changes or it does not, but no normative statements can be logically derived from this truism.

The fact is that in most cases (not all) trying to achieve personal sustained stability is intuitively moral. — Qmeri

Although too vague and probably false, this at least is a potentially truth-apt statement - unlike what you wrote above, which is just nonsense.

ovdtogt

Stability is a logically necessary property of everything since everything either is trying to change its current state or isin't. Therefore everything is trying to achieve stability since instability means that one is trying to change its current state. Therefore everything has a goal of achieving its own personal stability by logical necessity. — Qmeri

I think what you are trying to articulate is 'balance'. If we consider all living things to be like tightrope walkers or cyclists. Without (stability/balance) they topple over. Living things have to balance the output of energy to the input of energy. Too little food/light/warmth...we die. And too much is also very unhealthy. In all things we seek balance: rest and work, certainty - uncertainty. I often return to this theme of yin/yang in all living things.

Qmeri

You keep repeating this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. It is trivially true that every thing either changes or it does not, but no normative statements can be logically derived from this truism. — SophistiCat

It seems like we don't have a common definition for words "trying to change" or "goal". Probably my mistake since I could have defined them in the original text, although I had to make some compromises to keep it short. I define "trying to change" as when a system changes in time when no outside influence is applied to it. And I define a "goal of a system" as a state in which the system does not try to change meaning a state of stability. Therefore it's a quite an obvious logical necessity that a goal of a system=stable state of that system with these definitions.

But then again, this moral system is trying to solve the problem of ethics by showing that no objective normative statements were ever needed. It simply tries to show that every system has logically necessary personal goals from which personal normative statements can be derived.

ovdtogt

↪Qmeri

The word you are looking for is homeostasis.

Qmeri

And when ones personal normative statements can be derived from logical necessities, ones goals and choices become unarbitrary and they can be judged objectively.

SophistiCat

And I define a "goal of a system" as a state in which the system does not try to change meaning a state of stability. — Qmeri

But you cannot just define goals. I as a moral agent select my goals according to what I judge to be good or bad; you cannot unilaterally define my goals for me and then call it a "logical necessity."

Qmeri

↪SophistiCat

But you cannot just define goals. I as a moral agent select my goals according to what I judge to be good or bad; you cannot unilaterally define my goals for me and then call it a "logical necessity." — SophistiCat

But even you should agree that something you try to achieve is your goal. And you as a system are trying to get away from any unstable states you may have aka you are trying to get to a stable state whether you judge it good or bad. It can't be chosen. It's inherent in what instability is. An unstable system is trying to achieve the change of its current state whether it wanted or not. This is a goal by any common definition of a goal. And you have this goal if you have instability in you no matter what you judge or choose.

Qmeri

↪SophistiCat

Or are you saying that when you are in a state you are trying to change (my definition of an unstable state), you are not trying to change that state? That would be a paradox.

I guess it would be easier for me not to describe the logically necessary goal as trying to get to stability, but trying to get away from instability, although to me they seem to be one and the same thing.

SophistiCat

↪Qmeri

You are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. On the one hand, you are trying to make your statement trivially true, so that you can call it a logical necessity: my goal is that which I am trying to accomplish. That's what your latest explanations of your stability/instability talk amounts to. This is indeed trivially true, but because of that, you cannot achieve your other goal (as it were): formulating a meaningful ethical theory.

Of course, you set yourself up for failure by the very premise of your inquiry: developing a logically necessary ethics. Anything that is logically necessary cannot tell us anything about what is or what ought to be. Logic is a sealed system, it is limited to its own abstract playground. Unless you feed it some real-world premises - which you will then have to justify - it cannot accomplish anything that doesn't collapse into triviality.

3017amen

↪Qmeri The word you are looking for is homeostasis. — ovdtogt

Yep...you beat me to it. Since the OP is dealing with ethics, I tend to default to cognitive science/psychology most of the time anyway... .

Otherwise, invoking logic, suggests that Happiness is static rather than dynamic ( like it really should be in an Ontological way ). This seems more compatible with Being; time dependent creatures.

So in my mind re-wording it to something like : "Emotions and Ethics based on Homeostasis" seems a bit more appropriate/intriguing.

↪Qmeri

ovdtogt

↪3017amen

I can only think in simple concepts and I know that the balance I seek is somewhere between boredom and frustration. In one I experience too little change and in the other too much. I am a kind of porridge just right kind of guy. How hot you like it, is of course a personal preference.

3017amen

↪ovdtogt

In fairness too, Homeostasis, in psychology, also has a static component to it. In the context of the human condition, if a person tries to change certain behavior's, but seemingly can't, it can be said that they then revert back to their natural state of ' homeostasis'. Has much to do with genetics, etc..

So, if the context is happiness, is it fair to say humans typically revert back to a state of homeostasis? I think so.... . From there I suppose one could also try to argue for selfishness, stoicism, pragmatism, utilitarianism (ala Sophisticat) so on and so forth...

Qmeri

↪SophistiCat

Of course, you set yourself up for failure by the very premise of your inquiry: developing a logically necessary ethics. Anything that is logically necessary cannot tell us anything about what is or what ought to be. Logic is a sealed system, it is limited to its own abstract playground. Unless you feed it some real-world premises - which you will then have to justify - it cannot accomplish anything that doesn't collapse into triviality. — SophistiCat

It is true true that no logical necessity can ever give us any information about our world since they are true in every possible world. They are all trivialities. But since our intuition doesn't seem to understand all the logically necessary trivialities, they can still teach us new things we didn't realize before. (Like: I think, therefore I am.) Therefore proving things as logical necessities accomplishes useful things. In this case it demonstrates a trivial yet unintuitive goal that everyone in every possible world has. At least I didn't know that before I came up with this theory. A logically necessary triviality gave me new understanding, therefore logically necessary trivialities can give new understanding.

Since this theory is about logical necessities and not about premises that can be untrue in a possible world like ours, it misses the point to talk about real-world premises. Except my claims that it is usually easier to be happy in an environment where others are happy and where people have compatible goals - that is not a logical necessity and does require empirical justification.

Qmeri

↪3017amen

So in my mind re-wording it to something like : "Emotions and Ethics based on Homeostasis" seems a bit more appropriate/intriguing. — 3017amen

I try to avoid words that have too specialized meanings like homeostasis that to my knowledge only apply to living systems. I use a very general term like "stability" and give it a very simple and general definition, since I'm trying to create a theory based on logical necessities, which usually are harder to find about very specialized concepts. For things like homeostasis I would need to study empirical information about organisms and make more of a scientific theory. Interesting - but not really the point of this theory, although finding empirical support from things like organisms and their tendency to find homeostasis is supportive for the claim that every being tries to achieve stability by logical necessity.

3017amen

although finding empirical support from things like organisms and their tendency to find homeostasis is supportive for the claim that every being tries to achieve stability by logical necessity. — Qmeri

Maybe there is hope in making your theory inclusive, and not mutually exclusive, not sure. But it is important to at least draw distinctions. For instance, if you are making a claim that happiness is an intrinsic human need, you would want to explore say, the hierarchy of needs from a cognitive science point of view. Or Philosophically, you could pick any number of domains relative to ethics that makes happiness a universal objective goal.

Otherwise, I think all logical necessity would tell us is that it [happiness] exists a priori in human consciousness. And in turn, that could lead to Kantian metaphysical questions which might be interesting...

khaled

↪Qmeri

Therefore everything is trying to achieve stability since instability means that one is trying to change its current state — Qmeri

Not true. Everything is trying to change it's current state =/= everything is trying to achieve stability. Everything could just be wandering from instability to instability

logically necessary personal goal — Qmeri

Again, I don't agree with the use of "logically necessary". It's not "logically necess" to eat food or to seek a more stable state. It's just what we do.

in most cases (not all) trying to achieve personal sustained stability is intuitively moral — Qmeri

Unsubstantiated claim. You haven't given an example and I can think of countless examples where trying to achieve personal stability is not moral such as for example: theft, rape, murder when knowing one won't be punished

but we do see people usually achieving sustained happiness in communities which are not too unstable — Qmeri

Might it not be because we ourselves live in such a community the only happy people we see also belong in the same community

And slave-systems and others with much unhappiness do see revolts and instability reliably — Qmeri

I don't think the history of the past few hundred years is enough to make such a claim.

since it does solve the Hume's guillotine — Qmeri

I don't think it does. First off I don't agree this seeking for stability has anything to do with logical necessity. Secondly even if we give that there is a "logically necessary" goal for everyone that doesn't translate to it being moral to seek. Say eating is a "logical necessity", does that make it moral to eat and immoral to eat?

Qmeri

↪khaled

Everything could just be wandering from instability to instability — khaled

It's true that an unstable state might change just to another unstable state. Still, an unstable system is trying to achieve a change in its current state, which is a goal and a logically necessary one.

Although trying to change an unstable state does not seem to equal trying to get to a stable state... hmmmhhhh... a new realization! thank you for that :) It's been a while since the last time this happened for this theory.

I do still think all systems are trying achieve a stable state since we also see this in nature, but it seems that the trying to achieve change of an unstable state is the only goal I can demonstrate as a logically necessary one right now. Exiting!

I don't think it does. First off I don't agree this seeking for stability has anything to do with logical necessity. Secondly even if we give that there is a "logically necessary" goal for everyone that doesn't translate to it being moral to seek. Say eating is a "logical necessity", does that make it moral to eat and immoral to eat? — khaled

This system is trying to solve Hume's guillotine by giving logically necessary personal normative statements which are not choices. It achieves this by showing that trying to achieve a change in an unstable state is a logical necessity. From that one can derive a personal normative statement for everything by how much it optimizes the achievement of that goal.

To me any system that makes normative statements is a moral system even if it does not make normative statements which seem intuitively moral. Although, while I do think following this system is also intuitively moral in most situations, that is an empirical scientific question and I can't demonstrate that claim here and it's not the point of this system.

ovdtogt

↪Qmeri

For instance, if you are making a claim that happiness is an intrinsic human need, — 3017amen

In general I find it a lot easier to argue for absence of something negative.
I don't see happiness, joy or contentment as the result of gaining something positive but losing something negative. In mathematical terms going from -1 to 0 you achieve happiness. Not going from 0 to 1 because of the 'mean reversion' the revert to the average you will always end up in 0 again.
People should be content at zero but don't realize they are.

Qmeri

The reason we see systems in nature usually ending up in a stable state if they don't get outside influence, is because all systems are trying to change their states until they achieve a stable state. So, stability is the same thing as being content with ones state. It's not a stretch to define a state one is content with as a definition for a goal and defining instability aka a state in which one is not content as not having achieved ones goal.

So, it ends up with the definition of what a goal is. Trying to achieve change in an unstable state is probably a goal by most definitions. Is stopping trying to achieve change the achievement of a goal? Hmmhhh... this will take some thinking.

Qmeri

If we extrapolate the goal of trying to achieve change in an unstable state aka trying to not be in that unstable state to an infinitely long timespan, one has a goal of trying to not be in any unstable state aka trying to be in a stable state.

Trying to achieve not being in any unstable state = trying to be in a stable state

Qmeri

↪ovdtogt

In general I find it a lot easier to argue for absence of something negative.
I don't see happiness, joy or contentment as the result of gaining something positive but losing something negative. In mathematical terms going from -1 to 0 you achieve happiness. Not going from 0 to 1 because of the 'mean reversion' the revert to the average you will always end up in 0 again.
People should be content at zero but don't realize they are. — ovdtogt

Well, this stability based explanation for happiness is quite like that. Happiness is the absence of instability. Gaining happiness is the losing of instability. Being at zero instability is being content with ones state.

khaled

↪Qmeri

Still, an unstable system is trying to achieve a change in its current state, which is a goal and a logically necessary one. — Qmeri

Agreed. But that implies that it is not logically necessary to seek stability.

I do still think all systems are trying achieve a stable state since we also see this in nature — Qmeri

That's what we see because we have flowers in our eyes. Ever heard of entropy?

This system is trying to solve Hume's guillotine by giving logically necessary personal normative statements — Qmeri

That's what I'm saying though. This is NOT normative. Logically necessary? Maybe but not normative.

The statement is: People necessarily seek stability
A normative statement would be: People should seek stability

This falls right back within the guillotine. You can't go from either of those statements to the other.

To me any system that makes normative statements is a moral system — Qmeri

Agreed but this ain't it chief.

Qmeri

↪khaled

That's what we see because we have flowers in our eyes. Ever heard of entropy? — khaled

Complete heat death of the universe aka where entropy is leading us is a stable state. Entropy increases stability.

That's what I'm saying though. This is NOT normative. Logically necessary? Maybe but not normative.

The statement is: People necessarily seek stability
A normative statement would be: People should seek stability

This falls right back within the guillotine. You can't go from either of those statements to the other. — khaled

The reasoning is:
Any person has a goal of stability by necessity
Therefore from the point of view of any person they should achieve stability by necessity

That is a normative statement, although its not an objective normative statement like X should happen irregardless of the point of view. It is a relative normative statement, relative to the ones point of view.

khaled

↪Qmeri

Entropy increases stability — Qmeri

Is literally an oxymoron. Why do you think heat death is more stable than right now? Because that's what this implies

Therefore from the point of view of any person they should achieve stability by necessity — Qmeri

I've heard similar arguments before and I'll reply in the same way, there is always a semantic shift in the use of "should" when this happens. In this statement "should" simply indicates instructions as in "To cook the steak you should light the stove" there is nothing moral about it. To tell the difference between the instructional should and the moral one try replacing them with "would need to"

"People go towards stability" (inevitably)
"They should achieve stability"
"They would need to achieve stability" (inevitably)

The 3 sentences mean the same thing, so it's the instructional should being used here and there is nothing moral about the assertion.

An example of a moral should:
"You should give to the poor"
"You would need to give to the poor" (to do what)

The two sentences are clearly different, so it's a moral should

That is a normative statement, — Qmeri

The mere fact that "should" is in the sentence doesn't make it normative. If it can be replaced by "would need to" or "needs to" then it's not normative

Qmeri

↪khaled

Is literally an oxymoron. Why do you think heat death is more stable than right now? Because that's what this implies — khaled

Heat death does not try to change its state unlike the current world which continuously tries to change its state until it reaches the heat death.

I've heard similar arguments before and I'll reply in the same way, there is always a semantic shift in the use of "should" when this happens. In this statement "should" simply indicates instructions as in "To cook the steak you should light the stove" there is nothing moral about it. To tell the difference between the instructional should and the moral one try replacing them with "would need to"

People go towards stability goes to:
"They should achieve stability"
"They would need to achieve stability"

The two sentences mean the same thing, so it's the instructional should being used here and there is nothing moral about the assertion.

An example of a moral should:
"You should give to the poor"
"You would need to give to the poor"

The two sentences are clearly different, so it's a moral should — khaled

They mean the same thing in both of the cases. It is the side of objective moral imperatives that uses semantics since our language has developed around ideas of objective moral imperatives and it has become one of the standard meanings for the word "should".

In both cases they should be said like the following in order to avoid semantics:

According to an objective goal so and so should be
And
According to a subjective goal so and so should be

Therefore it wasn't semantics.

khaled

↪Qmeri

Heat death does not try to change its state unlike the current world which continuously tries to change its state until it reaches the heat death. — Qmeri

Ok so we're judging stability by "does it try to change" rather than the physical definition.

They mean the same thing in both of the cases. — Qmeri

Then it's a non sequitor. Look at it this way:

Everyone seeks to change their state towards stability (fact, by definition/logically necessary)
Everyone should change their state towards stability.

Those are non sequitors. There is nothing normative about the first statement yet it is all you can establish. I agree that it is a goal most people share, but you can't just "sneak in" normative there. So let me look at your comment again.

Any person has a goal of stability by necessity
Therefore from the point of view of any person they should achieve stability by necessity — Qmeri

If the moral should is meant here then these are non sequitors.
"I have the goal of achieving stability"
"I (morally) should achieve stability"/ "If I don't seek stability I would be doing something immoral"

It is entirely possible for something to be a shared goal or desire and for seeking it not to be moral.

In the same way that these are non sequitors
"I have the goal of eating"
"I (morally) should eat"/ "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral"

Neither of these follow. If you had meant should in the same sense that you use should in "You should turn on the stove to cook the stake" then it makes sense (I (instruction)should achieve stability because I want it) but then you're not making a normative claim

Emotions and Ethics based on Logical Necessity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions