Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good' — Caerulea-Lawrence

As of now, I'm not claiming that. All I've claimed at this point is that there is a fundamental logical truth to any objective morality. When presented with the idea of existence vs total non-existence, "existence being good" is necessary if an objective morality exists. In no way am I measuring good relatively among existence itself. I start building that in the next post.

If you start to believe in an unprovable and unsensible Objective morality, you start off with an indirect contradiction of your own belief by reality. What is then the applicable use of the rest of the 'Knowledge' you create, when it is indirectly contradicted to begin with? — Caerulea-Lawrence

I'm not saying, "I have found and proven an objective morality". What I am noting is if (means its not necessarily true) that an objective morality exists, logically, the answer to "some existence vs non-existence" must result that "existence should be". So at a very basic level, existence is good, complete non-existence is not. There is nothing else more being stated than this at this time.

The argument being presented above is a logical argument. It demonstrates that any claim of objective morality which claims non-existence is what should be, indicates that the objective morality itself should not be. And if that objective morality should not be, then we should not follow it. In other words, it contradicts itself. Therefore the only objective morality that does not contradict itself, is one that concludes existence is preferable to non-existence.

In no way does this claim that God or anything dictated that existence is good. It is simply a logical consequence if an objective morality exists. It is not even a claim that an objective morality actually exists. It states, "If it exists, this logically must be."

We can take this with a more common knowledge setup to compare. "The definition of a bowling ball is that it is spherical, and matches what we would call a ball. Because a cube is not spherical, it cannot be a bowling ball" If an object is a cube, it cannot be a sphere, is a logical conclusion. Claiming a cube is a sphere is a contradiction in properties, therefore we know its wrong to do so."

Thus the argument above is a reducto ad absurdum argument based on the definitions we have. There are a few ways to counter it. We could change the definitions. We could demonstrate that an objective morality does not exist. But because we can neither confirm or deny an objective morality exists, we can
at least start with what is necessary for an objective morality to exist. And this basic foundation is essential to any objective morality.

Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. But when we do not have proof of the fundamentals, we can take what we do know and conclude logical limits. Logical limits are starting points to build working theories of reality. That is all I'm doing here. The starting limit does not prove an objective morality. The starting limit does not prove that what I build further is true. But it does allow us to explore plausibilities. At one time, we could not travel deep under the sea. But logical allowed us to determine things on land such as "pressurized hulls". So in theory we could send something under the sea. We based it off of the things we logically knew, and adjusted as we went along.

The foundation here is that starting base. Its to say, "Hey, we can go under the ocean. I don't have all the details, and we might need to adjust as we descend, but logically, we can start with this as to why we should be able to."

Without the human element, any practical and useful understanding of 'what is good' breaks down completely, as you simultaneously argue that we don't need humans to evaluate morals, and that we as humans can understand fundamental morals. This is contradictory. — Caerulea-Lawrence

What breaks down is the language and process to prove X exists. If X is real, it exists whether we are here to understand it or not. We need humans to understand the process to prove an objective morality, but it would exist (if it does) whether we did or not. Our language construction and applied knowledge to the world would not exist, but the world still exists.

We don't know if we can mold the universe or not, and believing we can, just because we believe in Objective Morality, seems no different from any other fundamental beliefs that start off indirectly contradicted by reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

We mold the universe today. Our understanding of physics has allowed us to create the combustion engine for example. So let us imagine that we have a moral situation. "If a river if not diverted, will destroy a village. But if it is diverted, it will tear up a nearby road." The idea isn't meant to be complex or tricky, but note that we already do moral evaluations, and shape the world based on those moral evaluations. A road is nothing compared to an entire town, so we divert the river. The question then is can we build an objective morality from the foundation that I've laid out that gives us a clear answer as to why we should divert the river besides, "Its obvious, people are more valuable for subjective reasons, and so on"

If we could construct a morality that would objectively lay out why saving the village was more valuable, then we could indicate this across cultures and even species. That's invaluable. Does it exist? Maybe. But if it does, it should follow this foundation, so from this foundation we can see if other logical conclusions necessarily occur. Thus beginning to build a morality that we can debate, and of course test.

If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections — Caerulea-Lawrence

I surely didn't mean to dismiss your objections! If you think I haven't addressed or dismissed an objection, please point it out. Having read your response, I believe you think I'm stating much more than I am here. I am not saying an objective morality exists. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm very open to that. I am only saying, if I'm correct, and an objective morality does, this logically follows. Don't jump too far ahead to where you think I'm going, just re-read the argument very carefully and see if what I'm noting leads to the conclusion I've made. I look forward to hearing any critiques or questions.

I think the proper adjective for existence is positive rather than good. By positive I mean consisting in or characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features. This way, we avoid the confusion of the term good used in morality with positive which is related to existence.

Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good' — Caerulea-Lawrence

As of now, I'm not claiming that. All I've claimed at this point is that there is a fundamental logical truth to any objective morality. When presented with the idea of existence vs total non-existence, "existence being good" is necessary if an objective morality exists. In no way am I measuring good relatively among existence itself. I start building that in the next post. — Philosophim

The issue I have with this, @Philosophim, is that I find the whole concept revolting. The idea that existence is good and objectively moral - is abhorrent. To claim, even subtly or hypothetically, that existence is 'good', and make any claims whatsoever about truths that so incredibly awfully are contradicted by our lived experiences, is... horrible.

I'm not saying, "I have found and proven an objective morality". What I am noting is if (means its not necessarily true) that an objective morality exists, logically, the answer to "some existence vs non-existence" must result that "existence should be". So at a very basic level, existence is good, complete non-existence is not. There is nothing else more being stated than this at this time. — Philosophim

If you make 'moral statements' like this, apply your moral sense to them.
This isn't a logical claim. When you are making ANY kind of claim that has ANY kind of moral implications, it is a personal expression of your moral truths. It can be nothing else. That is what Moral means, what should be. And since you are writing this, it means what should be,To you. And if what 'Should be' to you is an objective morality, which legitimized all the horrors of our existence, and dissolves all the complexities of our existence into being 'objectively good', then I am rejecting it with my whole moral self.

When you make moral statements, or build a moral theory, you have to take moral responsibility, and you don't seem to understand the implications of how objective morality FEELS.

And I wouldn't care if you discarded my objections. I am horrified by the moral picture you paint of the world. Maybe I am more sensitive to moral arguments, but maybe you should be much more sensitive yourself if you are to step into the world of morals?

Every thought, every action, every idea, every concept in the vicinity of morals, Is your morals. There is simply 0 way we can 'discuss' a moral theory, when I find your primary tenants abhorrent. And I don't think I am off about this, I believe you are. By a mile. Seriously.

Take your moral theory and see if it alleviates any suffering, any grief or helps make sense of our helplessness and lack of understanding of the world. If we are going to talk about a foundation, add in that the worldly rules are fundamentally amoral, there is plenty of immorality, and morality isn't doing great. If you want to make any, ANY claim that makes abuse, violence, depravity, entropy, sadism, overwhelm, disease, weakness, trauma, war etc. GOOD, which is what you ARE doing by calling this a moral theory, and with a title saying:
"In any objective morality existence is inherently good", there is simply no way forward. There is no fucking way I am coming close to agreeing with that or discussing it further. Any moral is based on True, personal values - What should be, in actuality, not theoretically, what you actually, fundamentally and tirelessly work towards with every fiber of your moral being.

Logic isn't morality, morality is the faculty of you that make moral Choices. It isn't theory, it is your values.
Any moral statements have moral implications, and potentially intense emotional, physical and relational consequences - whereas logic does not. If we are to 'discuss' morals, we need to share our deeply help values, and be transparent about our actual actions, and see if there are kinks in our moral senses somewhere.

It has nothing to do with jumping ahead or reading anything into this; moral statements and logical arguments are simply incompatible, like the sun and an ice-cream.

I sincerely hope you take this reply seriously, because I'm very close to ending our long-standing inquiry over this. Which is really sad to say, to be honest, but your replies and these posts about morals have so far been quite appalling to me.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence

The issue I have with this, Philosophim, is that I find the whole concept revolting. The idea that existence is good and objectively moral - is abhorrent. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Ah, I see. First, let me tell you that I understand. Morality is arguably the underpinnings of everything we do. I can tell you right now, it is scary to delve into it. If I did uncover a foundation for morality, it is both potentially wonderful, and terrifying. People may not be logical enough for morality, and at the end of the day will twist anything to suit what they want. Present company not excluded!

I take your criticisms well, and am not offended. Thank you for being honest instead of trying to hide it under a poor argument. If it bothers you, I take no offense in the discussion ending, and you do not lose any respect from my end. If you disagree with what I write, you are not looked down on in any way. But for me, I have to look. I have to think about it. That's the nature of myself.

If you make 'moral statements' like this, apply your moral sense to them.
This isn't a logical claim. When you are making ANY kind of claim that has ANY kind of moral implications, it is a personal expression of your moral truths. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Its just a summary of the conclusion from the OP. The OP is the logical claim. If you are vehemently against it, and you can stomach it, examine it, and see if you can prove it wrong. I might be wrong after all, and this is an honest statement, not some lie of false humbleness. I take the idea of constructing a moral theory seriously, and I would not want to put anything out there that had a flaw at its core that I had not considered. I am interested in what works Caerulea, not that "I'm right". So trust me when I've come up with this as a genuine look at finding an objective foundation for morality, and would love feedback on the logic and premises.

And if what 'Should be' to you is an objective morality, which legitimized all the horrors of our existence, and dissolves all the complexities of our existence into being 'objectively good', then I am rejecting it with my whole moral self. — Caerulea-Lawrence

What may set your mind more at ease, is that this has nothing to do with quantified good. Let me see if I can explain. There's existence, and there are existences. Existence is a quality. Existences are quantities. Quantities can be compared and measured. Some can be larger or smaller than another. Intuitively, not logically, do you feel a slum of poor people who are sick and hungry is better than a town full of happy and well off people? I'm going to assume no. And as I continue my moral theory, I'll be able to show why that is.

You are thinking that my notion is quantity on my initial argument, when it is an argument of quality. I have not yet pointed out how to quantize good. But I have to build that from a logical start. Maybe reading my second post may give you more insight into what I'm doing if you're concerned, as that's where I begin to discuss quantity. My conclusions from the entirety of the theory is that our general sense of morality that holds across cultures makes sense because it creates more existences then not. Only instead of this being an opinion, I can arguably give a reason why backed by logic from the ground up. And it may not be right, my logic might be flawed here and there. But I feel its a start.

Take your moral theory and see if it alleviates any suffering, any grief or helps make sense of our helplessness and lack of understanding of the world. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes. That's the point. If the theory as built up works, at least to its underlying core, I could communicate across cultures what good and evil is. I can show generally how we should use knowledge and push as a species. I can explain the value and good of the various plants and animals we live with. How mutual cooperative existence is almost always better on the calculus then the elimination of competition, and the elimination of difference. And most importantly of all, this would not be an opinion. Culture would be considered, but the moral theory itself would not be a culture, but a physics. Requiring careful proof, open to be challenged at any time, and steps from A to Z.

What your concern is, is where you think I'm going to go with it. You've prejudged, and this is normal when confronted with opening the machine of morality. I think its a good thing that people defend morals so closely, and are careful to have them questioned. As you said, an irresponsible person or bad actor could cause a lot of damage. I don't want to be that person.

Logic isn't morality, morality is the faculty of you that make moral Choices. It isn't theory, it is your values.
Any moral statements have moral implications, and potentially intense emotional, physical and relational consequences - whereas logic does not. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Logic that does not consider this, is incomplete logic. All of that is part of existence, and any moral theory that did not consider it would be bereft in my opinion. Which is why I need discussion from other people. Its too big for one person to take on themself. Its not owned by anyone. Its an uniting force of the human race.

It has nothing to do with jumping ahead or reading anything into this; moral statements and logical arguments are simply incompatible, like the sun and an ice-cream. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I would consider myself a fairly moral person. I donate to charity. I moved to a different city to help my sister when she was diagnosed as bipolar. I believe in the goodness of the human race. I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many. So i do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages.

So if you are willing, I would like you to stick with it a bit more. I only ask you because I think you have fantastic insight, and a great mind. Maybe it is trash, but I don't see that yet. Only in conversing with good people can I figure out if his is right or wrong. I leave it in your court and will respect whatever decision you make.

I am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you. — MoK

Thank you, I try.

But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?"
— Philosophim
No. Good and evil are fundamental and they are both necessary. Think of evolution for example. The weak agents are eliminated in the process of evolution so room is left for the stronger to survive since the resources are finite. Evolution is evil since weaker agents are eliminated for the sake of stronger ones. — MoK

Taken in that limited context, is that really evil then? Preferably, we would like there to be infinite resources. Then there would be no need for evolution. But if there are finite resources, and also threats that could potentially prevent beings from getting them, isn't evolution the best to handle a situation? Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out?

Evil is not, "What is inconvenient". What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all? What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad. Sometimes we might want something, but its not possible to obtain. We all want a world with no sickness or death. That would be a better world if it were possible. But since its not, does that automatically make our world evil?

I have to first answer what good and evil are before discussing morality. Good and evil as I mentioned are two categories of psychological states. I cannot define good and evil but I can give examples
of psychological states in which a set of psychological states are good and others are evil. Good like love, happiness, pleasure, and the like. Evil like hate, sadness, pain, and the like. — MoK

Are those things that we do not want in excess, or are they evil innately?

If someone comes into your home to murder you and your family, hate can be the motivation that lets you fight them off. Sadness over the death of a loved one is a beautiful thing. Can you imagine someone close to you dying and not being sad? Pain lets you know when your body is injured. There are people who can't feel pain, and they often die young. Here's an article to ease into the concept. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain

Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?
— Philosophim
Apparently, we cannot. We have to accept the reality as it is. Think of mental or physical exercises for a moment. Without physical activity which is tiresome and painful, therefore evil, you cannot have a body in good shape. The same applies to mental exercise. — MoK

So you see where I'm going with this. My goal here is to get to the very foundation of the words. At its very foundation I see good as "What should be" and evil as "What should not be". It keeps it clear, distinct, and allows clear identification. Because as you've noted, things that seem 'evil' in some circumstances, aren't.

And how do we know what is a right action?
— Philosophim
This is a tricky part so I have to give examples of a few situations to make things clear. Think of a situation that you have you have a nasty kid who breaks things and messes up your house. You don't reward him for what he does instead you punish him. The first act, rewarding, is good and the second act, punishing, is evil. Therefore, evil is right depending on the situation. Think of a person who is terminally ill. The act of killing any person is evil since it causes sadness to friends or relatives. But the act of killing a person who is terminally ill is right if she or he wants it. Here, I just gave a couple of examples of the situations in which evil acts are right. I am sure you can come up with situations in which a good act is the right choice. — MoK

It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good. Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good. Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil. But why? That's what I'm trying to do here. Set up a foundation and work to the point I can say, "This is why punishing your child as a form of teaching can be good." I believe my analysis can show depending on the situation, why that would be greater good then a child who did not learn their lesson because they were not punished.

Thank you, I try. — Philosophim

Thank you. Before going further I would like to define other terms that I used in my previous post to help both of us understand each other better and communicate easier. I already define good and evil. I however use two other terms namely right and wrong which I haven't defined yet. Right is something we ought to do and wrong is something we ought not to do. As an example, think of the nasty kid. The punishment is evil given the definition of evil but it is right in this case. The reward is good given the definition of good but it is wrong in this case.

Taken in that limited context, is that really evil then? Preferably, we would like there to be infinite resources. Then there would be no need for evolution. But if there are finite resources, and also threats that could potentially prevent beings from getting them, isn't evolution the best to handle a situation? — Philosophim

Evolution is evil since the weak species suffer and eventually die out. Evolution is however positive.

Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out? — Philosophim

We just couldn't have different sorts of species that fit very well with the different environments and hazards.

Evil is not, "What is inconvenient". — Philosophim

It is given my definition of evil.

What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all? — Philosophim

We cannot avoid evolution given the fact that the resources are finite.

What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad. — Philosophim

I use the terms positive and negative instead of good and bad when it comes to evolution. Evolution is positive and it is not negative. I use these terms to avoid the confusion of using terms good and evil when it comes to morality.

Sometimes we might want something, but its not possible to obtain. We all want a world with no sickness or death. That would be a better world if it were possible. But since its not, does that automatically make our world evil? — Philosophim

Sickness and death are natural evil.

Are those things that we do not want in excess, or are they evil innately?

If someone comes into your home to murder you and your family, hate can be the motivation that lets you fight them off. — Philosophim

Hate is evil and in this case, is right.

Pain lets you know when your body is injured. There are people who can't feel pain, and they often die young. Here's an article to ease into the concept. — Philosophim

Yes, the pain is evil and it is necessary for the reason you mentioned.

So you see where I'm going with this. My goal here is to get to the very foundation of the words. At its very foundation I see good as "What should be" and evil as "What should not be". — Philosophim

Evil as I mentioned is a psychological state and it is necessary. It is not what should not be.

It keeps it clear, distinct, and allows clear identification. Because as you've noted, things that seem 'evil' in some circumstances, aren't. — Philosophim

Evil is involved in things like body and mental exercise. But the body and mental exercise are positive.

It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good. — Philosophim

The act of punishing the nasty kid or killing the person who is terminally ill is evil but it is right. These acts are not good. I already make a distinction between good and right to avoid confusion.

Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good. — Philosophim

Punishment to teach and discipline is right. It is not good given the definition of right and good.

Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil. — Philosophim

Punishment is generally evil. Punishment could be right or wrong though given the circumstances. Punishment for simply causing hurt is wrong.

Greetings again @Philosophim,



I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity.





I would consider myself a fairly moral person. I donate to charity. I moved to a different city to help my sister when she was diagnosed as bipolar. I believe in the goodness of the human race. I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many. So i do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages. — Philosophim


Yes, but look at what you write, and put it up against the known reality. Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. Just look, stare deeply into people’s eyes and souls, and judge their actions and what you know. Yes or No.



«I believe in the goodness of the human race.»

Is the human race morally good, in this present moment? Or were there ever a time when the human race was morally good? Simply apply your moral standard to everyone, as is.



«I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many.»

Does everyone you know have the same purpose? No one exploits others for their own gains entirely, and dismiss any hints at intelligence, thought and progress for the purpose of benefitting anyone but themselves? No one sticks to a self-serving agenda till they die, and no one has?

«So I do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages."



The kind of logic you are talking about isn’t inherently wrong or immoral, but forgetting the absolute when it comes to moral reasoning, is what I see as a rational error, and a grave one.
Our lives are finite, our moral is immediate. Either you help your sister, or you don’t. Our finite lives means our actions are absolute in [human] moral terms.

Your choices are absolute, and who you support, who you help, what you believe in and act in favor of, is absolute. 

Our actions aren’t relative; they are absolute, and you can’t undo anything. And so, instead of using relative terms, use absolute terms for your beliefs, and they come closer to being useful knowledge:



- You don’t believe in the goodness of the human race, you act consistently and unilaterally in favor of what you view as the goodness of the human race, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards what you view as the immorality of the human race.



- You act consistently and unilaterally towards intelligence, thought and progress benefitting everyone, whilst being irrevocably antagonistic towards the same being used for exploitation of the few on the many.



And lastly, you are consistently and unilaterally in your support of a humanity that pursues ever-increasing understanding and application of [a good] morality, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards a humanity that is fine with the morals of the dark ages.



Well, reading that, how do you feel?

Are you unaware of the opposite side, or are you simply so black and white in your thinking that you don’t acknowledge the opposite of your beliefs as a possibility? People that would want nothing more than to finally have a world without police or jails to think about. Are you just ignorant of this?



Now, of course, an argument might be that, yes, humanity can be both good and bad, and it is just mental health disease or lack of education that makes it so. Well, again, just look at reality. Are we different, or are we the same?


By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals.

If everyone is on the same page, working towards the same goals, just from different angles, your moral arguments are fine, as they are applicable with reality, but that isn’t present reality, and has never been.

Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed.
You can’t be like; oh, this powder, if mixed with water will cure all known diseases, but be careful, mix it with milk and people will be your complete, mindless slaves forever. That isn’t progress, that is a perversion of morals. Unless you can make 100% sure that it isn’t used for ‘evil’, it is an abomination of the absolute worst sort.



So to talk about physics like it is neutral, is simply forgetting history. If science is so great, it wouldn’t be used for so much trash. The atom bomb is much worse than an arrow, in scope, effect and evil, and science has enabled that.

And so, if your measure of good moral is science, I assume this might be as far as we go Philosophim.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence

I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Unvarnished truth is better than couched and unclear communication. I took no offense. :) I also understand where you're coming from completely. Let me explain.

I came up with the knowledge theory and then the moral theory years ago. When I first came up with the moral theory, I was terrified and put it down. The problem was if I didn't use it correctly, or set it up in a way where someone could manipulate it as a half truth as some people in power are want to do, it could be horribly misused.

Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I do. Its why I put it down so long. So what made me change my mind?

1. I wanted to know if I was wrong.
2. I have more experience in philosophy and a better sense of the big picture.
3. I've learned to trust humanity more.
4. AI is coming.
5. The standard for proof is high.

Generally humanity advances whether we want to or not. It is only by those who are careful, care about the outcomes, and have a vested interest in humanities prosperity over profit and exploitation that these advances are most beneficial. If I don't try, I'm leaving it in the hands of some who potentially does not have those considerations at heart.

I also believe in the human spirit more. There are evil people yes, but I would say the majority of us are neutral to good. Humanity always struggles with a new set of knowledge or technology, but ultimately benefits if they are willing to tackle it in the right way.

AI is also a real danger. I believe if AI advances without us having established an objective morality, we'll have the same situation that you fear. AI has no intuitions, no loyalty to humanity or life, and it may determine that if morality is subjective, it can be bent for its own benefit. If it has to reason though an objective consideration, in almost no scenario would it conclude that humanity, animals, or life on this Earth should ever be wiped out.

Finally, if I'm careful in the specifics, and continually expect a high bar to claim, "This is more moral", with it being open to being challenged with new information at any time, I believe the theory avoids easy manipulation. Once could manipulate it by 'lowering the bar', but people do that even with subjective moralities.

Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. The moral theory is about existence being good. Meaning a person's existence is put into the equation. You can't say, "All people must do X", because not all people are the same. Its more about, "If you're X in this situation Y, and you have a choice between A and B, do B'.

Well, reading that, how do you feel? — Caerulea-Lawrence

I have no problem with it, except that I 'mostly' commit to those ideals. We are not perfect, nor should we expect to be.

By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am measuring morals to the absolute reality of the situation. And in my experience, there is no other way. An absolute 'in every instance, do this' situation exists more rarely then you would think. We are part of existence, and thus we are part of morality. Morality does not have to be separate from us, but can be with us.

But I'm speaking in abstracts and feelings now. All I ask is for you to read the second part. If you read it and you don't like it, understood. But try to see what I'm doing first instead of fearing the unknown.

Hello again @Philosophim,

I did read the full theory initially, and I then went back to the first page.

From my experience so far, you seem conscientious and sincere in your pursuits, and I fully respect you for that - but that isn't enough for me. To work with someone, I need them to incorporate and work with all kinds of mediums, paradoxes and opposites, and the willingness to leave behind even their fundamental, partial, truths.

I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. I am not saying you don't read it and care about it, no, but you don't actually read it. You don't actually imagine a world where we, humans from each other, or humans from the universe, are fundamentally different, instead you believe you 'understand' me, when you actually have no idea. And so, we aren't really getting anywhere, from my point of view, and which is why I feel like things have come to an end.

Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. I am not discriminating between various types of knowledge, I am discerning for skill and complexity.
Is someone willing and able to incorporate multiple, mutually exclusive and seemingly paradoxical perspectives, is an important question, and can they do act and make decisions on multiple levels at once, whilst moving forward on questions that are hidden in many different pies, simultaneously?

I hope you find someone who can make this gem you care about shine clearer, but you will have to find someone else.

It has been a nice journey so far, and this is probably not the last you have heard of me, or that I am cutting you off or anything. I sincerely wish you well, but I respect my pursuit for what I believe in, and don't see you aiming for the same depth of complexity as me - without that meaning I disagree with you, just that I want to look at more sides of the elephant than one.

If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.

If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward!

Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I agree. Its only a start. Maybe one day it will be more.

If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.

If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure. — Caerulea-Lawrence

You as well Caerulea! You have been a wonderful person to chat with, and I'm glad to have met you. Please continue on your path and feel free to share it with others here. I'll see you around the forums. :)

I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward! — Philosophim

Hello @Philosophim,

It is with a greater sense of clarity, purpose, but also sadness I answer this time. I can only say likewise, and wish you the best as well.

This has been a long journey, a deep dive into sides of my own psyche that have long been underdeveloped, and it does feel good having come out the other end of this educational sparring with more insight. I thank you for that, and again appreciate the time, effort and conscientiousness you have put into not only your theories and models, but your answers as well.

I'll see what else there is to gain, and to share, with people here or elsewhere, and quite possibly we will virtually meet again.

I wish you all the best. It is a great gift to me knowing you do what you do, and I am glad to have met you, and have gained a lot from our interactions.

Take care.

Sincerely,
Caerulea-Lawrence