The Origin of Morality Matters

Ecmandu · October 31, 2019, 9:06pm

obsrvr524:

Ecmandu:

Oh fuck! You really want me to go through 5 years of posts right now!?!?!

James vehemently believed in god

If you are going to make claims about someone and expect to be taken seriously, I would suggest reference material.

How James perceived God was one of my first observations from even before he came to this board. On this board he expressed many definitions of God for anyone to take their pick. The one that he seemed most aligned with was expressed in his signature:
“The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = ‘The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is’.”

He recognized God to be whatever someone’s situation actually is, “reality itself” (as he often stated it). Their actual situation is their God. He defended that with his definition of what the word “god” means:

"[url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187888&p=2536241:

James S Saint » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:42 pm[/url]"]A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

I don’t think that is relevant to this topic but I am curious if you would try to argue the point. Perhaps on another thread.

Actually, it is on topic because of the assertion that morality is objective because of a being.

James either argues pantheism, panentheism or theism. All of which postulate a being from which all morality springs from.

Leyla · October 31, 2019, 10:40pm

You don’t know what you’re talking about. James neither argued for Pantheism, nor did he refer to God as a “being”.

James on Pantheism

… and on “God”:

xxx The word “God” is not my word. I didn’t invent the word nor any proposed concept behind it. As I studied, I found a great deal of confusion surrounding the word, intentional confusion. I cut through the clouds, in my usual manner, so as to get to the point. I discovered that many have intentionally obfuscated the entire issue surrounding the word “God” leaving many concepts available. Some of the concepts are valid depending entirely on perspective. So I don’t really use the word much myself unless someone else has.

I invented the word/name “Mygod” so as to emphasize the concept that anyone’s real situation is more of a God to them than anything else could be and is always a little unique to the person. To pray to Mygod means to examine, investigate, inquire of your personal situation when seeking answers (“clarify, verify, and remember…”)

And, more to the topic, on “Morality”:

" xxxx Morality" cannot be rationally discussed nor dictated without a definition of “good”. And we all know that good has a subjective nature, “good for whom?” But what if there are specific abstract concerns that every life form shares as being to its subjective benefit?

If every life form requires “property A”, can’t we say that property A is objectively good? And if so, and other such properties are listed, we would then have a basis from which morality could be deduced … rationally. And if that deduction turned out to be exactly correct, wouldn’t that constitute an “objective morality”, verifiable from anyone’s stance?

None of that is to say that there wouldn’t still be a subjective nature to good and morality, but it seems to offer a baseline from which to append subjective nuances and amendments. The result being that in some places the morality would have a very different flavor to it than other places, but there would be a dependable baseline morality no matter where one ventured. "It is highly immoral to wear yellow on Sunday in this particular realm. But it is highly immoral to kill someone just for fun in every realm.

“Good” is based upon what is of benefit. What someone wants can form a subjective good concerning that want/desire. And any or all desire can be said to have an abstract good associated.

Is watering a dehydrated plant of benefit to the plant? Must we ask the plant for its subjective intent before we can determine what we should do in order to benefit the plant? We can objectively determine what is of benefit concerning any entity. We can even objectively determine what is of benefit to any chosen want or desire. And when we see that a want is benefited by what is detrimental to its own host-body, we have to choose which one to serve. It is much like kicking one of two people out of the boat because there is only enough food for one.

This situation proposes the exact problem of the locked logic (how does one decide when both directions are exactly equal) and also the problem of insufficient known variables for a set of simultaneous equations. And the solution is simply to focus on the unknown variables, to look for extraneous priorities.

In the case of the desire being contrary to its host body, both the desire and the body have objective benefits or goods. But the logic is locked concerning which to serve. It isn’t an issue of the existence of the objective good, but rather an issue of which to serve, which would be more moral.

Morality is about the interaction between entities such that the greater good is served. When the logic is locked on a local subjective level due to equal opposition, the greater good can be found by raising the scope of the interactions being assessed. Because the two entities are in opposition, a third entity must be considered in order to determine the greater good and the “moral choice to make”. Examples might be; “which has a dependent child”, “which will be able to be better off in the future”, “which is most likely to be of benefit to someone else”, or in a socialist society, “which better serves the state” (which is intentionally used to authorize the state).

So even though the logic is locked by contrary directions of the local good, an increase in scope unlocks the logic to provide an objective good and a moral code; eg. “in the case of divorce, the state is best served if the women gets to keep the pink panties” or “in the case of the baby on the train tracks, which ever is most likely to benefit future anentropic harmony has the priority”.

So regardless of the situation, conflicting goods or not, there is always an objective greater balance of good to be found and upon which to deduce an objective moral code or structure as a basis for subjective amendments.

Magnus_Anderson · November 1, 2019, 12:14am

What he’s saying is that all living beings (and perhaps even non-living beings) strive to attain one and the same goal. How can we test such a claim? What would be the exact procedure? Surely, he’s not saying that the proof lies in the definition of the word “living being”? Not only is it not true that the word “living being” implies specific kind of purpose, but the definition of that word has nothing to do with what’s going on outside of human languages.

obsrvr524 · November 1, 2019, 2:53pm

I don’t see what isn’t clear about it but i will make an attempt to make it clear to you.

The way that I see it, it is like James is saying that the concern of longevity is a vector aiming due North while the concern of joy is a vector aimed due West and then IJOT is a vector aimed at neither of those directions but instead Northwest. So in reality maximizing IjOT does also maximize both longevity and joy at the same time.

He explains in that post (and others) that an attempt to maximize longevity without joy will not work. And he also hints that the attempt to maximize joy without longevity leads to quick death. So the only way to achieve maximum longevity is to make joy a part of the ongoing effort.

He defends his theory in one way and I know that science has demonstrated the truth of it also. Science has shown for a long time that reducing stress (the opposite of joy) increases longevity. And these days they even know precisely why (having to do with cortisone and oxidization, I think)

You stated in our last discussion of this subject that “we all know what joy is … it’s a feeling”. I don’t think that “we all know”. I know that I didn’t and still have questions. James wouldn’t have argued against joy being a feeling but as just demonstrated again in Leyla’s repost of James, he gets down into the ultimate origins and details of things. Superficial names, such as “a feeling”, would never have satisfied James. They just don’t reveal enough truth of the situation (of James’ “MyGod”). James was all about coherency of every detail and in his own words, “leaving no dark corner for the devil to hide” (the “devil” being deception or doubt).

James defined joy as the inner perception of progress whether accurately perceived or not.

"[url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=192202&p=2649483:

James S Saint » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:06 am[/url]"]I define “joy” as that sensation one gets when he perceives progress toward a subconsciously accepted effort or goal, unless it is outweighed by an alternate cause and opposing sensation. The goal can be anything and the perception need not be accurate to reality. The feeling will be an upsurge of serotonin and/or dopamine communicating throughout the brain that progress has been detected. Just the opposite occurs when feeling sadness, misery, or depression. Of course there are a variety of drugs that can cause those same sensations artificially, circumventing the brain’s method for detecting good from bad situations.

Due to the fact that joy can be established by either good or bad situations from misperceptions and/or drugs (even EMR waves these days), joy cannot be the entire priority of life without life soon dying out. But then neither can joy be totally left out of the priority due to its inherent and natural indicator of progress toward life supporting instincts. Joy is a part of the natural decision making mechanism. When a nation senses progress toward a new social movement of its choosing, the nation, not merely the people within, is experiencing “joy”. The nation strengthens its efforts in that direction due to perceiving its progress as fruitful.

With that in mind, my personal ethic (or “moral”, if you like), maintains a particular highest priority goal referred to as “MIJOT”, Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time. That priority mathematically infuses the priority of sensing progress, joy, with the more well known priority of survival. In order to maintain the maximum integral (the maximum sum of the infinitesimal bits) over time, one must survive for the greatest length of time and do so with the greatest degree of joy manageable.

A joyous longer life is more assured by those with such a moral priority. All resultant “ought” or “should” behaviors can be rationally deduced and socially integrated with certainty of sanity. There is no longer need for mystery prophets, but rather of high quality thinkers ensuring that moral codes, ethics, and laws are aimed at ensuring the longest and most joyous life of the populous. The end result is that societies and their governments also survive much longer and far more in harmony (required for that perception of progress issue). Waring gets minimized and eventually completely eliminated, along with a great many social conflicts, diseases, and corruption.

And what he is revealing is that by perceiving progress, more true progress is likely. The whole point in perception is to help decide which way to go so it only makes sense that perceiving progress would inspire going in the right direction. No doubt that is a big role in evolution. So longevity is partially dependent upon the joy sensed along the route. If you want to go far, be sure to try to enjoy the trip.

For James, it is clear to me that this whole morality question was very settled and over. And I think he makes a damn good argument (without referencing “God” as the source even once).

I disagree with that but I’m sure that you will stay within your own bubble of belief.

promethean75 · November 1, 2019, 2:57pm

I think Ken wilber could take james s. saint.

obsrvr524 · November 1, 2019, 3:13pm

Yet another theory of everything author. Perhaps he is great. I don’t have the time to find out. And I prefer to find out what issues such men agree on, not to set them against each other. Your Jacob here proposes a type of theory of everything, an “ontology”, too. But do these guys get into the origins of morality? Perhaps.

Again, I think the only real issue is getting anyone to believe any of these guys. Politics rules the world, not performance.

Ecmandu · November 1, 2019, 3:27pm

Leyla:

Ecmandu:

Actually, it is on topic because of the assertion that morality is objective because of a being.

James either argues pantheism, panentheism or theism. All of which postulate a being from which all morality springs from.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. James neither argued for Pantheism, nor did he refer to God as a “being”.

James on Pantheism

… and on “God”:

xxx The word “God” is not my word. I didn’t invent the word nor any proposed concept behind it. As I studied, I found a great deal of confusion surrounding the word, intentional confusion. I cut through the clouds, in my usual manner, so as to get to the point. I discovered that many have intentionally obfuscated the entire issue surrounding the word “God” leaving many concepts available. Some of the concepts are valid depending entirely on perspective. So I don’t really use the word much myself unless someone else has.

I invented the word/name “Mygod” so as to emphasize the concept that anyone’s real situation is more of a God to them than anything else could be and is always a little unique to the person. To pray to Mygod means to examine, investigate, inquire of your personal situation when seeking answers (“clarify, verify, and remember…”)

And, more to the topic, on “Morality”:

" xxxx Morality" cannot be rationally discussed nor dictated without a definition of “good”. And we all know that good has a subjective nature, “good for whom?” But what if there are specific abstract concerns that every life form shares as being to its subjective benefit?

If every life form requires “property A”, can’t we say that property A is objectively good? And if so, and other such properties are listed, we would then have a basis from which morality could be deduced … rationally. And if that deduction turned out to be exactly correct, wouldn’t that constitute an “objective morality”, verifiable from anyone’s stance?

None of that is to say that there wouldn’t still be a subjective nature to good and morality, but it seems to offer a baseline from which to append subjective nuances and amendments. The result being that in some places the morality would have a very different flavor to it than other places, but there would be a dependable baseline morality no matter where one ventured. "It is highly immoral to wear yellow on Sunday in this particular realm. But it is highly immoral to kill someone just for fun in every realm.

“Good” is based upon what is of benefit. What someone wants can form a subjective good concerning that want/desire. And any or all desire can be said to have an abstract good associated.

Is watering a dehydrated plant of benefit to the plant? Must we ask the plant for its subjective intent before we can determine what we should do in order to benefit the plant? We can objectively determine what is of benefit concerning any entity. We can even objectively determine what is of benefit to any chosen want or desire. And when we see that a want is benefited by what is detrimental to its own host-body, we have to choose which one to serve. It is much like kicking one of two people out of the boat because there is only enough food for one.

This situation proposes the exact problem of the locked logic (how does one decide when both directions are exactly equal) and also the problem of insufficient known variables for a set of simultaneous equations. And the solution is simply to focus on the unknown variables, to look for extraneous priorities.

In the case of the desire being contrary to its host body, both the desire and the body have objective benefits or goods. But the logic is locked concerning which to serve. It isn’t an issue of the existence of the objective good, but rather an issue of which to serve, which would be more moral.

Morality is about the interaction between entities such that the greater good is served. When the logic is locked on a local subjective level due to equal opposition, the greater good can be found by raising the scope of the interactions being assessed. Because the two entities are in opposition, a third entity must be considered in order to determine the greater good and the “moral choice to make”. Examples might be; “which has a dependent child”, “which will be able to be better off in the future”, “which is most likely to be of benefit to someone else”, or in a socialist society, “which better serves the state” (which is intentionally used to authorize the state).

So even though the logic is locked by contrary directions of the local good, an increase in scope unlocks the logic to provide an objective good and a moral code; eg. “in the case of divorce, the state is best served if the women gets to keep the pink panties” or “in the case of the baby on the train tracks, which ever is most likely to benefit future anentropic harmony has the priority”.

So regardless of the situation, conflicting goods or not, there is always an objective greater balance of good to be found and upon which to deduce an objective moral code or structure as a basis for subjective amendments.

Why use the word God at all?

The word “atheism” was coined before his birth as well.

James was supposedly this hyper rational being, but couldn’t see that?!?!

I’ll go back and look at my discussion between, James, John Bannon and I.

I remember clearly that James and John Bannon both believed in god, they were quarreling over what that meant. I was the atheist of the thread.

Ecmandu · November 1, 2019, 3:58pm

I remember another time where I grew a wild hair and made a thread saying, “what if it’s blasphemy to say blasphemy exists?”

James replied that he was “very afraid of me”

Which I thought an odd reply.

Magnus_Anderson · November 1, 2019, 8:37pm

Well, I understand that very well. The problem is it does not answer my question. Given that you made an attempt to answer my question but did not do so in the end, I can only conclude that you did not really understand what I asked. You can, but you don’t have to, proceed in your attempts to understand my points. It’s up to you. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to do so.

Basically, the question that I am asking is: do human beings strive to maximize longevity or do they strive to maximize Integral of Joy Over Time? Notice that this is an either/or situation. You can’t have it both ways.

What does it mean to say that someone is striving to maximize longevity? It means that they would rather live an eternal life of hell than a relatively long life of pleasure. For such people, every life that is long is better than every life that is short.

And what does it mean to say that someone is striving to maximize IJOT? It means that they would rather live a high-IJOT life than a low-IJOT one and this means that they’d choose a short life over a long one if it’s higher in IJOT.

These are two different methods of determining what is better and what is worse.

This suggests to me that, according to JSS, human beings strive to maximize how long they live – not their IJOT. IJOT being merely a means (in the same way that power and growth are means.)

I suppose you didn’t understand what I meant by that statement. What I said is that we all know what the word “happiness” means (even if we don’t know how to verbally describe what it means and what stands behind such phenomena i.e. what causes it.) Have you ever met someone who uses the word “happiness” to mean “pain”? or even worse, to mean “dog”? The point I was making in that thread is that in order to understand what MIJOT is you don’t have to verbally describe the meaning of the word “joy” nor do you have to understand what causes the phenomena that is represented by that word.

promethean75 · November 2, 2019, 1:03am

lol you took the words right out of my mouth… and i know nothing about the guy other than he looks like the ‘doc’ from back to the future.

i do get a kick out of the ‘theory of everything’ guys, though. especially the ones that started emerging after the 40s when the limits of philosophy had pretty much been reached. ‘designer philosophers’, i call them, and there’s thousands of em all claiming to have figured it all out, and yet none of them agree with each other if they even understand each other at all. but there’s a veritable buffett of leftover and discarded ideas from the analytical period… and that’s what these guys are usually playing around with.

have you noticed something peculiar about the pragmatist movement? james, pierce, rorty and the gang. this movement was a confession of sorts. it said ‘epistemology is over and metaphysics is dead’, more or less. and right about the mid twentieth century the focus took a dramatic turn toward politics and sociology. i see this as a kind of solution to the crisis of the death of philosophy… just as philosophy was the solution to the death of god. the post-structural age is a deconstructive age because of this, i think, but certainly not nihilistic on account of both god and philosophy biting the dust. it’s rather a return to the pragmatism of before with a view toward a progressive dismantling of conservatism and the anachronistic ideology it is built on. there are no more epistemological, metaphysical or ontological problems like there were in the nineteenth century. these subjects are now in the shadow of economic problems more so than ever before. and since you can no longer use philosophy to solve these problems ‘theoretically’ (unless you’re content with twiddling your thumbs), the only genuine philosophical project left is a post-structural deconstruction of all the ideological constructs that brought the world to its current crisis. periodic economy crashes, mass migrations, global warming (of whatever degree), poverty, terrorism, war, etc. all these are in some way or another the effects of a general ‘world weltanschauung’ that has persisted for centuries… and that is no longer able to navigate, much less solve, the brute facts of these problems.

but anyway these ‘theory of everything’ guys are just recreational chatter in the background. you know how many ken wilbers and james s. saints and jakobs there are on the book shelves? more than you can shake a library card at. what we need are good defunked economists, not defunct philosophers.

Magnus_Anderson · November 2, 2019, 8:54am

It’s Peirce, Zoot, not Pierce. It’s more like Purse and less like Peers. And while he did identify himself as pragmatist, he had little to do with James (and even less so with Rorty.) That’s why, later in his life, he renamed his position to pragmaticism. He was very much into metaphysics.

CSP on Agapistic Evolution:
iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/libra … volove.htm

obsrvr524 · November 2, 2019, 10:34am

I am having trouble understanding why you think that your question wasn’t answered. I suspect that you didn’t get my point.

That is saying that James did not believe that anyone truly lived for sake of ONLY longevity.

His reasoning was that evolution determines what the eventual highest purpose for lives are. And evolution would naturally eliminate those who tried to live solely for longevity because they would fail.

He explained (in that same post) that in order to succeed (and thus have evolution choose your form of existence over alternatives as what we call “life”) you would have to pursue the right combination of joy and longevity together (“Northwest” - NOT North and NOT West).

He explained that such a necessary “purpose to life” (established by evolution) is difficult to keep clear in mind. And I assume that is what has caused it to take so long for man to figure it out.

Again, he was saying that the purpose of life is already there guiding and refining life toward an eternal joyful state. What is interesting is that he never claimed the thought to be merely handed down from above. Instead he explained why it logically must be true. In other words it was not merely wishful thinking.

I think that is true (as we pointed out the last time we discussed this).

James would have said (and in many ways did) “Stay focused on MIJOT at all cost.” - MORALITY

But he would probably also expect people to constantly get confused and misstep (or as he would say “sin”).

The explanation of what causes that feeling of joy is paramount in understanding why longevity alone cannot be the focus or moral purpose. What is causing the joy is causing the success and thus what evolution is using to establish highest purpose. Evolution eliminates those who cannot sense joy, leaving joy a fundamental requirement of life.

And also keep in mind that he says that the highest purpose, or the “origin of morality” CANNOT be chosen, but must be previously instilled because making a choice requires that a purpose is already there. So everyone’s very first choice can only be made by a higher purpose already existing. People cannot actually choose their highest purpose in life. They can only screw up the one they were born with.

Like I said, he had this morality subject nailed in every detail.

obsrvr524 · November 2, 2019, 10:40am

James was into explaining things. God was merely one of them.

I can’t find anywhere James used the word “afraid”. Can you find a reference?

Karpel_Tunnel · November 2, 2019, 11:49am

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=34903

if you go here, then search for afraid a lot of examples come up, some aimed at other people.

promethean75 · November 2, 2019, 2:11pm

oh c’mon andy, you don’t think i know who THE charlton peirce was? i was talking about daryl pierce… an uh, an old buddy of mine from muncie indiana.

Magnus_Anderson · November 2, 2019, 3:29pm

That is not saying that James S. Saint did not believe that there is a single human being striving to maximize how long they live. Rather, it is merely describing the concept of IJOT. It’s unclear from that statement alone whether IJOT is a means or an end.

Right now, I am really only interested in one thing, and that thing is what James thought is the highest goal shared by all humans (not necessarily all living beings, we don’t have to go that far.) I don’t care about the origin of such a goal, that’s beside the point.

There are two competing beliefs in my mind. These are:

James thought that humans (consciously or unconsciously) strive to maximize IJOT and that their success in terms of survival is merely a consequence, a by-product, of such striving.
James thought that humans (consciously or unconsciously) strive to maximize how long they live (not the lifespan of their species) by various means but most successfully by maximizing IJOT.

I am inclined to believe 1.

obsrvr524 · November 2, 2019, 4:19pm

Thanks. I had just mistyped it in my search.

As stated before, “IJOT is a measure and MIJOT is the goal”

As long as you have that much, I’m sure that you are close enough.

Since he specified “all life” and animals and insects don’t consider old age plans, he wasn’t talking about conscious choices but rather inherent drives and instincts. He was talking about a shared goal and morality for all living beings.

Now that I have read over it about ten times, I am confident about that much.

Magnus_Anderson · November 2, 2019, 5:33pm

Right. I take that to be an answer to the question I asked.

Your answer being “It is an end”. Of course, what I meant is maximum integral of joy over time. You are correct that IJOT is a measure and that as such, literally speaking, it’s not something that can be a goal. But when I said “IJOT is the goal” I meant “As much IJOT as possible is the goal” in the same way that when we say “Power is the goal” what we mean is “As much power as possible is the goal”.

I do think that James thinks that all human beings strive to maximize IJOT (i.e. that all human beings choose the perceived path of highest IJOT) rather than other things such as how long they live (i.e. the perceived path of longest life.) It’s just that reading some of James’s posts makes me question that belief.

So yes, it appears that you did answer my question after all, it’s just that I didn’t think, because I wasn’t sure, that you did so.

A simple “It is an end” would have done the job.

Ecmandu · November 2, 2019, 5:57pm

There’s been a purging in ILP …

John Bannon was a user here. You cannot search for him.

Uccisore used to say that if anyone knew his sock puppet, that everyone on the boards would be mad at him.

James and uccisore left at the same time.

I think james was uccisore.

I have other reasons to believe this: uccisore used to refer to my private messages with James in debates.

My point being… anything that embarrassed uccisore (or James) would easily be deleted.

I searched HARD for that thread on blasphemy… found nothing

Carleas · November 4, 2019, 10:19pm

JohnJBannon

Uccisore last visited on August 26, 2018; James S Saint last visited on January 6, 2018.