It seems to me that we must first distinguish between the two ways in which we determine the so-called default state of an object. The first one is the one in which we determine the default by looking at the way the object is most of the time. If we apply it to human beings, then I'd say generally human beings feel okay, not happy or sad, but just okay.

The second way to determine a default state would be to determine what an object naturally evolves towards. In the case of human beings, it seems that we constantly evolve from happiness to depression and back again. So the default state of human beings would be one of constant change, which is pretty much the reverse of a default state.

Can someone please explain the OP to me ? I can't understand it.

What do you mean exactly by "default human state" ?

This is what usually happens. Propaganda is made for "the individu" (the undividable) but this individuality is merely exploited in favor of a small group of possessing individuals. — Raymond

Exactly.

when examining yourself and your goals you realize that wealth and power are not as good as you thought, they are merely tools that can be used for an end, and they can do great good and evil. Perhaps if people were taught how to think critically, they’d think twice before they start committing evil in the name of some personal desire.

A few people owning most of the things is not necessarily a problem. It can be a good thing if those people use their resources for improving the welfare of society in general. In the case where they use it only for their own welfare, it becomes a problem. That's why measures against monopolies and moral and civic education is important, not just for the rich but for society as a whole.

However, one might say that because the economic power of the rich is already established by the time it becomes a problem, it is too late. The rich will immediately take control of any institution that can become a threat and no progress will be made. In that case, it seems that the only ways to rectify the situation are:
-the revolution of the rest of society;
-civilizational failure.

If revolution happens, there are still a risk that the leaders of the revolution end up becoming another parasitic elite. In that case, the previous dilemma arises once again.

If civilizational failure happens, either the people become miserable and disorganized, or they migrate to other countries, or they all die. In the first two cases, a new parasitic elite might still appear.

So from this, we have learned that any effort towards better social organization will potentially end in another situation with a parasitic elite. We must also remember that this elite is composed of people with valuable skills, but who use it in the wrong way.

The ways out of this it seems to me are:
-the elites and the rest of society become perfectly moral beings
-the elites and the rest of society become perfectly rational self-centered beings and the elites try calm down the rest of society through improvement of their material conditions out of self-interest
-the elites are replaced by perfectly rational and moral AI
-the economy becomes extremely adaptive through advanced communication technology and centralized power becomes less efficient than the extremely adaptive and quick spontaneous organization of high-tech decentralized free markets

it’s not empathy for our moral worth, it’s moral worth from empathy. Basically, as you understand that you are more alike than different from other people, you would value them like you because if you are the same, then you have the same value.

then what do you consider altruism ?

Giving someone the right to control and regulate and make decisions on your behalf is not an act of altruism. — NOS4A2

Altruism is when you act with the interests of everyone in mind. Everyone votes for some decision or group because they believe that they will benefit the interests of everyone. Whether or not what or who they have voted for succeeds at that does not change the fact that the voter was well-intentioned.

Well, if we are all equal in duty, or something else, I don't necessarily see how that would belittle an equality of moral consideration. For example, death is sure to come to all, so why treat others differently? — john27

Treating others the same in that case would be out of empathy, not out of their actual moral worth.

Therefore, should it not follow that something besides a moral agent could conduct or inform our morality? (e.g we are all the same based on the universe, or based on death, therefore everyone is equal) — john27

It seems to me it is possible. But the meaning of 'equal' changes. If you say that we are all equal because we all must conform to God's will, then we are all equal in duty. But that is not the definition of equality given earlier. Assuming that morality comes from outside agents, we can say that we have equal rights and responsibilities, based on whatever external source of morality you take. It's close to the previous definition, but not quite the same.

Additionally, moral consideration is actually useless in that case. If you have your own responsibilities and rights to some external source of morality, why care about other people at all ? Wouldn't it be more rational to look after your own moral worth only ? Perhaps if that source of morality requires you to care for others equally, then yes, you can still say we are equal.

When we say that humans are equal, it seems that it means that humans deserve equal moral consideration. So do human beings deserve equal moral consideration ?

It seems to me that moral consideration only applies if we assume some ethical system based on moral agents and their characteristics and abilities as opposed to some abstract and/or external entity, such as the will of a god.

Therefore, if morality comes from something external to agents, then the question is meaningless because no agent deserves moral consideration. But if it comes from the humanity of people themselves, then every human being must be treated equally. But if you take a utilitarian or Kantian position, then there are additional criteria, so some humans -fetuses, people in permanent vegetative states, and possibly infants I think- would be excluded.

It seems to me the concept behind the word is quite useful as it corresponds to something that actually exists (the subjective properties of an experience). When a ball hits your head, you feel pain, and that pain is subjective, it's your pain and yours alone. No one else can know it without having experienced something similar themselves or without asking you. The concept then can be used to refer to those experiences. But it also seems that it is too vague, as qualia can be pain, or mental images, or emotions and a lot of other things. And a vague concept is just as good as no concept at all.

(Re)posting this here because I don't know how exactly how merging a discussion works

I propose that we should first make a distinction between perfect justification, partially imperfect justification and completely imperfect justification. A perfect justification would be one where the justification completely rules out the possibility of the belief being false, for example, 1 + 1 = 2 completely rules out the possibilty of 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples being false.

Partially imperfect justification is justification that decreases the probabilty of the belief being false, but that does not completely rule it out. there are better and worse partially imperfect justifications. For example, looking at a clock and inferring that it is 12 o'clock is partially imperfect justification.

Completely imperfect justification is justification that does not affect the probability of the blief being false at all. For example, "roses are red" does not affect the probability of "John has a dog" being false at all.

Now, I'm not sure for what to do next. Based on that, we could make a distinction between perfect knowledge, partially imperfect knowledge, and completely imperfect knwoledge, or we could consider one or both of the two later as not knowledge at all.

(As I am a layman, I am aware that some philosopher I haven't read or heard about could already have proposed those ideas, so please inform me if it is the case)

But what are the implications of having more universes that 2 or more universes are exactly identical to one another? Would this be mathematically useless when trying to make the universe seem balanced? — TiredThinker

What do you mean by "mathematically useless" ? Why should a multiverse be "useful" or "balanced" ? Useful (or useless) to whom ?

In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind. — Shawn

What do you mean exactly by that ?

If an incitement is so strong that it becomes your present purpose, if even for only a second, could it be considered an incitement still? — john27

No it cannot be considered incitement. I agree with the claim that incitement can become our purpose, but not with the claim that it always is our purpose.

Hunger incites you to eat, but you don't necessarily eat afterwards. That's why intermittent fasting exists. It does help us make our decisions, but we don't have to follow it.

So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas

I agree. But I think that there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example.

And what do you consider as justification?

I would argue that because we are constrained by physical stimulation, such as pain or pleasure, we would not have full control over our purpose. — john27

I think that physical stimulation informs our decisions, but does not necessarily restrict them. Sometimes we do painful things for long-term happiness, and we also do things for reasons that are not associated with physical pleasure for example.

This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me. — T Clark

It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense.

So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival — Alkis Piskas

I agree, I think that the closest we can get to objective morality is intersubjectivity. But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. So doing whatever ensures that would be good. And we also like developing our talents, helping our neighbors, and a lot of other things.

No. Unless their pursuit of happiness conflicts with someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness — T Clark

Let's imagine a serial killer who pursues happiness through murder is chasing a victim. The victim uses a bat to hit the murderer. The victim effectively is conflicting with the murderer's pursuit of happiness. But in the same time, the murderer does that too. Now, who is most in the wrong here ? And how do we know who is most in the wrong ?

The Declaration goes on to say "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." According to our values, the government should be set up to deal with the conflicts that will always arise. — T Clark

And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? What are the indicators and information they should use ?

As I noted, I never said no one has life goals or that people shouldn't have them, only that I don't. — T Clark

Then I guess that flourishing is more about being in a fulfilling states of mind, and that it can be accomplished through life goals but not is not necessarily caused by it.

their right to pursue happiness in their own manner — T Clark

Unless their manner of pursuing happiness causes more suffering than happiness.

I may have goals in my life, but that doesn't mean my life has a goal. Actually, the older I get, I find I don't really have any goals in my life either, but my point stands. — T Clark

Let's say John has some life goal, becoming a famous singer. Now he uses his time in this world (his life), to achieve that goal, which means his life is an efficient cause towards a final end.

I have no objections to you having a goal for your life, but what's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. People are different. — T Clark

Which is why my views on morality are based on respect for others' happiness.

how do I change the discussion title ?

I don't know why but I haven't seen this paper seen until now somehow. The fact that we have some reward mechanism when we act morally implies that morality is a habit, formed over time thanks to feedback from that sense of fulfillment, which gives hope for the possibility of moral progress for the individual and society as a whole. Perhaps one day humanity will see a time where people stop wasting time on hating each other for petty reasons.

The problem now is in finding how to make people act morally. The approach of giving rewards to good action is not efficient in my opinion, because it externalizes that sense of fulfillment when we do something good and replaces it with mere pleasure, giving the false impression that good people have some significant amount of "success", which ends up discouraging people when they realize that being good does not necessarily imply success.

I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps

I still think we disagree. Pursuing happiness just means living life as you think is best. I've committed to respecting other's right to do that. I don't see that has anything to do with goals or purpose — T Clark

Living life as you think is best implies living as you want to as long as it does not harm others. You have some ideal and you try to achieve it. That seems very much like a goal.

Your thoughts? — boagie

I agree with almost everything you said, but I don't think that there is a distinction between what you call the synthetic and natural environment as you call them. What you call the synthetic environment comes from the natural environment, and is a part of it because it cannot exist without it.

Jefferson et. al. put it better than I could - I recognize that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — T Clark

So you mean to respect the rights of others. But the pursuit of happiness being one of those rights you have listed, then I don't think we really disagree with each other don't you think ?

respect for them — T Clark

What do you mean by respect for a person ?

Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being — 180 Proof

I think that all you have mentioned here are essential to well-being, so acting towards others in a way that promotes or ar least respects them is an essential part of ethical behavior. Also, those things are all either something we try to attain because of some perceived intrinsic value, or something we want for something else. We want to be healthy because we want to live long, or not to suffer for example. We want peace of mind because we see it as inherently good.

To me, the important thing is the idea of using people as a means to an end. That means making decisions about their lives for our own benefit without regard to their preferences or the effects of our decisions on them. — T Clark

And our preferences are based on what we want to do, someone who likes thinking would prefer spending time alone over going outside for example, so it seems respecting those preferences is the same as respecting their goals.

I don't feel as if I have a purpose. I don't see that as a bad thing. I am responsible for my own actions and I guess I could choose a purpose, but it would seem degrading. Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself? — T Clark

I don't get the connection. I can treat someone as an end in themselves without considering their idea of their own purpose. — T Clark

It seems we have a different meaning of the term end-in-themselves. What do you mean by it ?

What if the other person's goal is one that I don't respect. I don't have to support it, but I still need to respect the person. — T Clark

You don't support it, but you still have to respect it if it doesn't do more harm than good.

Why does "we must treat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves" mean that we must respect the goals of others. How does that lead to "it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals."? — T Clark

My interpretation of it is that we are autonomous beings with our own goals, so we must consider the goals of other people when interacting with them.

Respecting the flourishing of others, which may be part of the categorical imperative (I'm not sure), is not the same as promoting the flourishing of others, which it seems to me is not. — T Clark

Promoting flourishing indeed not a part of the categorical imperative. I only added it because it is possible that teh purpose you have chosen for yourself is to help others accomplish their goals.

My interpretation of the categorical imperative can be reformulated as a respect for the goals of others, and the accomplishment of those goals is flourishing.

What [the hell] is the point of my existence?" vs "What are my aims, purposes, projects, goals?" — Cuthbert

I think that the point of a person's existence is what they choose to do. If they want to use their existence to become a musician, then that is the point of their existence.

I don't believe we have a purpose and I don't see how having a purpose would necessarily be relevant to how we treat others. — T Clark

It seems that we do have a purpose, though it is choosen by the person themselves. You choose your own purpose. We choose our actions.

Having a purpose seems relevant to how we treat others because it says what we should do. The purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore it should cut. If the purpose of life is happiness for example, then we must do as much as we can to be happy, and it's hard to be happy if you disrespect others because they will resent you eventually.

so, if I get it, the main point is that because the particulars and the universals are an indeterminate dyad, the two cannot exist independently from each other, which contradicts Plato's doctrine of Forms ?

I don't really understand what is an "indeterminate dyad".

Could someone please explain the OP to me ? I can't manage to understand what it says for the most part.

It seems to me that words do have some kind of essence. The essence of the word "cat" for example can be said to be the specific order of the letters and the pronunciation.