Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

[statiktech]

Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.

Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.

That is not what morality is at all. If that is the basis of your thoughts on morality, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your stance seriously.

[Jakob]

Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.

Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.

That is not what morality is at all. If that is the basis of your thoughts on morality, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your stance seriously.

It's not? But even if it weren't, what do you think it is?
To be sure no morality that hitherto existed or was recorded stated that everyone should be his own judge and no one elses.

Be it the Ten Commandment or any other religious morality, or that of Humanism or Marxism, its always about some allegedly objective standards of right and wrong.
Moses, nor Marx nor Jesus nor any morality-creator came out with an argument overtly based on his personal values.

The only ones who did that sort of thing successfully were Dictators like Napoleon and some others, but they aren't credited with being moral men.

[statiktech]

You seem to have the idea that I've couched some claim to moral relativism or subjectivism in my previous statement, which isn't the case.

Morality is subject dependent. People make value judgments based on both subjective and objective criteria. There are people who believe values are determined by external sources, but it's always the people themselves who ascribe and act according to those values. Even people who act on the basis of being judged by an external source do so on their own accord in hopes of being judged favorably.

To be sure no morality that hitherto existed or was recorded stated that everyone should be his own judge and no one elses.

You can speak for all people in the whole of history? Does the quote "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" ring any bells? I don't think that's how morality works to be sure, but some people seem to have believed as much. People can be wrong in their value judgments and their actions regardless of what they believe. People can be wrong about morality.

[Jakob]

You seem to have the idea that I've couched some claim to moral relativism or subjectivism in my previous statement, which isn't the case.

Hello Statik
Let me give it a shot. Ill respond to three errors I perceive.

Morality is subject dependent. People make value judgments based on both subjective and objective criteria. There are people who believe values are determined by external sources, but it's always the people themselves who ascribe and act according to those values. Even people who act on the basis of being judged by an external source do so on their own accord in hopes of being judged favorably.

- "Being judged favourably" isn't a moral value.

To be sure no morality that hitherto existed or was recorded stated that everyone should be his own judge and no one elses.

You can speak for all people in the whole of history? Does the quote "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" ring any bells? I don't think that's how morality works to be sure, but some people seem to have believed as much. People can be wrong in their value judgments and their actions regardless of what they believe. People can be wrong about morality.

- That Liber 77 quote is a commandment from the outside, if you hadn't noticed.
- That people can "be wrong abut morality" implies that there is an objective wrong and right to morality.

[statiktech]

Morality is subject dependent. People make value judgments based on both subjective and objective criteria. There are people who believe values are determined by external sources, but it's always the people themselves who ascribe and act according to those values. Even people who act on the basis of being judged by an external source do so on their own accord in hopes of being judged favorably.

- "Being judged favourably" isn't a moral value.

Who said it was? The judgment would be based on adherence to particular values.

- That Liber 77 quote is a commandment from the outside, if you hadn't noticed.

From the outside? What do you mean?

- That people can "be wrong abut morality" implies that there is an objective wrong and right to morality.

Yes, it does. The moment you point beyond yourself to justify a moral position, you are implicating objectivity in the matter.

[Jakob]

Morality is subject dependent. People make value judgments based on both subjective and objective criteria. There are people who believe values are determined by external sources, but it's always the people themselves who ascribe and act according to those values. Even people who act on the basis of being judged by an external source do so on their own accord in hopes of being judged favorably.

"Being judged favourably" isn't a moral value.

Who said it was? The judgment would be based on adherence to particular values.

You clearly imply it, in the first quoted statement.

- That Liber 77 quote is a commandment from the outside, if you hadn't noticed.

From the outside? What do you mean?

C says "Do what thou wilt", not "I do what I will".
Whoever takes this commandment as a moral rule is taking this rule from the outside.
"I must do what I will".

- That people can "be wrong abut morality" implies that there is an objective wrong and right to morality.

Yes, it does. The moment you point beyond yourself to justify a moral position, you are implicating objectivity in the matter.

Which was Uruz' point to which you objected.

[statiktech]

You clearly imply it, in the first quoted statement.

I don't see how. I don't know what else to tell you.

C says "Do what thou wilt", not "I do what I will".

The former implies the latter, no?

Whoever takes this commandment as a moral rule is taking this rule from the outside.
"I must do what I will".

What's the difference in this context? Either way, the subject does what he will and is his own judge.

Which was Uruz' point to which you objected.

No it wasn't. His was a claim about appealing to a higher moral authority. Mine is about the criteria by which we make moral judgments. You don't seem to see the difference. Using objective criteria does not necessarily mean you're appealing to a higher power.

[Serendipper]

Using objective criteria does not necessarily mean you're appealing to a higher power.

Objective criteria depends upon authority to exist. Objective "laws" of the universe require enforcement by an authority independent of all subjectivity or else the "laws" are merely regular happenings that are consistently observed subjectively, which could happen by chance or consequence rather than strict dictation. If there is objective law, such as morality, we certainly have no way of discerning it.

[Jakob]

Serendipper has this one.

[statiktech]

Using objective criteria does not necessarily mean you're appealing to a higher power.

Objective criteria depends upon authority to exist. Objective "laws" of the universe require enforcement by an authority independent of all subjectivity or else the "laws" are merely regular happenings that are consistently observed subjectively, which could happen by chance or consequence rather than strict dictation. If there is objective law, such as morality, we certainly have no way of discerning it.

No, it doesn't. Objective criteria depends on an authority only to recognize its existence, but things can exist without subjects observing them. That's how we discover new things. We find things that existed objectively before we observed them subjectively. I never said anything about objective laws, but laws are based on subjective observation of objective phenomena. Again, subject dependent is not the same as subjective.

Also,

or else the "laws" are merely regular happenings that are consistently observed subjectively

That is pretty much the definition of a law. The emphasis is on what you're observing. Is it merely a matter of your opinion that it exists or not?

[Serendipper]

Using objective criteria does not necessarily mean you're appealing to a higher power.

Objective criteria depends upon authority to exist. Objective "laws" of the universe require enforcement by an authority independent of all subjectivity or else the "laws" are merely regular happenings that are consistently observed subjectively, which could happen by chance or consequence rather than strict dictation. If there is objective law, such as morality, we certainly have no way of discerning it.

No, it doesn't. Objective criteria depends on an authority only to recognize its existence, but things can exist without subjects observing them. That's how we discover new things. We find things that existed objectively before we observed them subjectively.

But we are not the only observer. If we discovered an atom, it doesn't mean there was no observer before we first observed it. One atom can observe another through electromagnetic interactions, and gravity I suppose, so each is subject to the other's object, but neither can make an objective observation because the observation is subject to the atom's capability to observe.

However, in the case of objectivity, there can be no subject or it would be subjectivity. In the case of objectivity, the observer is virtual as in the example of imagining that the universe was smaller than an atom prior to the big bang inflation when there is no such thing as spacetime or any concept of "size" when viewed from outside the universe. By definition of "universe", there can be no observer outside of it and therefore the universe is the only true "object" in existence.

I never said anything about objective laws, but laws are based on subjective observation of objective phenomena.

Laws are objective by definition because the authority of a law is established independently from any observers of the law. In other words, if all observers (all those who could be affected by the law) were dead, the law would still be in force by the authority that engendered it.

Again, subject dependent is not the same as subjective.

Any observer can only offer subjective interpretation, so there is no need to distinguish into types of subjectivity. When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it; therefore, you cannot say you know everything about the cup, but only what you're "subjugated"/relegated to realize by virtue of your humble abilities as a human.

or else the "laws" are merely regular happenings that are consistently observed subjectively

That is pretty much the definition of a law. The emphasis is on what you're observing.

Here are two conditions:

1) Speed limit set by the state.
2) Speed limit set by mechanical attributes of a car (max speed of a car).

#1 is in force even when no cars are on the road, because: there is the sign that says so (authority).
#2 is only in force only when cars are on the road because the "law" is determined, not by authority, but by attributes of the car itself, and so the "law" is just an artifact/consequence/happening and not a law at all.

#1 is objective (does not depend on subjects in order for law to exist).
#2 is subjective (depends on subjects in order for the law to exist).

Is it merely a matter of your opinion that it exists or not?

Existence is relational, but not a matter of opinion. In order to exist, a thing must have something to affect (be observed by).

[Arcturus Descending]

Serendipper

Any observer can only offer subjective interpretation,

This may be a silly question but can there not be an objective interpretation? Does interpretation deal only with personal perception on our part? Can there not be any real evidence or facts involved or seen in interpretation - meaning objectivity? I may not have expressed that well.

so there is no need to distinguish into types of subjectivity.

Unless I am misunderstanding your statement, I think that doing the above WOULD lead to more information and truth?

When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

Wow! Can you teach me how to do this? I am not capable of perceiving that.
That would be quite awesome.

therefore, you cannot say you know everything about the cup, but only what you're "subjugated"/relegated to realize by virtue of your humble abilities as a human.

Kind of like seeking out your ancestry. I suppose this is why we also have the Antique Roadshow.

[Jakob]

My emphasis;

In order to exist, a thing must have something to affect (be observed by).

Do you honestly believe that?

[Serendipper]

Serendipper

Any observer can only offer subjective interpretation,

This may be a silly question but can there not be an objective interpretation?

No because that's essentially an observer-less observation and quantum physicists would love to get a hold of that in order to look without looking, but there is no such thing.

There are no silly questions concerning objectivity since it's very difficult to get one's head around.

You may ask other people for an objective view of a personal situation you may have and it will be more objective than your own assessment, but it's still subject to the limitation of the other person's ability to relate to you and your problem (among other things). The degree of objectivity is subject to the subject's tools of perception and internal biases.

Does interpretation deal only with personal perception on our part?

A subject can only observe with the tools it has to observe (be affected by something). A photon, for instance, can only observe that which contains charge because that is the only means of affecting electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter has no effect on photons since dark matter contains no charge. However, dark matter does affect space which affects the path of light, but it doesn't affect the light directly.

Dark matter is only real to us in terms of gravity and, although we can learn more about dark matter by studying the interactions it may have on other elements, there is no way for us to objectively observe the dark matter because we do not possess the tools necessary to "see" it.

Can there not be any real evidence or facts involved or seen in interpretation - meaning objectivity? I may not have expressed that well.

I suppose we can extrapolate and surmise what something may look like if we weren't there to look, but it's not real observation.

Goethe said, and I agree, that thinking (deduction) is a tool of perception just like vision, smell, etc, so we may be able to piece together objective views by "virtual observation" (for instance, what the universe looked like at the moment of the big bang when viewed from outside the universe, whatever that means), but we can never be assured that we've considered all the information (in other words, we can't know what we don't know.)

so there is no need to distinguish into types of subjectivity.

Unless I am misunderstanding your statement, I think that doing the above WOULD lead to more information and truth?

You can differentiate subjectivity into types if you want, but I was just saying there was no need to in this case.

When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

Wow! Can you teach me how to do this? I am not capable of perceiving that.
That would be quite awesome.

Light is just a higher-frequency radio wave or a lower-frequency xray and visible light is a sliver of the radiation that exists.

What you commonly call "heat" is really infrared radiation. What physicists call "heat" is all EM radiation since heat is energy in transport.

Birds can see tetrachromatically via a 4th cone that allows perception of ultraviolet radiation and, presumably, they have a neural network that allows conceptualization of a color such as ultra-orange, which does not exist to us. People wearing sunblock at the beach probably appear like they're wearing aluminum foil to birds due to the intense reflection of UV light.

Deer hunters should also be aware that deer can see UV light (blue and up) very well and although some pee dribble may not seem very real to us, it's like a light bulb to the deer. Deer are crepuscular, meaning they're most active at dawn and dusk in order to take advantage of the remaining UV light from the sun to pinpoint predator urine while also having the ambiance dark enough for predators to be at a relative disadvantage.

therefore, you cannot say you know everything about the cup, but only what you're "subjugated"/relegated to realize by virtue of your humble abilities as a human.

Kind of like seeking out your ancestry. I suppose this is why we also have the Antique Roadshow.

I like that show

[Serendipper]

My emphasis;

In order to exist, a thing must have something to affect (be observed by).

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes.

I've tried before to find exception to James' central tenet, but I'm at a loss to describe any existence which no affect on anything.

[Jakob]

And how does that work, the affecting and being affected? Thats what the WtP describes. Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.
Though even God was "affected" when he watched his own creation and saw that it was good.

What I meant to address though is that "to affect" is not the same as "to be observed."

[encode_decode]

And how does that work, the affecting and being affected? Thats what the WtP describes. Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.
Though even God was "affected" when he watched his own creation and saw that it was good.

What I meant to address though is that "to affect" is not the same as "to be observed."

The observer becomes affected by what the observer sees - the act of observing has no affect on the observed << Is this more or less what you are saying?

Also: Is WtP, Will to Power? I am not as good as many with abbreviations.

[Jakob]

The observer becomes affected by what the observer sees - the act of observing has no affect on the observed << Is this more or less what you are saying?

I didn't mean to make a definitive statement this time, merely to point out that the term "affectance" leaves a lot to question. For instance, how are things affecting each other? Equally? In that case, the WtP doctrine (indeed, Will to Power) is false.

And if unequally, then apparently there are different qualia to "affectance", at least two.

[surreptitious75]

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion. That is one of the two fundamental truths. The other one
is that existence cannot ever become non existence. There always has to be something regardless of what ever form it might actually take

[Serendipper]

And how does that work, the affecting and being affected? Thats what the WtP describes. Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.
Though even God was "affected" when he watched his own creation and saw that it was good.

What I meant to address though is that "to affect" is not the same as "to be observed."

The observer becomes affected by what the observer sees - the act of observing has no affect on the observed << Is this more or less what you are saying?

Also: Is WtP, Will to Power? I am not as good as many with abbreviations.

Thanks for chiming in, Encode. Yes, that's essentially it. Observation is simply being in the path of information that produces some change upon arrival. Being affected by something is what observation means.

- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.

- Alan Watts made a good argument for why existence itself is relationship https://youtu.be/iXSCzofqX8Y?t=25m1s

Nothing can exist in abstraction because it's a contradiction in terms since existence always implies existing: in, on, around, as a function of, as a part of, in relation to something else.

the act of observing has no affect on the observed

I think that is true if the subject and object are not part of the same continuum otherwise infinite regression is produced through self-observation where the act of observation affects what is being observed (and that is what we see in the quantum experiments).

And how does that work, the affecting and being affected?

I have no idea other than they are part of the same continuum. The problem of causality that bogged Descartes down was: how does one thing affect another thing? (How does spirit affect the body if they are truly different things?) The answer must be that there are no separate things.

Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.

That seems logical to me. If A observes B and B observes A, then they hold each other up. If A and B are secretly the same, then I'm not sure how the origin of attention can be the focus of attention. How does a gun shoot down its own barrel? But if A and B are not secretly the same, then how do they affect each other? How does one universe communicate with another universe? It's a paradox!

[Serendipper]

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion. That is one of the two fundamental truths. The other one
is that existence cannot ever become non existence. There always has to be something regardless of what ever form it might actually take

Good to see you!

Existence could be analogous to a flame which is a stream of luminous gas that is ever-changing.

I think the category of "existence" can be broken into two subcategories: being and non-being. For instance a light can be "on" (being with potential to not-be), "off" (non-being with potential to be), or non-existent (no potential for anything). So it makes sense that non-existence has no potential to produce existence, but non-existence must exist in some way in order to manifest existence itself.

[Jakob]

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion. That is one of the two fundamental truths. The other one
is that existence cannot ever become non existence. There always has to be something regardless of what ever form it might actually take

Im not sure that these are the only two fundamental truths. Still, they are true.

[Jakob]

Well, Im not actually certain about the first. I think it is possible for some things to not actually be in motion, but still be agents of motion. A different class of "things", to be sure; the set of perfect abstractions.

Being affected by something is what observation means.

Yet being observed is not what affectance means.
Observation is a phenomenon of consciousness.
A billiard ball does not observe the ball that hits it, it just gets affected by it.
Thus, I questioned what I believed was statiktechs statement.

- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.

Can or does? Very great difference.

Nothing can exist in abstraction because it's a contradiction in terms since existence always implies existing: in, on, around, as a function of, as a part of, in relation to something else.

Moreover, abstractions affect just as concrete things - like concrete things, abstractions require a certain type of environment, in their case, a mind; and when they do exist therein, they affect things in this environment, this mind. And of course changes in the mind are electrochemical processes, which in turns influence the heavier and slower physical systems of the body, which in turn influences the even heavier and slower system of a habitat.

And how does that work, the affecting and being affected?

I have no idea other than they are part of the same continuum. The problem of causality that bogged Descartes down was: how does one thing affect another thing? (How does spirit affect the body if they are truly different things?) The answer must be that there are no separate things.

I agree, and we know through science that indeed they aren't. Even beyond the subatomic scale, where there is virtually only void, there are machinations, which affect and are affected by the way things play out on denser scales.

I describe these machinations in terms of value-differences. Like in - vs + spin, for example, or underwater or atmospheric breathing, but even in vegetarian or meat eater - it works throughout all levels of causality. Values predicate the phenomenal appearance of beings, meaning that what they are is an interaction with themselves through their values - a being exists in time, and valuing is what binds one moment to the next. In these moments there is the appearance of a filled-inpicture, a being that is fulfilled, saturates its "essence" with a particular completion a set of reactions, a "behaviour" which it produces successfully. This being-through-time, this perpetual self-re-creating subtly interwoven with countless other such cycles ("orlog"; "dharma") is the reason for rituals in our lives, routines, habits, diets, and to break our patterns and rearrange them is dangerous, often we unwittingly throw all our energy and values into the wheels of machinations indifferent to our well-being. Structural integrity is not a matter of brute force, and yet it usurps brute force; like incorruptible gold is at the heart of all war, specific and contentious valuing paths that end up at similar states are at the heart of all contradictions which form the fabric of life. For a beast or plant to live, beasts and pants must die. Life is cycles, beings moving around each other so as to arrive back at themselves.

Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.

That seems logical to me. If A observes B and B observes A, then they hold each other up. If A and B are secretly the same, then I'm not sure how the origin of attention can be the focus of attention. How does a gun shoot down its own barrel? But if A and B are not secretly the same, then how do they affect each other? How does one universe communicate with another universe? It's a paradox!

I like this way of questioning. I won't lie, I do have the answer; but it is not only intellectual, but comprehensively existential. We can't engage the machinations of correspondence without fully engaging our own world of beauties and horrors - we can't escape the fact that this is reality, that philosophy isn't exempt from it. Though I suspect such a supposed exception must have been the appeal to men like Plato.

[Karpel Tunnel]

- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.

James idea is not falsifiable, so it is a safe assertion. This does not mean if is false, however it seems to me it is either tautological or speculation.

[Ecmandu]

If everyone in the universe agreed that morality was fake, they would all be wrong; making the statement proves morality. You deemed it good to offer the statement, thus morality is not fake.