• Relativist
    2.8k
    Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism.
    — Relativist

    A feeling and a reason are two different products of the mind. A feeling is an impetus or summary that compels a person to action. A reason is the result of an analyzed situation that one can decide to act on.
    This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is.
    Philosophim
    You had said: "Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim."

    A whim is also a product of a mind - we would not describe the random result of a quantum collapse as a "whim". So both your options entail a mind. You seemed to imply that whatever happens has been caused or influenced by reasons/whims, and this would entail one or more supernatural actors. For brevity, assume one mind.

    Although you haven't suggested that this mind created the world (which would make it a god), you nevertheless seem to think everything that exists is due to reason or whim. This would apply to this mind as well. Once again, a vicious infinite regress of minds to provide a whim or reason. The best solution to this is a single mind - a god, which exists necessarily - and not for a reason or due to whim.


    No, then you should agree with my conclusion that "There should be existence" is the logically necessary base of an objective morality. You'll need to give greater detail why this isn't the case.Philosophim
    Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind. But independently of this. if something exists necessarily, no reason is needed to explain it other than the necessity of its existence, it can't NOT exist. This is the traditional reasoning behind the deistic argument from contingency, but applies equally to any uncaused first cause, even a materialistic one.

    Right, the underlying value for having that feeling is the species survival. But should the species survive? .... isn't the underlying objective purpose to ensure the species continues? Why should any species continue?Philosophim
    No, not really- there's no purpose behind evolution that is directing it (intelligent design notwithstanding - unless you believe in a god); it only seems that way, because we often focus on the organisms that comprise a species. Here's biological view of it:

    Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of alleles* (including the development of new alleles through mutation), within a gene pool** over time.

    *An allele is a gene variant, such as the variant that results in red hair or blue eyes.
    **gene pool: all the alleles in a population of organisms that interbreed.

    When an organism survives to maturity and reproduces, it is inserting genes into the gene pool. The longer it lives, the more opportunity to reproduce and thus to propagate is genes. If certain alleles (individually or in combination with others) produces a survival advantage, then over time - these alleles can come to dominate. The average impact to a gene pool that one organism can have is proportional to the size of the population - this is simple probability (1 out of 1000 organisms vs 1 out of 1000000).

    Over time, a subpopulation may become isolated from the mother population, and if this persists - that subpopulation's gene pool will evolve independently from the mother gene pool, and over time, this can result in a new species- the gene pool is quite a bit different from the original pool (a pool that may have also evolved away from what it was at the split).

    This doesn't entail an objective, it just entails genetic mutations that occur in a gene pool that may or may not provide an advantage to organisms that effects how much they reproduce.

    that's what I'm trying to pin down in the OP. The beginnings of any rational discussion of morality must conclude that given the options of existence vs complete non-existence, existence is better, and therefore the base of any good reason.Philosophim
    We all want to live, and most of us would like humanity to live on after our own deaths. I see no reason to think that this common desire exists independently of humans, and that's much of what I've been arguing. But I can agree that human (intersubjective*) morality is consistent with our drive/desire for humanity to continue and for it to flourish.

    *In philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people's cognitive perspectives.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    A whim is also a product of a mind - we would not describe the random result of a quantum collapse as a "whim". So both your options entail a mind. You seemed to imply that whatever happens has been caused or influenced by reasons/whims, and this would entail one or more supernatural actors.Relativist

    Either we're really not on the same page anymore, or you're purposefully avoiding the point. Emotions are not the same as reasons. Having an emotion, "I feel good, so its moral," is not the same as, "We should do this because this outcome is better than that outcome no matter how I feel."

    I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion, and you keep insisting that one belongs in this discussion. I respect your beliefs, and this is not an attack on them. But for the discussion of the OP, a God is not part of the equation and does not address my points.

    Non-sequitur. "Should" implies there being a reason, something other than a physical account of causation. So again, you're implying a mind.Relativist

    Except I've told you I'm looking for something apart from mind. Something core to existence itself. I don't mind if you introduce a mind or think it cannot exist without a mind, but I myself am not implying an objective morality necessitates a mind.

    But independently of this. if something exists necessarily, no reason is needed to explain it other than the necessity of its existence, it can't NOT exist.Relativist

    Correct. Again, this is the conclusion of the OP. So we are in agreement here.

    Why should any species continue?
    — Philosophim
    No, not really- there's no purpose behind evolution that is directing it (intelligent design notwithstanding - unless you believe in a god)
    Relativist

    I still think you're not fully understanding the question. I'm not asking, "How does evolution work." I'm not asking, "Why does evolution work?" I'm asking, "Should there be any evolution at all?" If existence has the moral objective at its base that, "Existence is good," then evolution which entails greater existence would seem to be a good thing, while evolution that entails less existence would seem to be a bad thing. For example a creature that forms that created matter, vs a creature that formed that would inevitably destroy all matter it could.

    We all want to live, and most of us would like humanity to live on after our own deaths. I see no reason to think that this common desire exists independently of humans, and that's much of what I've been arguing.Relativist

    Once again, that's not the question I'm pointing out. Why is the desire to live good? Why is life good? Why is existence itself good? I'm not asking for feelings, but objective answers.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Either we're really not on the same page anymore, or you're purposefully avoiding the point. Emotions are not the same as reasons. Having an emotion, "I feel good, so its moral," is not the same as, "We should do this because this outcome is better than that outcome no matter how I feel."Philosophim
    I agree, and I tried to address this when I clarified that the fundamental basis could be as simple as: the true meanings of good/bad entailing the feelings they invoke with respect to some very simple situations: the vicarious feeling we get when considering someone suffering in some way (i.e. empathy).

    This doesn't mean we must trust our feelings as moral judgements in all cases - it just means the meanings of good/bad the words have a non-verbal/emotive aspect to them. A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions.

    I also discussed the fact that we also apply learnings (what we teach your children and what our society teaches us) and reasoning when making moral judgements - so it's certainly much more than feelings.

    It seems that I didn't get my point across before, but I hope I've succeeded now. If not, then ask.

    I am not including a God in this discussion, I have told you a God is not part of this discussion,Philosophim
    You asked me to explain why I suggested it ("This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is"). I did just that: I showed that your unsupported assertion (that reason or whim must be involved) entails a God. I provided my analysis so you can identify a flaw in it. Instead, you're just complaining that I said it.

    Except I've told you I'm looking for something apart from mind. Something core to existence itself. I don't mind if you introduce a mind or think it cannot exist without a mind, but I myself am not implying an objective morality necessitates a mind.Philosophim
    How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds? Before humans existed, was bank fraud wrong? Was altruism good, when there were no humans?

    As I've tried to explain, it appears to me that human morality is entirely a human thing: it relates to human actions, and it entails human judgement. If you think it's more than that, then explain how that can be. Explain how bank fraud or murder is wrong even if there are no humans.

    "Should there be any evolution at all?"Philosophim
    Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement? If so, who's judgement are you interested in? Are you just asking because you want input to help you form a judgement?

    If you think "should" questions are something other than human judgements, explain how this can be.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I agree, and I tried to address this when I clarified that the fundamental basis could be as simple as: the true meanings of good/bad entailing the feelings they invoke with respect to some very simple situations: the vicarious feeling we get when considering someone suffering in some way (i.e. empathy).Relativist

    No, that's just a subjective experience. Let me use another example I gave another reader. You and I have a subjective experience of seeing red. But there is an objective wavelength of light underneath it that is what allows us to see red at all. If I'm color blind, that wavelength of red still exists. If I'm dead, that wavelength of red still exists. It is irrelevant whether there is something there to observe it or not, that wavelength of light persists. What will not exist is the subjective experience of red, but the objective reality of a red wavelength will still exist.

    Feelings are simply subjective experiences of reality. My point is that we may have different subjective feelings as to what is good, but there is an objective reality to good underneath it. Just like the experience of a red wavelength is not the same as the dry analysis of what is objectively red, the experience of an objective morality is not the same as our subjective experience of it.

    A computer couldn't understand it as we do, because they lack emotions.Relativist

    Correct. But if there is an objective morality, it won't need emotions. Whatever AI's subjective experience of an objective morality would be, it would still have an understanding of that underlying objective conclusion.

    I also discussed the fact that we also apply learnings (what we teach your children and what our society teaches us) and reasoning when making moral judgements - so it's certainly much more than feelings.Relativist

    As I've noted before, if we supply reason beyond emotion, then we are asserting an objectivity to morality beyond feelings. If I have a son or daughter that cannot feel empathy, I can teach them how to behave in social situations regardless. But I have to give them more than, "You have to behave this way because I feel its good, or others feel its good." Why should I listen otherwise? Most other people's feelings are irrelevant to me, and in many situations, should be. If moralities base is on feelings only, then the only reason to shape or follow any moral code is feelings. That's not how societies work. That's not how people work.

    You asked me to explain why I suggested it ("This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is"). I did just that: I showed that your unsupported assertion (that reason or whim must be involved) entails a God. I provided my analysis so you can identify a flaw in it. Instead, you're just complaining that I said it.Relativist

    I simply don't understand the point then. Emotions and reason's don't require a deity, and I still don't see why you think this does.

    How can that be? How can objective morality exist without minds?Relativist

    Did the wavelength of red exist prior to human beings observing it? Yes. If there is an objective morality there is no need for beings to observe it for it to exist. This is not to be confused with labeling it, understanding it, or having the subjective experience of it. All of those require an observer. What is being observed does not depend on us.

    As I've tried to explain, it appears to me that human morality is entirely a human thing: it relates to human actions, and it entails human judgement. If you think it's more than that, then explain how that can be. Explain how bank fraud or murder is wrong even if there are no humans.Relativist

    That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation. The OP only introduces the ground floor of morality which is answering the first and most basic question, "Should there be existence?" I do eventually build up to human morality and I start that in the second post linked at the end of this one. I get it, you want to dance in the human subjective experience, but to get there we have to build to it. I would try to explain more here, but that's why I wrote a few other posts. :) The point of this particular OP is, "If there is an objective morality, then its fundamental question, "Should there be existence," is "Yes". From there we can build, and I start doing so in the next post.

    "Should there be any evolution at all?"
    — Philosophim
    Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement?
    Relativist

    No. Should entails what is optimum for a system. In this case the system is "existence".
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Feelings are simply subjective experiences of reality. My point is that we may have different subjective feelings as to what is good, but there is an objective reality to good underneath it. Just like the experience of a red wavelength is not the same as the dry analysis of what is objectively red, the experience of an objective morality is not the same as our subjective experience of it.Philosophim
    So it appears you have some sort of hypothesis that goodness is some sort of existing entity that we perceive, or perhaps that its a physical property of...something (what?) Clarify exactly what you're proposing exists, and what facts this hypothesis is supposed to explain.

    Offhand, this just seems like an assumption you make because you want to believe there is some objective basis for morality. So please clear this up for me.

    If I have a son or daughter that cannot feel empathy, I can teach them how to behave in social situations regardless. But I have to give them more than, "You have to behave this way because I feel its good, or others feel its good." Why should I listen otherwise? Most other people's feelings are irrelevant to me, and in many situations, should be. If moralities base is on feelings only, then the only reason to shape or follow any moral code is feelings. That's not how societies work. That's not how people work.Philosophim
    If you were to have a child who lacks empathy, I would suggest consulting psychologists with expertise with trying to teach morals to sociopaths, since that is the defining feature of sociopaths. My understanding is that it would be very challenging (which is partly why I believe morality is rooted in the feelings of empathy). My non-expert opinion is that you should teach them there's a God who will punish them for their sins (appealing to their personal self-interest). Even if you don't believe it, it's a very common belief - so it's socially acceptable and has the potential for getting support from the members of the church you would join.

    That is because you are still only thinking in terms of subjective experience instead of looking for an objective foundation.Philosophim
    I see no reason to believe there is an objective foundation. You haven't provided one. I await your clarifying your hypothesis, and its factual basis.

    "Should there be any evolution at all?"
    — Philosophim
    Do you agree that a "should" question entails a judgement?
    — Relativist

    No. Should entails what is optimum for a system. In this case the system is "existence".
    Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists? Or that everything that happens to exist does exist? Or perhaps that humans exist, or maybe that you (yourself) exists?

    Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    So it appears you have some sort of hypothesis that goodness is some sort of existing entity that we perceive, or perhaps that its a physical property of...something (what?) Clarify exactly what you're proposing exists, and what facts this hypothesis is supposed to explain.Relativist

    Certainly, that's the focus of the OP. I believe goodness is the physical property of continued existence. Let me see if I can explain. Its amazing that we have a reality in which there is a law which states, "Matter can neither be created or destroyed." Except that philosophically we know that one part of this is false. As you noted, logically the ultimate origin of existence must not have a prior cause. Meaning, matter was 'created', 'incepted', or whatever you want to note. Read here if you're unsure what I'm talking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

    Scientifically, we also know the second part of this law is also theoretically false. The math that we understand at this point in history demonstrates that there should be a lot more matter left over after the big bang. One proposal to this is that there were nearly equal parts anti-matter which bound with the matter that existed, cancelling the matter out. By this, its been casually admitted that matter can be destroyed. But if we take the conclusions of matter formation we realize something that is logically possible. Matter does not have to form that cannot be destroyed.

    Just as matter could be incepted without prior cause, it could also break down or simply cease to exist. Now it wouldn't be the same type of matter we have today, as this is the type of matter that doesn't break down, at least for this long. But what if some matter did break down? That it wasn't antimatter, just the properties of that particularly formed matter that did not continue?

    If that is the case, what we have today is matter, or existence, which has as its core the resiliency to continue to exist in the face even extreme energy concentrations. Everything that exists is built out of this. This resiliency is the core of morality. The logic of the OP is to say, "If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" And what must be true if there is an objective morality is that "Existence should be."

    I see no reason to believe there is an objective foundation. You haven't provided one. I await your clarifying your hypothesis, and its factual basis.Relativist

    The reason to believe there is an objective basis is the patterns I've been noting. The fact that a subjective morality based entirely on emotions breaks down to where even you admit 'reason' gets involved. In other words, there is no concrete proof that morality is only purely subjective emotions. Do I have proof of an objective morality? Absolutely not, that's never been the goal of this paper. My point here is to say, "If one exists, what must be its base?" So the question we are debating is not whether one exists, its whether you think its possible for one to exist, and if so, does the logic I've put forth put forward a reasonable base to start from.

    Clarify what you mean by "existence". For example, are you referring to the fact that something exists?Relativist

    In the OP, it is a question of, "At least some existence" vs "Non-existence". That's as far as the OP starts.

    Also: on what basis is this system optimized? E.g. prolonging the system's existence? Enlarging its scope (like having more children)?Relativist

    That's what I explore after establishing the base. That starts in the next post linked in the OP. Of course its moot if you don't at least agree that the OP is worth consideration.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Its amazing that we have a reality in which there is a law which states, "Matter can neither be created or destroyed." Except that philosophically we know that one part of this is false.Philosophim
    It's anachronistic. Per general relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable. What is conserved is the total amount of mass+energy (see this). Regarding the matter/anti-matter balance issue, it's an open question in theoretical physics.

    what we have today is matter, or existence, which has as its core the resiliency to continue to exist in the face even extreme energy concentrations. Everything that exists is built out of this. This resiliency is the core of morality. The logic of the OP is to say, "If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" And what must be true if there is an objective morality is that "Existence should be."Philosophim
    This seems a product of your misunderstanding of the fundamental conservation law. Why did you write "matter, or existence"? How are the two related, particularly under the understanding that matter and energy are just different forms of the same thing?

    Just as matter could be incepted without prior cause,Philosophim
    Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause.
    The reason to believe there is an objective basis is the patterns I've been notingPhilosophim
    What you've noted is scientifically inaccurate. But if even if there were some so-called "resliency", it's ad hoc to claim this to be the "core of morality." This seems like a "objective morality of the gaps", although you haven't really identified a gap.

    The logic of the OP is to say, "If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" And what must be true if there is an objective morality is that "Existence should be."Philosophim
    I'll set aside the objections raised above, and just consider your sentence, ""If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" The answer depends on what objective morality IS. This was another of my questions. Is it a set of moral values (e.g. murder is wrong; altruism is good), or something else?

    The fact that a subjective morality based entirely on emotions breaks down to where even you admit 'reason' gets involved.Philosophim
    Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex.

    Do I have proof of an objective morality? Absolutely not, that's never been the goal of this paper. My point here is to say, "If one exists, what must be its base?" So the question we are debating is not whether one exists, its whether you think its possible for one to exist, and if so, does the logic I've put forth put forward a reasonable base to start from.
    This gets back to what I said in my first post: the existence of objective morality can be used to argue for the existence of God:
    P1 – If there is no God, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    P2 – Objective moral values and duties exist.
    C – Therefore, God exists.

    You're proposing that morality exists without a God. I agree that is logically possible, but it has a fatal implication: they exist by chance, so they are arbitrary. Arbitrariness is the base, if there is no God who designed them for some greater purpose he has in mind. I expect you wish to assume they are non-arbitrary. How can that be, if they weren't the product of design? It seems to me, the above argument shows that the best explanation for the existence of non-arbitrary morality is that a God exists. (personally, I don't think a God exists - and that's why I inferred the presence of intersubjective moral values. They aren't arbitrary - they are consistent with survival).
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Per general relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable.Relativist

    Correct, which is why I just used the term matter and instead of "Matter and energy". They're the same thing. Just giving a concrete to the abstract of existence as an example.

    Under the right conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Those conditions are the cause.Relativist

    What caused the energy to exist, which is matter? As you noted, all causality at the end boils down to an uncaused reason for existence.

    I'll set aside the objections raised above, and just consider your sentence, ""If an objective morality exists, what must be true?" The answer depends on what objective morality IS. This was another of my questions. Is it a set of moral values (e.g. murder is wrong; altruism is good), or something else?Relativist

    That is exactly what the OP walks through and concludes. I'm not intending to be short, I just don't have a lot of time to re-summarize tonight.

    Reason gets involved no matter what the basis is:moral questions can be complex, and evaluating them can be complex.Relativist

    Of course. But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right. Anything else that does not involve feelings must be dropped. My proposal lets us consider things other than feelings. Subjective moralities conclusion is ironically at odds with our feelings and practice, as well as the many other reasoned approaches we make towards morality.

    You're proposing that morality exists without a God. I agree that is logically possible, but it has a fatal implication: they exist by chance, so they are arbitrary.Relativist

    Everything exists by chance. "Arbitrary" would apply to everything then and is a pointless criticism to morality in general. Of course its not arbitrary, or you would have hung up on this discussion long ago. Further, if a God formed, it too would be an arbitrary formation, and we're stuck with the same pointless argument.

    that's why I inferred the presence of intersubjective moral values. They aren't arbitrary - they are consistent with survivalRelativist

    Why is your survival not arbitrary? Why are your feelings not arbitrary? By reason, how is a subjective morality not arbitrary? As you can see the arbitrary argument leads nowhere.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    What caused the energy to exist, which is matter? As you noted, all causality at the end boils down to an uncaused reason for existence.Philosophim
    It boils down to an initial, uncaused state of affairs. What that might be is unknown, but whatever it is, it exists for no reason. This is because to have reason would require there to be something existing ontologically prior to it, which is logically impossible.

    But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right.Philosophim
    That is categorically false. Self preservation, extended through empathy to the preservation of life in general, is the strongest mutual feeling that we have. It's sufficient to account for the "golden rule" (treat others as you would like to be treated) that has been developed in various cultures- apparently independently. All generally agreed moral values are consistent with it. Indeed we have other feelings/urges that we often act on that are inconsistent with our moral feelings, but we still make moral judgements of those actions - and never claim it's OK because we "felt like it".

    Everything exists by chance. "Arbitrary" would apply to everything then and is a pointless criticism to morality in general. Of course its not arbitrary, or you would have hung up on this discussion long ago.Philosophim
    You side-stepped my objection. Moral values that exist due to the blind forces of nature would be completely random. Some value happens to be good because some force of nature randomly with in the direction it did, and it could just as easily gone in another direction.

    Further, if a God formed, it too would be an arbitrary formation, and we're stuck with the same pointless argument.
    This is the Euthyphro dilemma, but it doesn't apply to my model of intersubjective moral values. In my model, good=directed positively toward life (preserving life and helping it flourish). It's fundamental basis is a properly basic belief- one that is innate and incorrigible. An act is right and good because it is consistent with this properly basic belief. Within the scope of humanity, no moral value is arbitrary because it is necessarily consistent with this this properly basic belief.

    In a broader sense, beyond the scope of humanity, the existence of humans is arbitrary. We happen to exist by a chance series of events in evolutionary history, and in cosmological history. So in this cosmic sense, there are no objective moral values. But our scope of interest is humanity: our basic moral value is an intrinsic part of being human. As a properly basic belief, a moral value is right because we all believe it to be right, and it is a belief that has no defeaters. It's reasonable and rational to retain a properly basic belief that has no defeaters.

    So my foundation of morality is epistemic. You're inventing an ontological basis for it, so you need to account for why natural forces would just happen to produce the values that it did, and provide some rationale to consider them non-arbitrary. There are, BTW, theistic arguments that deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. You can google them if you like, but you'll find they won't fit your paradigm. You're on your own.

    Why is your survival not arbitrary? Why are your feelings not arbitrary? By reason, how is a subjective morality not arbitrary? As you can see the arbitrary argument leads nowhere.Philosophim
    I answered this above. Our survival IS arbitrary in a cosmic sense, but it is NOT arbitrary in the only sense that's relevant to humanity. We judge morals in terms of who and what we are. Now you answer your own question within your paradigm.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    It boils down to an initial, uncaused state of affairs. What that might be is unknown, but whatever it is, it exists for no reason. This is because to have reason would require there to be something existing ontologically prior to it, which is logically impossible.Relativist

    We're in complete agreement here.

    But if what is good is feelings, then the only reason we can conclude is whatever we feel is right, and whoever has might gets to assert what they feel is right.
    — Philosophim
    That is categorically false. Self preservation, extended through empathy to the preservation of life in general, is the strongest mutual feeling that we have.
    Relativist

    You declared it to be false, but your admittance that its 'the strongest mutual feeling we have' means its true. You essentially said, "Its not only feelings, but the majority of us have a strong feeling". In other words, might makes right. As long as the majority have that feeling and can enforce that feeling, that's morality.

    Indeed we have other feelings/urges that we often act on that are inconsistent with our moral feelings, but we still make moral judgements of those actions - and never claim it's OK because we "felt like it".Relativist

    Then what you're saying is morality is not based on our feelings alone. This is the problem again with subjective morality. The only answer is, "Whatever I feel, whatever I enforce." No one likes that, so there is an attempt to sneak 'other reasons' in. What are those other reasons if not feelings? In which case we have a morality that does not rely on feelings alone.

    We've gone around this a few times now, and I feel this probably won't alter your point. If there's anything new to add feel free, but I think we're probably at odds for now.

    You side-stepped my objection. Moral values that exist due to the blind forces of nature would be completely random.Relativist

    No, they would be consequences of that nature. Because again, the argument of, "completely random" would apply to everything even apart from morals and is a dead end.

    This is the Euthyphro dilemma, but it doesn't apply to my model of intersubjective moral values. In my model, good=directed positively toward life (preserving life and helping it flourish). It's fundamental basis is a properly basic belief- one that is innate and incorrigible.Relativist

    So based on an 'arbitrary' feeling. Of course it applies to you. If everything is arbitrarily made, so are your feelings. You like preserving life only because you feel it. You can't give me an actual reason why life is positive beyond that. Its fundamental basis is purely emotional and nothing more.

    Within the scope of humanity, no moral value is arbitrary because it is necessarily consistent with this this properly basic belief.Relativist

    But it is arbitrary to say the scope of humanity matters at all. That humans should exist at all. Of course I don't believe that, but we need more than feelings to explain that.

    But our scope of interest is humanity: our basic moral value is an intrinsic part of being human. As a properly basic belief, a moral value is right because we all believe it to be right, and it is a belief that has no defeaters.Relativist

    Its not intrinsic, and we don't all believe it. It is no more than a feeling, and is easily defeated by any other feelings and basic logic. If I can find one person who disagree with what is moral then you, then you're wrong. I disagree, therefore you're wrong.

    So my foundation of morality is epistemic.Relativist

    No its not, its a belief based on a feeling. An assertion no more foundational than belief in a God.

    There are, BTW, theistic arguments that deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. You can google them if you like, but you'll find they won't fit your paradigm. You're on your own.Relativist

    That was a criticism of your point, not mine.

    Our survival IS arbitrary in a cosmic sense, but it is NOT arbitrary in the only sense that's relevant to humanity.Relativist

    Only because you feel that way. I feel there is morality that is not relevant to humanity, and would exist even if we were gone. And since you believe morality is subjective based on feelings, I guess I'm right eh?

    The paradigm I have presented is the OP and a note that a subjective morality does not serve any rational purpose, but is just a surface level feeling that fails upon close inspection. Feel free to go back to the OP at this point if you're interested. If not, I'm not sure there's anything more that you can add, and I'm not sure I can either.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    I feel there is morality that is not relevant to humanity, and would exist even if we were gone. And since you believe morality is subjective based on feelings, I guess I'm right eh?

    The paradigm I have presented is the OP and a note that a subjective morality does not serve any rational purpose, but is just a surface level feeling that fails upon close inspection. Feel free to go back to the OP at this point if you're interested. If not, I'm not sure there's anything more that you can add, and I'm not sure I can either.
    Philosophim
    Your paradigm assumes there are moral values existing external to humans that were caused to exist by undirected natural forces. You have not explained how these moral values are non-arbitrary. In the case of a God, the answer theists give is that God is Goodness. You don't have that.

    You haven't even said what you're referring to as existing externally to us. I have used the term "moral values", and you haven't disagreed. If it IS moral values: what are they? For example, does every statement "x is wrong" "y is good" correspond to some object existing out in the ether? Or are there just foundational moral statements existing out there?

    You also haven't explained how we know what these moral values (or whatever it is) are- how they influence our moral judgments. You seem to deny feelings are involved, so what is it?

    I'll refrain from responding to your criticism of my paradigm until you fully address this.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Your paradigm assumes there are moral values existing external to humans that were caused to exist by undirected natural forces. You have not explained how these moral values are non-arbitrary.Relativist

    My point is that noting the natural world is 'arbitrary' doesn't make any point. We both agree that the universe is uncaused, meaning we cannot look outside of the universe for explanation. We can only look within it. The term 'arbitrary', if you are to use it against morality, would apply to everything in the universe at its core. You could just use the word 'random', but arbitrary adds an unneeded emotional element of dismissal to it.

    As I pointed out earlier, the subjective experiences we have are based on underlying objective reality. Like a wavelength of light that we classify as red allows us to subjectively experience the color red. Of course, we could also say that the wavelength is arbitrary, the subjective experience is arbitrary, and people are arbitrary too. After all, its all ultimately the result of an uncaused event. This is of course nihilism, which I don't think you agree with either.

    Further, I'll mention again that I believe morality is a consequence of existence that 'just won't quit'. We are made out of this existence, and this property of continued existence repeats across what is. While it may have been random that some existence formed that doesn't quit, vs possible existence that formed and did quit, the existence we have today at its base, is resilient in its continued existence.

    After establishing here the base idea that if there is an objective morality, then the rational base of any objective morality would be, "There should be existence", I expand logically from there. In the second post I go through and think, "If this is a base level of goodness, what can we build from that?" I would actually love your thoughts on that there, as I am not 100% convinced I'm doing that part right and actually want some decent criticism to refine or abandon it for another approach.

    In the second post I find some rules and patterns for existence as 'existences', or identified differences within the whole of everything. Are there certain interactions or setups that create more overall existences within existence than others? As a basic example, a universe with the same mass as ours that is only full of hydrogen atoms vs ours with 100+ elements.

    After establishing some of those base patterns in existence, I move up to life and demonstrate these patterns repeat. Finally I get to human morality and show these patterns continue in personal and societal evaluations as well. If you're interested in exploring that, there are only a few things we need to settle here.

    1. You believing in exploring a potential objective morality.
    2. You believe that the argument given in this OP is rational enough to view as a starting base to continue with the next post.

    And that's really it. If you're interested, read the next post and post your criticism there. As I mentioned, I do not think I 'nailed it', and I need other people to really hammer into it. So if the two above conditions have been satisfied for you, I'll take further questions and points there. If you still have questions on the first two points, then address them here.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    My point is that noting the natural world is 'arbitrary' doesn't make any point. We both agree that the universe is uncaused, meaning we cannot look outside of the universe for explanation. We can only look within it. The term 'arbitrary', if you are to use it against morality, would apply to everything in the universe at its core. You could just use the word 'random', but arbitrary adds an unneeded emotional element of dismissal to it.Philosophim
    I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind. You sidestep this with vagueness- a belief that this vague moral object exists and in some vague way, this is involved in our moral judgements.

    This is relevant to your question about the implications of there being objective morals. If objective morality is rooted in a mind, it would have different implications than if there is no mind. But it appears to me that objective morals entaiis a mind because it would have to be the product of intent. Since you deny that, your position seems incoherent.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind.Relativist

    Does a red wavelength of light have intent behind it? No. Is a red wavelength an objective entity? Yes. My intent is to find a morality that exists like a wave of light. We may subjectively interpret it in different ways, but its something underlying that we're all observing.

    This is relevant to your question about the implications of there being objective morals. If objective morality is rooted in a mind, it would have different implications than if there is no mind.Relativist

    I've mentioned this a few times, and will do one more time in case you have any fears I'm going to recant later on. There is no mind that intends morality. There is no God. This is not my opinion or way to shape you into doing what I want. This is an objective exploration into the nature of morality as existence itself. You may note that my positions may be incoherent in the next post and you might be right. As I've noted, I need other people to look at it besides myself. But I feel its fairly clear hear that it is not.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Does a red wavelength of light have intent behind it? No. Is a red wavelength an objective entity? Yes. My intent is to find a morality that exists like a wave of light. We may subjectively interpret it in different ways, but its something underlying that we're all observing.Philosophim
    You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like moral imperatives. Correct me if this is not what you mean.

    A red wavelength of light exists by brute fact. Its existence has relevance to the deterministic chain of causation, but it entails no "shoulds" outside of this. So if your morality exists like a wave of light, it may have some relevance to the deterministic causal chain, but there are no "shoulds" outside its role in causation.


    ...morality as existence itself.Philosophim
    I asked you this before, but I don't believe you answered. What do you mean by "existence"? For example: are you referring to the totality of existence? The fact there reality exists rather than not? Or perhaps you're referring to OUR exististence? I have followup questions, depending on your answer.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like a moral imperative. Correct me if this is not what you mean.Relativist

    Right, this is the logic. Morality is what should be. If there is an objective morality, then we boil every moral question down to what should be implicitly answered first. "Should there be existence?" And by existence we mean, "Something vs nothing". So not any one particular set of existences, only existence vs nothing at all. The OP concludes that if there is an objective morality, the only answer which would logically make sense is "There should be existence".
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Right, this is the logic. Morality is what should be.Philosophim
    How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically? You compared it to a red wavelength of light, but that entails nothing like a moral imperative - it just entails some role in the deterministic evolution of the universe.

    *If the moral imperative is random, it's irrelevent - there can't have the sort of meaningful implications that you're looking for. The imperative "don't steal" could just as easily come out "do steal".
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically?Relativist

    Everything comes from an undesigned universe that evolves 'debatably' deterministically. I don't want to sidetrack too much, but if an undesigned universe can incept without prior cause, what's to stop other things from also happening later in the timeline? Such things would be completely unpredictable. Again, not a design intent, just random additions.

    So if everything comes from this, what do you mean by relevant? Everything is relevant to that. As I've been noting, from the logic I've established above I hypothesize that morality at its base is the result of matter that has existed without cessation for 13.8 billion years. It is this unexplainable continued existence that is the base of all morality. Its not that there is a want, or desire, or conscious impetus. Just like there is no want or conscious impetus behind atoms grouping into molecules, molecules grouping into DNA, and ultimately creating life. I believe it is simply a consequence of 'eternal' matter. This is of course completely my musing after exploring the topic more fully and I genuinely wonder what you'll think after looking at the whole thing as well.

    One major problem at this point is you're trying to figure out everything from my one little post noting that at its base IF there is an objective morality, existence is good. I've just told you 1+1=2 and you're asking me how its possible calculus can come from that. You're not really going to understand until you go through the rest. I'm not trying to trick you or do some, "Gotcha!" at the end. I'm genuinely exploring an idea that no one has ever had before. And I need other people to give it a genuine look. Your criticism has been understandable and the questions good, but you'll probably do better if you keep reading. For all I know my continued reasoning from this point is like most philosophers, "A solid start that loses steam midway through".

    You're not confessing I'm right by moving on. I hope these explanations give you a 'good enough to explore it more' vibe and keep going. So if you don't mind, would you read the next section and point your criticism there? I'm not sure there's much to explore in this post at this point, and I would love it if someone with a keen mind took a look at where I go from here.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Everything comes from an undesigned universe that evolves 'debatably' deterministically. I don't want to sidetrack too much, but if an undesigned universe can incept without prior cause, what's to stop other things from also happening later in the timeline? Such things would be completely unpredictable. Again, not a design intent, just random additions.Philosophim
    A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won.Relativist

    No, I don't think so. If I'm right in the logic put forth, in at least any universe we can imagine, 'existence should be' is the necessary base answer to any objective morality. Second, all objective conclusions are within the universe that exists. This 'arbitrary' argument is pointless, which I've noted several times now. You still think morality comes from something else. I'm noting its a property/consequence of existence itself. It doesn't matter how that existence formed.

    Now we've gone around on this point for a couple of posts, and I've noted that if you want a better understanding, its best you read the second post linked in the OP. I'm not sure there's anything to add either way from what's been noted in the OP at this point. If you're willing to think on something new and explore, I think you'll enjoy it, for the novelty at least. If you're here only to insist I can't do what I'm doing, you really don't have the understanding you need to convince me at this point. Not that I can't be convinced in later arguments, I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong and adapt where needed. But I feel we've reached the limits within this particular post.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    No, I don't think so. If I'm right in the logic put forth, in at least any universe we can imagine, 'existence should be' is the necessary base answer to any objective morality.Philosophim
    Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition".
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    122
    Definitions:
    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Philosophim

    The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good."

    It's merely an occasion sentence.
    Further morality also measures what is bad too.
    And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.

    Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows.

    Good and Bad are what should be,
    The Good and The Bad are intrinsically linked, you cannot have a good example without a bad example.

    P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

    P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other

    C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition".Relativist

    The problem with this statement is that you haven't just declared that an objective morality cannot exist. This statement declares that nothing objective can ever exist. Its the same thing as saying, "An objective evaluation of light waves can never occur because its completely random that light waves were made."

    Your central argument here is you think how something came to be as the same as its possibility to be. That's false. Morality as I've noted, does not come from an intelligent being. It doesn't come from outside of what exists. It is found within existence. So whether that existence formed is random or not is irrelevant to its existence. Same with a wavelength of light. My point is that if existence is, there is a rational initial proposal to objective morality that we can reasonably look at and explore.

    Are you willing to move on Relativist? This doesn't mean you admit that I'm right. But for the last time, I will ask that I would like someone as keen as yourself to look at the next steps that I'm proposing. I think it would help you understand a bit more what I'm talking about overall, where I'm going with this, and possibly give you the ammunition you need to point out issues with it that I'm not seeing as I move along with this. You may have an underlying point that you're not quite able to communicate because you're coming from a stance that from my viewpoint, is limited in understanding what I mean by a non-entity pushed objective morality. I look forward to it as I think you're one of the few people who can understand and evaluate what I'm doing.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good."DifferentiatingEgg

    It's merely an occasion sentence.
    Further morality also measures what is bad too.
    And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.[/quote]

    Ok, I appreciate this critique. First, what is an 'occasion' sentence? Second, the evaluation of what is good by consequence includes the evaluation of what is bad. If good is what should be, bad is what should not be. Third, if good is what should be, then what should be must involve the context of the situation. So for example, if a person is starving and will die, the objective morality I ultimately conclude here would say stealing food to live is good. In the case of a person who can buy food and just doesn't want to, it would be bad. An objective evaluation requires careful evaluation.

    Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows.DifferentiatingEgg

    This is a fantastic argument, and I'm glad we've started here. Without an agreement on the definitions, there's no point in moving to the next steps.
    P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

    P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other

    C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad.
    DifferentiatingEgg

    I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    122
    I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here.Philosophim

    They exist together or not at all is my point.
    And what's good for me may be bad for you.
    Can you have a "Good" without defining "Bad" if valuation is done between opposites. Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. We can, with the right amount of will power prevent bad impulses. But what's stronger? Sometimes a person's will to survive. Because for them the Good is not starving but taking from someone.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    They exist together or not at all is my point.DifferentiatingEgg

    And we agree!

    And what's good for me may be bad for you.DifferentiatingEgg

    True. A subjective morality is merely opinion though while and objective morality would be a reasoned fact. If you're starving without alternative, its good to steal food. If I'm not starving and have money, its bad for me to steal food.

    Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality?DifferentiatingEgg

    Good is what should be. "Be" is exist.

    Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions.DifferentiatingEgg

    That would be a moral decision. So for example, I might have the intent at an outcome, but fail. So I may intend to do good by donating to an organization, but it turns out that organization was corrupt. I may have had the intent to do good, but the money ended up not being used the way I intended. What should be is that I donate money to an organization and they use it as promised. What is bad is the organization not using the money as promised. My intentions, or moral action, was good, but the outcome was not good because the organization lied.

    An objective morality would be a reasoned methodology that allows an assessment of what is good and bad beyond subjective emotional experience. With a subjective morality, we can never reasonably state that an organization scamming a person's donations is bad. With an objective morality we can.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    122

    Well scams inherently feel bad but can be aimed at doing great things. A person who donates for x but that donation goes to y. There are historical examples, quite a few.

    Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense.

    That produces inability in action, often through shame and guilt. Because humans are irrational even at the best of times.

    Even if it does workout in logic, logic has its shortcomings in not exactly reflecting reality. Like communism could work... but humans invariably form into Heirarchies where a government is merely an organizing surface.

    And since there will certainly be examples of "bad" humans in this "Good should exist" scenerio, and bad should not exist ... well, what then?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense.DifferentiatingEgg

    That's why we're careful here in our definitions. Is good what should be, and is bad what shouldn't be at its very basic? Do you feel we've reached an assessment of the definitions which allows you to continue on with the rest of the OP?
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    122


    No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad."

    It "shouldn't" but it does.

    And without that which shouldn't be there would be no Good. Due to a lack of evaluation.

    The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

    Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad."DifferentiatingEgg

    I think that's fine. What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?
1678910
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.