If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer.
— Chet Hawkins

I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case. — AmadeusD

Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of.

I am making that connection because that is what I observe in reality. Anecdotal, to be sure, but no theory does not have anecdotal observation as a precedent.

Observation, if in alignment with objective moral truth, what is precisely referred to as the GOOD, is the only means of preparing a theory to then test more rigorously. This is a theory stage conversation. We do not properly ask here for proof, only supporting evidence.

Why does a job well done in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does success in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does beauty in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does accuracy in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does preparation in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does awareness in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does experiencing new things often result in some measure of happiness?

These are all sort of general ideas that each represent a single virtue or virtue themed idea. I argue that each of them contribute in part to happiness and or unhappiness.

The only way in which this universe works according to my observations and resulting theories is that these many (not all listed) virtues each return some part of what might be called total happiness.

Wisdom is only and always defined within my model as the sum of and choice for all virtues simultaneously amid single choice. leave out even one virtue and there is diminishment.

I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same.

So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :) — AmadeusD

You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal.

Dead wrong is I am assuming no different that just wrong. Or is wrongness a matter of degree? What are YOU basing that implication on? I explained mine. You did not.

I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman.
— Chet Hawkins

Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above). — AmadeusD

Again, in isolation I'd have to keep referring back. For the purposes of this post, I really am not sure what you are responding to here.

Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins

No it isn't. *shrug*. — AmadeusD

I have offered reasons as to why this is so, but, I believe my original post mentioned that I assume it as a part of this sub-theory. To argue in good faith here it is required to assume that as well.

We are testing here the internal consistency of the model.

Later we might get into how the model directly relates to reality, if people make this process efficient and reasonably mutual as to exploring the realm of wisdom via ... philosophy ... the love of wisdom (and of course its pursuit).

Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant.
— Chet Hawkins

It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange. — AmadeusD

Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not).

Even anecdotal evidence is data. Finally, all data is anecdotal. He said, she said. Do you blindly believe some authority or do you take personal responsibility for observing reality to confirm aspects of it that might be deemed as 'truth'?

And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! ..... You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it!
— Chet Hawkins

I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me. — AmadeusD

I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality.

In fact I say all the time we cannot be objective. We can only try or intend to be as objective as possible.

I did mention to start with that as a part of my model I assume an objective morality. I do have moderate proofs for it. These are in the other Bob Ross thread on his 'attack?' on moral realism.

This thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself.

Free will and thus ALL bad choices, immorality defined, are not exclusive. It is the existence of free will that allows for the effort towards morality or the failure of effort that has immorality and unhappiness by degrees as a consequence.

But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all.
— Chet Hawkins

Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts. — AmadeusD

Again, we cannot be objective. We can only try to be objective.
Perfection is impossible. Knowing is, to me, a word of perfection. It is a failure in how it is often used. Suspecting is much more accurate.

I also do not prefer the word conclusion. Non-conclusion is best. It means we acknowledge that there is no perfect knowing and more work needs to be done.

Facts are not objective at all. It would take perfect observation to yield perfect facts. Facts are only a subset of beliefs that a person has decided are true for whatever reason. Even facts are often held at varying degree of truth value, showing this to be more true than not.

Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. It is not necessary to be objectively right to obtain anything, especially suspicion of a non-conclusion, a far superior paradigm for argument that how you seem to be proceeding.

If you delude yourself into believing you can be objective or that objectivity is needed to obtain anything, you live in a mental state of almost complete delusion. We all do, but yours is worse than one that admits to these imperfections, because you hide behind a fool's wall of inexistent certainty.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
That is what Voltaire meant as well.

Argument from authority, yes. Not relevant. Part of my admiration and respect for authority relies upon the accuracy of their wisdom relative to mine. His usually matches up ok, or at least it does for that statement.

Samuel Clemens is supposed to have said something derivative I also use, 'It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So!'
I disagree with this one. Ignorance gets you into plenty of trouble as well, so it's both.

So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all.
— Chet Hawkins

If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify! — AmadeusD

That is correct.

If we experiment and discover objective moral truth parts and building cases of levels towards it, we will eventually be able to detect immoral intent patterns as well as immoral consequence patterns. This will allow us to discover who is living will immoral beliefs and then of course we would have to know why.

This would be the scientific method of wisdom and I contend it is possible.

The slippery slope of this is shown clearly in China where their moral laws stem from a state sponsered incorrect version of morality. That is because they do not avow and realize that morality is objective and the state is not allowed to unequivocally decide as a conclusion what objective moral truth (the GOOD) is. Rather, my model suggests that we DO attempt to suspect all the parts of morality, the virtues and also how to maximize and balance them. This is the process of wisdom itself.

Without any basis in nature as a law of the universe for morality, states and other foolish imperfect entities are free to subjectively be wrong about morality. They are anyway, even in my model because free will exists and is infinite. But my model understands that there is a demonstrable feedback loop within reality, this happiness relationship, that is actionable evidence to explore with and in.

We highly suspect that people are imperfect and that they will fail to get morality correct. But, some among us are referred to as 'wise'. What does that mean? Are they magical? Why are they considered wise? Is that just an error? Is there any or at least some consensus among the wise? Where does this consensus come from? How do these wise people say they feel about wisdom?

Why would a free roaming cannibal from a warrior culture 'settle down' and declare some aspects of happiness in a more 'civilized' situation? If the warrior laments a lack of freedom, like the good old days, what is really meant? Why does that person not energetically return to the simple wild. Why do massive numbers of people not return to it?

So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem.
— Chet Hawkins

This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. — AmadeusD

Right back at you.

Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations. — AmadeusD

All academia partakes of order-apology, fear oriented dependence only on a single path of happiness, that of fear. Fear seeks certainty and safety which are effectively delusional. They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels.

Balanced wisdom requires balance between fear and desire and anger as well. If you depend or ground yourself only in the paths of fear, you will veer away from truth demanding certainty when it is all around just not possibly realized by you amid so many imperfections that I admit and you do not.

I am content to proceed amid imperfection towards perfection. That is wisdom.

How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game!
— Chet Hawkins

Its utterly impossible, in fact. — AmadeusD

A free standing denial is nothing really. No reason is given or explained.

Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...).
— Chet Hawkins
Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk: — AmadeusD

Yes, well, egg-breaking, omelet. You are saying nothing. I have no idea how to respond.

I know you are but what am I! Infinity!

EQ? What is EI?
— Chet Hawkins

Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol). — AmadeusD

EQ is the emotional analog to IQ.

But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering.
— Chet Hawkins

This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there. — AmadeusD

You do not say why it is incoherent. That helps no one.\

Do you think that more awareness is needed in general? I do.
Is it worthy to caution people that this is so? I think it is.
Do you agree that if you increase the range of moral agency, say from animal to human you increase potential evil as well as potential good in their range of choices? I do.
Do you agree that if awareness and judgment increase that this will decrease unnecessary suffering? I do.

That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that?

You missed it.
— Chet Hawkins

I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here... — AmadeusD

Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious. Humor is acceptable. Even anger. But just saying 'no you're wrong' is not helpful in any way.

The weird thing is that I have to stop and take time to tell you that.

objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD.
— Chet Hawkins

But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it. — AmadeusD

As mentioned that was assumed here.

It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread.

Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to.
— Chet Hawkins

I would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P — AmadeusD

But you do not say why it is bizarre and unsupportable. So, who cares? I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it.

I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:

How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view. — AmadeusD

Read the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread.

Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of. — Chet Hawkins

No it isn’t. If you don’t see the difference I cannot help, nor would I try to.

I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same. — Chet Hawkins

No. You absolutely did not. You have done absolutely nothing except assert an objective morality and go from there. So, no. You’ve prevaricated. Everything proceeding this statement is just your opinion on some stuff you’ve seen. It’s not even a coherent position.

You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal. — Chet Hawkins

No. We all have to go back to our posts to respond. If you’re not across your own views enough to know what’s going on I’m not sure what to say.

explained mine. You did not. — Chet Hawkins

The opposite of what’s happened.

I'd have to keep referring back. — Chet Hawkins

Then do it. If you’ve not been doing this, that explains the lack of coherence. I suggest doing it.

I have offered reasons as to why this is so — Chet Hawkins

You have not. You have asserted “the good” and “happiness” as somehow related and a matrix of measurement. You have failed to illustrate what either is or why it has something to do with morality - OR why any of that is “objective”

Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not). — Chet Hawkins

That’s one way of shifting the burden of supporting your own contentions…

I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality — Chet Hawkins

Then your entire contention is baseless, unknowable and we can’t talk about it. Wtf dude lol

his thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself. — Chet Hawkins

You have absolutely refused to address the crux of your claim here. That’s not on me…

Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. — Chet Hawkins

Then you are talking literal nonsense. It’s absolutely nonsensical to claim an objective morality while rejecting objectivity. W…t…f.

objectivity is needed to obtain anything, — Chet Hawkins

Do you not know what “obtain” means in this context? Cause this makes no sense at all.

From this point it’s hard to know if you’re drunk or trolling or what…

They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels. — Chet Hawkins

Case in point.

You do not say why it is incoherent — Chet Hawkins

Because you’d need to be coherent for another response to make sense.

That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that? — Chet Hawkins

It isn’t, which we can see from the quote. And that is all, still, incoherent. I have no idea what you expect.

Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious — Chet Hawkins

Your entire presence is weird glib nonsense. I take this as another example.

It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread. — Chet Hawkins

That’s not an answer. If you don’t want to explain how morality is objective we have nothing. You have no theory and I have nothing to respond to.

I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it. — Chet Hawkins

This quite clearly illustrates an emotivist version of morality. It’s your emotional response to things and that’s all.

ead the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread — Chet Hawkins

Or just lay it out…

I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply.
— Chet Hawkins

Can you give some examples? — RogueAI

Apparently not any longer as now its all pay wall. I don't pay for boilerplate.

Literally it continues to put out useless warnings related to currently accepted conjecture. It can be told to accept certain premises, but then its boilerplate will remind you faithfully that stuff its supposed to now hold as true is not true. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.

To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense.

If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? One would have a clear conscience.

To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense. — LuckyR

Ok let's examine that.

If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, — LuckyR

So far so GOOD.

so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? — LuckyR

Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.

One would have a clear conscience. — LuckyR

Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.

What part do you not understand?

Not read the whole thread, but I found this insightful

The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action

If we lack moral responsibility, due to determinism, then presumably we are not morally responsible for the happiness we create for ourselves, nor free to squander/enjoy it. That would defintely take the sheen, if not the shit, off of things for many.

If it just comes down to ought implies can, then desserts (rewards, fruits of labour, whatever) would analogously imply they can be withheld by others and/or fail to make us happy. Not saying that happiness must be moral but that happiness involves chance or choice, not just action.

----------

something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents

(antichrist 4); it's a phrase that reppears similarly in the gay science 995

owing to happy and reasonable marriages and also to lucky accidents, the acquired and accumulated forces of many generations, instead of being squandered and subdivided, have been assembled together by means of steadfast struggling and willing. And thus, in the end, a man appears... and the wretched intellectual play of aims and intentions and motivations lies only in the foreground

There may be be some contingency to greatness (or happiness), though IDK enough about it to have an opinion...

Hi Chet! Awesome that you decided to post! Its always a vulnerable position to put yourself out there, but glad you did. :)

I have a few starter questions for you.

If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral?

The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?

"so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy?"
— LuckyR
Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.

"One would have a clear conscience."
— LuckyR
Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.

Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism.

Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism. — LuckyR

No, in fact this is easily demonstrable as not true.

People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.

People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.

Well, while your observation is accurate, your guess as to it's cause is... shall we say: less accurate (to be charitable).

Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.

Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally.

Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.

Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally. — LuckyR

I suppose my answer is strange to you. I am not perfect, so the GOOD eludes me. But my intent is as good as I can make it for now. I do not really 'pat myself on the back' for this at all. That is smugness. The smug Gods punish people mightily for smugness. At the poker table I see this all the time.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way.

If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral? — Philosophim

I do not know how I missed this post before. Wonderful!

So, it's a great ask. I love it when things are not easy. It does turn out to be easy to me, but I am no young stump-jumper. You be the judge.

There is happiness returned for each virtue. I may have mentioned this, but it's surprising how people only really get deep into something if they are in dialogue mode. OK. Here we go.

In the case of your question there is a virtue of ownership or you could even say challenging the self to be better, to be the best you that you can be. If this virtue is subjective or delusional, then it can work one way for one person and one way for another person. Luckily for us all, this is not the case. But right now that is just my belief let's say.

Let's add in another virtue and see how this might work. It's the interaction amid multiple virtues that is precisely what confuses most people. This is what turns them away from the GOOD. They get all bangin hard on one virtue and turn a strength into a weakness. It's comical, sad, and typical. Each virtue acts on the other virtues to bend them into alignment with objective moral truth. If there is a skill or belief set that reflects this condition, this ability, to work towards all virtues expressed at the same strength at the same time, that skill or virtue that is special is called 'wisdom'. Wisdom can be said to be strength rising in a single virtue only if that strength is already equal in all other virtues. Otherwise to raise a single virtue is actually over-expression of that virtue, and dangerous (immoral).

Your example is a fairly easy case of this trouble. It does not invalidate my happiness return theory at all. In fact, the example properly understood supports it. If we envision that happiness is the consequence of any virtue in choice, and also that each virtue offers increasing happiness as a return or consequence of increasing expression of that virtue, we have a match with reality. That is my contention anyway.

So, the case you offer would roughly correspond to 3 virtue areas that I offer for your consideration. These are the need to challenge (which has as a darker component the need to control), the need to be just or accurate (which has as a darker component the need to be superior), and maybe even the need to achieve (which has a darker component in the need to be seen and understood or accepted as a 'winner', especially with one's boot heel on the throat of the other). I think that is enough to consider for the moment. But these are virtues that indeed by your example have become objective vices instead.

If I claim morality is objective then something is gravely amiss. These virtues are being expressed quite strongly. And indeed objective morality is rewarding this person for doing so. This is the happiness you say you (you said you in the example, I would have said 'one' to depersonalize it) would feel.

So the way morality works is objective. The high expression of these virtues is returning a giddy high. But what you do not realize, the you in the example, and maybe the real you, is that other virtues are missing. This means to me that you are merely wrong. You cannot know what you are missing. You are terrible at the other virtues. But this is the best happiness you have ever known, more is the pity. You are some sort of hideous tyrant getting off on just a few virtues.

This has several corollaries. One is that people are not really just gut sucking evil in general. There is too much good involved directly in otherwise mundane seeming things like deciding just to remain alive, to continue to exist, to be. That's one example. Another is building connections with others, connectedness, which can indeed be over-expressed and turn into bigotry. That is because it is not balanced with other virtues. And that is the same here. No, people are actually fairly good, and even what we think of as rank evil is really just an over-expressed and imbalanced virtue. It actually takes exceptional good in some way, high values in some virtues, to be famous or infamous. It's not easy. And the hard things in life are usually more moral. This is a very complex equation finally, but it does work.

So, back to the example. Although I have already pointed out how over-expression of a virtue is actually immoral even with the virtues mentioned, there are also virtues missing that my theory claims would deliver unhappiness. I continue that assertion. But the low lying virtues are also offering happiness, just less. So, it's only additive. That causes confusion. So less happiness than ... regular or normally experienced is all that unhappiness is. That means to know that you are unhappy you have to have been more happy than normal. Do you see now?

So, let's look at the low virtues. For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.

Wisdom and morality also objectively include the idea that only through suffering can wisdom be earned. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering on the unwise. An example is a parent 'forcing' a child to do chores. This is quite wise and needed. And I promise you if interviewed the child would call it suffering. But later in life, if that child earned wisdom amid that process, they will claim quite vociferously and rightly that they understand and respect why their parent made them suffer. Just so.

So that virtue of unity is super low and missing in you, in your example. That means your adjective, 'Supremely' is precisely wrong, a delusion. The you that would claim such a thing is unwise. It is a tautology because morality is objective. It is also a tautology because an exactly similar person who is forced somehow to go through struggles that show the unity principle and thereby earns that wisdom is now aware of the more genuine happiness that can come from that belief. And such a person cannot be fooled by your delusion any more. They have been there, to better happiness. They will fight to keep on suffering to remain more happy.

In fact, one might ask, and I have been asked many times by the unwise, why not just be happy on drugs, the Hedonist perspective. The answer is simple. The wise seek out suffering for themselves willingly with joy in their hearts. They seek out necessary suffering only though. Taking it too far is self hatred, wallowing in worthlessness. The wise can only maintain a moral stance amid great suffering. Luckily the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are happy enough to oblige. The wise suffer thus, far more exquisitely than the unwise do, and they would not change a thing. This type of suffering launches happiness, genuine happiness, into the vaults of perfection. They never quite reach the top but closer and closer is the idea.

And it is this concept of genuine happiness that matters. That is to say, a wise person with ALL virtues present, experiences a genuine happiness that others can only guess at when they say silly things like 'supremely happy' by making others dumb. That other is you. Would you be happy dumb? Awareness is pain. Step right up! Here is the red pill. Wallow in giddy ignorance or be aware and suffer, and the more awareness the more suffering! Behold objective morality. The hard path is the moral one.

Hopefully that was enough of an answer.

The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? — Philosophim

Of course I cannot prove it. I would not want to.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. Fear is the emotion responsible for the limiting and separating force in the universe. When we take the math short cut of saying the limit of x approaches y is y we are failing morally. We may be making a Pragmatic choice, the betting man's success, but that is moral failure. Perfection is the asymptote. It is unattainable. When you write things off, you fail, and in doing so, you begin lazily to write more and more off. The goal must be unattainable. THAT is wisdom. And it is, objectively so. But it still returns the most happiness no matter how often and how far you miss if that was your aim. The miss is consequence. That has no value really except to inform future intents. Kant was right!

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists? — Philosophim

Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?

Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire to be a thing in the universe. We interpret it wrongly. But it is the call to that unattainable goal.

Yes, we live in a subjective experience but we can sense and aim at the objective. We can and SHOULD try to be objective, to be perfect, to be GOOD.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity? — Philosophim

Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.

The GOOD is every single bit as chaotic as it is orderly.

It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its an indicator it does not. But, it DOES mean that there is something to that overall goal that has universal appeal, and we sure do want something about that goal.

So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal.

So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then?

The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others.

Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions.

For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept. — Chet Hawkins

I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others."

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. — Chet Hawkins

Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed.

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that? — Chet Hawkins

If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong. — Chet Hawkins

No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more.

Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way

Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).

Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease.

As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings".

one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it — kindred

"To know the good is to do the good"?

It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its an indicator it does not. But, it DOES mean that there is something to that overall goal that has universal appeal, and we sure do want something about that goal. — Philosophim

I agree that things that are right are usually simple, a corollary to what you said here. It is essentially the Occam's Razor argument. But the thing is, it is simple. The only thing complex about it is the interactions of the virtues. And that is actually simple, just a wee bit harder when you combine them.

As mentioned as well, it is not an appealing truth in some ways. Wisdom hits every person, every entity, on that entity's weakest traits. Wisdom states that effort should increase to get to more and more worthy moral choices. These are not appealing to immoral wishes of most people. This is why wisdom makes people uncomfortable and often they will reject it on their weakest traits precisely to prevent or deny their having to change.

So, I can agree that people want a system of beliefs that has the same GOOD wholesome flavors as traditional religion, which is more and more a failure in social circles. But, after they hear how this model translates the virtues almost everyone will hopefully realize that they are incredibly weak in 1-3, maybe more virtues and that your lowest virtues are more determinant of one's wisdom. That could cause wholesale rejection of the model. The model needs a lot of wise advocacy to get very far. I remain skeptical. People in general are so unwise.

So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. — Philosophim

I countered those problems. You claiming this means you did not understand. That, or you did not give a counter argument.

We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. — Philosophim

No, there is nothing wrong with that. And if you make that claim you should explain why. I did explain the pro.

It makes total sense that what we think of as unhappiness is just less happiness than we normally experience. That means if we are normally immoral in the same ways, and we are, then the low contributions of our lesser virtue expressions (vices) offer us less happiness contribution regularly. It feels normal. And if we delude ourselves into believing we know what real happiness is like (and we do delude ourselves) we might suggest something as crazy as being supremely happy when we dumb down others.

There is nothing inherently complex or confusing about that situation. What is hard for you to believe?

But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal. — Philosophim

Yes, that one is super easy. But we are trying to get to the hard one. The mix of virtues as wisdom and the mix of virtues for additive happiness. The third realization is the normal value of happiness being deemed 'ok' by the person regardless of how bad it is.

This is why loss is so hard. Loss changes the normal level of happiness for an extended and reliable period of time, the grief interval. Loss is delusional as well, because matter, energy, emotions (all three) are neither created nor destroyed. They are all harmonics. Its a lack of awareness and wisdom overall that causes the failed perception of loss. I mean this can get all squirrely with time is also a delusion, and then question is why do we accept the focus on the 'now' view only?

So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then? — Philosophim

So, no. That would only be one virtue or maybe two, achievement and accuracy. So yes, these two would offer their contributions to happiness. But what about beauty, joy, unity, awareness, preparedness, connectedness, challenge, etc? So, the only virtues being fulfilled that I can detect for sure in your example are the two. It is then a tautology that perfection will not be pleased. It will pull you to do more or do what you do better. It will try to involve all virtues equally as that is the balance of truth and nature.

There is no mistaken association in my model. Actions and choices all do give their contribution. It's the comparison with the norm for that moral agent that matters. Once they have a spike or a dip in happiness from the norm that is extended, they 'wake up to what life could be'. This is evolution or collapse.

The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others. — Philosophim

Indeed. There are virtues that center on each of the primal emotions, part of my model. The basic sin of desire is self-indulgence. The restraint of balancing fear is needed to help counter desire. That fear is fear of damage or 'going too far' with the emotion. What does 'going too far' sound like? If you mapped the strength of the virtues you will see that a person very high on the desire virtues as well as the desire infused virtues has a greater chance of being self-indulgent as a pattern in life. That is because that one virtue is over-expressed. It supports my model entirely. I have found no aspect of reality that does not support my model. I am here to see if there is some, in part.

So, immorality is only a lack of balanced morality or low amplitude morality.

Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions. — Philosophim

Aiming at objective moral truth, from any point (state) will yield the greatest happiness. You can take the circuitous route all of us do, but that yields less happiness and less and less the more distal the aim is from the perfect point of objective moral truth.

Maturity and wisdom are the same things. If you describe one without the other, I think that would mean you did not understand either (really). So, maturity is only properly described as alignment with intent towards perfection, the GOOD. There are many adjectives and verbs that are changed in my model because of the importance of perfection. Any expression of any choice is partially immoral/evil if it is not perfect. Moreover, intent towards the negative direction of immorality even from an exalted state (perhaps especially so) is a very dark and immoral act. As Treebeard says, 'A wizard should know better!' But even wizards are not perfect.

For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.
— Chet Hawkins

I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others." — Philosophim

Ultimately, all virtues funnel into the unity principle as might be expected. I mean, ... unity, duh. But the deeper truth is that you can build a compelling connection between any two virtues and that connection will show enough similar ties and strength to explain why all virtues are equal, despite the intuition that they are not. Why is beauty and expression equal to accuracy? Why is unity the equal of connection? But it turns out that each virtue can only be equal or morality and reality could not happen.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is.
— Chet Hawkins

Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed. — Philosophim

Certainty cannot ever be had, so it had better not be needed.

But the concepts of proofs and facts are similar. The astute observer or academic realizes that these two items are limits. They are mathematical limits in how they work. Proof is asymptotic to certainty, and that is wise. Fact is asymptotic to truth. Choosers that belief that proof is certainty or that fact is truth are not very bright, nor very wise. The proof is the explanation of why we believe a fact is a fact only. It is the 'non-conclusion', a term I invented to be in alignment with objective moral truth. If we state a non-conclusion, rather than delude ourselves by using the term conclusion, we admit up front that we are partially wrong, and yet we show that for right now, this is our best guess as to the truth. That is very wise indeed.

In most human interactions we actually prefer delusion. We want the fantasy and reminding us of reality just chafes us. This is another reason wisdom is secretly reviled. We would prefer the bridge maker brag and say 'Oh, don't worry! It'll hold! I been doing this for years now!" She doesn't mention it's only 2 years and with a degree from a low rep mail order diploma uni. We scoff and chafe at C3PO or other logic odds assessments duly noted. "Don't tell me the odds!" is our retort. Another way of saying that is 'Don't let fear get in the way of a good time/death.'

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?
— Chet Hawkins

If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. — Philosophim

Nope.

That is incorrectly stated.

Subjective BELIEF in objective morality is the proper way to say it. And that is fine. It does not deny objective morality. You just tried to pull a fast one there semantically.

Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced. — Philosophim

And their cowardly need for certainty will remain a foolish cross to bear. It will eke them out of life itself. They should choose not to live in fear. That means over-expressed fear, like the need for certainty over courage and will.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.
— Chet Hawkins

No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more. — Philosophim

Well then, yes, chase maturity (wisdom).

Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion. — Philosophim

Ha ha! Thank you. I appreciate the testing ground for my model and my ideas.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way
↪Chet Hawkins

Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).
Right but experiments are within reality. Reality perforce includes the inability to attain perfection. So an experiment in which the word perfect is used is often a red flag, if you follow. That was what I was objecting to, and I explained that.
— LuckyR

Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease. — LuckyR

It does, actually.

But again you made the same exact mistake.

You deny that perfection, the unattainable thing, is what causes desire. And it does that perfectly. So, it matters not how close we get, we are still not perfect and perfection still draws us on. That is precisely going to cause a feeling of restlessness and unfulfillment to everyone, every time, in every case, without exception. That is because morality, unlike us, is perfect, is objective.

As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings". — LuckyR

I feel like I should be insulted.

So, what you're saying here is that I am sincerely wrong, yes?

Your contention here says nothing. So what if often people find that others disagree with what morality is? I agree that is the case. Both are wrong. It's always the case. That is my argument. But, since morality is objective, one of the two is more correct in every such comparison. So when you get down to comparisons, the fact that morality is objective is the only thing that allows for the comparison in the first place. Good? Relative to what, precisely? You must compare each example to a standard. Then there must be a measurement.

That measurement is to the objective standard. We sense that it must be objective because we are happier when acting and choosing in an ever narrowing scope of choices, as if our behaviors were being guided by a law of emotion governing choice in the universe. That is objective morality.