The Origin of Morality Matters

[Prismatic567]

DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].

That would be WTL (short for Will to Longevity) which can be contrasted with WTP and WTMIJOT.

I am not exactly sure there is a single human being out there striving to live for as long as possible let alone that all human beings do so. How would you go about demonstrating such a thing?
Not that it's relevant to the thread, just curious.

It is extremely unlikely. I mean, I see a lot of contented smokers for example. Then there are all people who love high-risk sports. There are men and even now women who re-up for military service - to be with the troops they know, to serve their country and so on. This is after being in wars where they see their comrades get killed. Sometimes precisely because they saw them get killed and want to prevent others they know from dying.

There are criminals who even when offered a way out of a dangerous criminal life do not take.

People who abuse all sorts of substances.

Most people trade off potential negative healthy effects for pleasure, powerful experiences, their passions.

People travel to dangerous places. Heck, so many people in the US decide to drive when they could just as easily take public transport - not all have this option, but many do. That decision right their radically increases their chance of death.

In many societies men especially put themselves at risk - hunting a lion alone, counting coup, exploring new areas - out of a sense of honor, to demonstrate courage, for the good of the tribe, to compete for status with other men and more.

It is not remotely just damaged individuals who will risk their lives, risk shortening their lives, for all sorts of reasons

because humans have many values - some can be categorized as WTP, some in other ways.

I stated;

DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].

It is true many humans as observed take risks the average person would not dare to venture.
But the point is these people think they will not die in the belief they have done the necessary calculated-risk they will not die and they don't want to die. Otherwise if they want to die voluntarily, they might as well jump off the cliff like the suicidal ones which I mentioned are exception due to a mental illness.

Recently I saw the film 'Free Solo' where Alex Honnold climb Al Capitan a 3000 foot wall [90% vertical] in Yosemite Park without ropes, only by himself. In this climb his life is hanging merely by his finger tips and one slip he will fall and die. 90% of free-soloists had died.
But Alex Honnold has stated he has fear of death and do not want to die in any of his climbs.
Why he is able to do it was due to the calculated risks he had taken. He climbed the wall many times and each time studied every hold carefully thus to reduce the risk but any thing can still happen. He did that over 8 years.

It is also naturally there are mutations in a small % [say 10%] of humans so that they are risk-seekers which will also facilitate the survival of species where they helped to open new frontiers [dangerous] to seek new resources for an expanding population which is also another feature to ensure the survival of the species.

Those who go to war believe they may die but many believed they will be lucky and they don't want to die like the suicidals.

As for the drug addicts who keep going despite knowing the probability they will die, they do not want to die voluntarily. Their problem is they are trapped by the addiction in which case is a mental problem thus the exception like the suicidal.

There are those who died from carelessness, ignorance, stupidity, irrational acts in their actions, but it is inherently in them they do not want to die and had not planned to die voluntarily like the suicidal.

My point is a valid one;

DNA wise ALL humans [generic] are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [a small % of exceptions exist only when the program is defective].

[obsrvr524]

It's a philosophical truism that you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. And yet, we have good reason to believe that certain 'is' statements, i.e. mere descriptions of the world, must have a significant impact on how we think about 'ought' statements, i.e. morality.

I'm a little new at this but I thought that it was well established that everything came from what "is" (or was). And so if "oughts" exist at all, there can be no question that ought came from is.

I image the problem has merely been one of finding the proper connection.

You mention contingencies and it seems obvious that all priorities are contingent upon higher priorities up to some ultimate "purpose of life" concern. And if that is right, the issue seems to be one of merely resolving that infamous "purpose of life" question.

A few people have done just that to their own satisfaction. I'll have to study it a little more. But I'm thinking that the bigger issue is going to wind up being one of getting anyone to believe an answer regardless of its accuracy.

[Silhouette]

Is it possible for something to come from what isn't?

All "is" and "ought" statements are going to be about what "is" and in terms of what "is", but this doesn't mean their source is something that "is". Voices in your head can tell you what you "ought" to do, fictional characters can tell you what "is" - but they're not embedded in reality - at best their "is" and "ought" are personal and no more than accidentally or coincidentally apply beyond that scope. I guess that's why this thread is called "the origin of morality matters" and not the content or terms of morality.

Is something derived from what it applies to, or the terms it deals in? An "ought" derived from an "is" requires that its source is embedded in reality.
A supernatural source, or an arbitrary or subjective insertion does not meet this requirement.
If morality is derived from what "is" (embedded in reality) then it applies to reality even if you use the language of "ought" that carries with it implications of arbitrary/supernatural insertion from what isn't.

[Magnus Anderson]

As I had stated DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

You did say that but that does not answer my question. My question is: how do you know that all human beings strive to live for as long as possible? Where's the argument?

As mentioned [in theory] we can confirm the above by asking a sample of humans from every demographic or ask everyone on Earth the question 'Will you kill yourself to death'? It is feasible for such an experiment to be done when all people are connected to the internet in the future.

You did mention that earlier. Here it is:

We can do this experiment by taking a sampling from the full range of humans on Earth, e.g. in terms of gender, age, race, countries, states, and all other demographic sectors.
Then we ask each the following question,
"Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?"
Common sense will inform us no ordinary human will answer 'Yes'.
Those who answer 'yes' would likely be the mentally ill due to defects in their DNA, e.g. the certified heavily depressed suicidal person, and other mentally ill. The % of these people are like to be very minimal.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying can be represented by the following argument:

Premise: All humans answer with "No" when asked "Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?"
Conclusion: Every human strives to live for as long as possible.

If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I would have to disagree with you. If humans are not striving to live the shortest life possible, it does not follow that they are striving to live the longest life possible. Their highest goal may have nothing to do with how long they live.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I stated;

DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].

You stated it, but you're wrong.

It is true many humans as observed take risks the average person would not dare to venture.

Actually pretty much all people take risks that lower their longevity.

But the point is these people think they will not die in the belief they have done the necessary calculated-risk they will not die and they don't want to die. Otherwise if they want to die voluntarily, they might as well jump off the cliff like the suicidal ones which I mentioned are exception due to a mental illness.

It really seems like you didn't read what I wrote. People take quality of life risks. We all do. We take risks to improve our lives, because longevity is not the only value we have.

Further you are confused about DNA. If anything there is a drive to procreate and further the genes. Longevity is not necessary for this. A certain amount is, but not over all other values.

Recently I saw the film 'Free Solo' where Alex Honnold climb Al Capitan a 3000 foot wall [90% vertical] in Yosemite Park without ropes, only by himself. In this climb his life is hanging merely by his finger tips and one slip he will fall and die. 90% of free-soloists had died.
But Alex Honnold has stated he has fear of death and do not want to die in any of his climbs.
Why he is able to do it was due to the calculated risks he had taken. He climbed the wall many times and each time studied every hold carefully thus to reduce the risk but any thing can still happen. He did that over 8 years.

But the risk that he will die is greatly increased by his climbing and he knows that. His body knows it, his mind knows it, his emotions know it. Yet, he does it. We are not programmed to survive at all costs. And further we are social mammals and all sorts of relationships will lead us to risk our lives.

It is also naturally there are mutations in a small % [say 10%] of humans so that they are risk-seekers which will also facilitate the survival of species where they helped to open new frontiers [dangerous] to seek new resources for an expanding population which is also another feature to ensure the survival of the species.

As I said, every human who drives instead of takign public transport risks their lives for status, comfort, reduced travelling time. It is not just that small percentage group.

Those who go to war believe they may die but many believed they will be lucky and they don't want to die like the suicidals.

And they will fight for their country, for honor, to test their manhood, and even return to battle after first tours, knowing damn well in every cell that they may die having seen their peers die. We have many values. DNA does not work like you say.

As for the drug addicts who keep going despite knowing the probability they will die, they do not want to die voluntarily. Their problem is they are trapped by the addiction in which case is a mental problem thus the exception like the suicidal.

No one is saying they want to die. Though some do.

DNA wise ALL humans [generic] are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [a small % of exceptions exist only when the program is defective].

What you are saying is not remotely scientific, or supported by sociology.

WE obviously, all of us, do not do everything to survive the longests. We all take risks. And many of us would risk or even sacrifice our lives for various things. It is so tiring over the years that you just state stuff over and over without evidence and which is contradicted by the obvious.

It's actually rude. I am going to ignore you again for a while.

[Prismatic567]

As I had stated DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

You did say that but that does not answer my question. My question is: how do you know that all human beings strive to live for as long as possible? Where's the argument?

As mentioned [in theory] we can confirm the above by asking a sample of humans from every demographic or ask everyone on Earth the question 'Will you kill yourself to death'? It is feasible for such an experiment to be done when all people are connected to the internet in the future.

You did mention that earlier. Here it is:

We can do this experiment by taking a sampling from the full range of humans on Earth, e.g. in terms of gender, age, race, countries, states, and all other demographic sectors.
Then we ask each the following question,
"Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?"
Common sense will inform us no ordinary human will answer 'Yes'.
Those who answer 'yes' would likely be the mentally ill due to defects in their DNA, e.g. the certified heavily depressed suicidal person, and other mentally ill. The % of these people are like to be very minimal.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying can be represented by the following argument:

Premise: All humans answer with "No" when asked "Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?"
Conclusion: Every human strives to live for as long as possible.

If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I would have to disagree with you. If humans are not striving to live the shortest life possible, it does not follow that they are striving to live the longest life possible. Their highest goal may have nothing to do with how long they live.

You missed out on the critical point, at least till the inevitable fact of mortality

As I had stated DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

The basic program is DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs.
I did not mention 'as long as possible' but I agree it is implied.
While the DNA has an "independent" program that drive all humans to survive at all cost, the strength of the impulse also vary with age, stronger during the person's productive age and lesser as one grow older.
The natural thing is while the human DNA is embedded with an independent program for survival as long as possible, DNA wise, there is a program of mortality in a matter of time and mortality as evident is a certainty.
Thus I had stated, survival at all costs but only as far as till the inevitable fact of mortality.

The inherent for immortality [to live as long as possible and eternally] is evident from the mummies dug out from various civilization all over the world.
At present the majority of people are theists clinging to a God for salvation to eternal life.

Thus,
Premise: All humans answer with "No" when asked "Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?"
Conclusion: Every human strives to live for as long as possible until the inevitability of mortality.

Therefore incorporating the Golden Rule, we can deduce an 'ought' from the above 'is' i.e.
'No human shall kill another human'.

But note this critical point, the above 'ought' MUST NEVER be enforced upon any human being as a law or whatever rule.
This ought can only be used as a guide within morality.

[Prismatic567]

I stated;

DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].

You stated it, but you're wrong.

It is true many humans as observed take risks the average person would not dare to venture.

Actually pretty much all people take risks that lower their longevity.

But the point is these people think they will not die in the belief they have done the necessary calculated-risk they will not die and they don't want to die. Otherwise if they want to die voluntarily, they might as well jump off the cliff like the suicidal ones which I mentioned are exception due to a mental illness.

It really seems like you didn't read what I wrote. People take quality of life risks. We all do. We take risks to improve our lives, because longevity is not the only value we have.

Further you are confused about DNA. If anything there is a drive to procreate and further the genes. Longevity is not necessary for this. A certain amount is, but not over all other values.

Recently I saw the film 'Free Solo' where Alex Honnold climb Al Capitan a 3000 foot wall [90% vertical] in Yosemite Park without ropes, only by himself. In this climb his life is hanging merely by his finger tips and one slip he will fall and die. 90% of free-soloists had died.
But Alex Honnold has stated he has fear of death and do not want to die in any of his climbs.
Why he is able to do it was due to the calculated risks he had taken. He climbed the wall many times and each time studied every hold carefully thus to reduce the risk but any thing can still happen. He did that over 8 years.

But the risk that he will die is greatly increased by his climbing and he knows that. His body knows it, his mind knows it, his emotions know it. Yet, he does it. We are not programmed to survive at all costs. And further we are social mammals and all sorts of relationships will lead us to risk our lives.

It is also naturally there are mutations in a small % [say 10%] of humans so that they are risk-seekers which will also facilitate the survival of species where they helped to open new frontiers [dangerous] to seek new resources for an expanding population which is also another feature to ensure the survival of the species.

As I said, every human who drives instead of takign public transport risks their lives for status, comfort, reduced travelling time. It is not just that small percentage group.

Those who go to war believe they may die but many believed they will be lucky and they don't want to die like the suicidals.

And they will fight for their country, for honor, to test their manhood, and even return to battle after first tours, knowing damn well in every cell that they may die having seen their peers die. We have many values. DNA does not work like you say.

As for the drug addicts who keep going despite knowing the probability they will die, they do not want to die voluntarily. Their problem is they are trapped by the addiction in which case is a mental problem thus the exception like the suicidal.

No one is saying they want to die. Though some do.

DNA wise ALL humans [generic] are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [a small % of exceptions exist only when the program is defective].

What you are saying is not remotely scientific, or supported by sociology.

WE obviously, all of us, do not do everything to survive the longests. We all take risks. And many of us would risk or even sacrifice our lives for various things. It is so tiring over the years that you just state stuff over and over without evidence and which is contradicted by the obvious.

It's actually rude. I am going to ignore you again for a while.

How can a fact be rude?
It is your discretion to discuss the points.

As mentioned, DNA wise, ALL humans are programmed with the following independent functions;

1. To survive at all costs and as long as possible.
2. All physical and mental functions, especially the brain, will deteriorate expeditiously after the productive age.

It is empirical and evident no human has survived more that 150 years.

My premise 1 is supported by a very tenable hypothesis and can be tested by the experiment I suggested above and the conclusion hypothesized is very probable.
In addition I stated in the above, the following;
The inherent impulse for immortality [to live as long as possible and eternally] is evident from the mummies dug out from various civilization all over the world.
At present the majority of people are theists clinging to a God for salvation to eternal life.

The drive "To survive at all costs and as long as possible" is coded in the human DNA and embedded, i.e. it is solidly hardwired deep in the brain, thus will not disappear.
It is only activated or inhibited by sub-programs.

[Prismatic567]

Is it possible for something to come from what isn't?

All "is" and "ought" statements are going to be about what "is" and in terms of what "is", but this doesn't mean their source is something that "is". Voices in your head can tell you what you "ought" to do, fictional characters can tell you what "is" - but they're not embedded in reality - at best their "is" and "ought" are personal and no more than accidentally or coincidentally apply beyond that scope. I guess that's why this thread is called "the origin of morality matters" and not the content or terms of morality.

Is something derived from what it applies to, or the terms it deals in? An "ought" derived from an "is" requires that its source is embedded in reality.
A supernatural source, or an arbitrary or subjective insertion does not meet this requirement.
If morality is derived from what "is" (embedded in reality) then it applies to reality even if you use the language of "ought" that carries with it implications of arbitrary/supernatural insertion from what isn't.

It is "is" that generates 'ought'.
It is "is' that 'ought' need to follow.
This is the basis of morality.

But morality do not demand that what 'ought' MUST be followed, thus no enforcement.
What morality induces is, from "what is" it is preferable to do 'what ought'.
So the question of morality is how to motivate all humans to prefer 'what ought' than preferring what-ought-not to be done.

The question of 'motivation' in this case is grounded on human psychology.
Thus the ultimate of dealing with morality has to be traced to the mechanisms of the human brain, thus neuro-psychology backed by the neurosciences.

[Silhouette]

It is "is" that generates 'ought'.

This is the attempt that succeeds only through the terms "ought" consists of and what they refer to, but is it a valid attempt from its origins? This is my question.

It is "is' that 'ought' need to follow.

Yes this is the basis of morality, but is it justified?

But morality do not demand that what 'ought' MUST be followed, thus no enforcement.

That's the thing: since oughts are generated in terms of "is" and in reference to "is" does that mean that the authority of the origin "is"? Does it mean the authority of the origin is legitimate?

What morality induces is, from "what is" it is preferable to do 'what ought'.
So the question of morality is how to motivate all humans to prefer 'what ought' than preferring what-ought-not to be done.

Whether or not it "is" preferable to do what "ought" to be done is down to "is", not "ought".
The "ought" gives it this supernatural and/or imposed legitimacy

The question of 'motivation' in this case is grounded on human psychology.
Thus the ultimate of dealing with morality has to be traced to the mechanisms of the human brain, thus neuro-psychology backed by the neurosciences.

Absolutely it's grounded in psychology. Are people more likely to accept what "is" or would they prefer to impose alternatives through some other less legitimate means - such as the supernatural?

Even today few people accept the most logically sound arguments if they counter what they would prefer to believe.

"Oughts" are a way to give false legitimacy to such commands, because they can come "from nowhere".
Necessitate that they come from what "is", and "oughts" go out the window unless they are justified by what "is", and are in fact "is" all along.
You can put "is" in terms of ought, like Magnus tried, in sentences that imply they are the same thing that could potentially be misused to justify all use of "ought" as "is", or "ought" from "is", but this is a deception - meaningfully or not. Using "is" as "ought" to justify "ought" from "is" is just "is" from "is", and this interchangeability should not be accepted as valid for the general case just because of less legitimate specific cases.

[Magnus Anderson]

You missed out on the critical point, at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

That does not answer my question. But let's forget about it. I have a different question for you, one that will test whether you yourself are striving to live for as long as possible.

Would you rather live a life that is one hundred years long and pleasurable than live a life of eternal hell?
Would you rather live in horrible pain for all eternity than live a finite life of pleasure?

[Prismatic567]

You missed out on the critical point, at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

That does not answer my question. But let's forget about it. I have a different question for you, one that will test whether you yourself are striving to live for as long as possible.

Would you rather live a life that is one hundred years long and pleasurable than live a life of eternal hell?
Would you rather live in horrible pain for all eternity than live a finite life of pleasure?

First I would not want to kill myself at present.
I believe no sane person would want to kill themselves voluntarily.

As I had stated,
1. DNA wise all humans will strive to survive at all costs till the inevitable.

Your questions are highly theoretical, thus my theoretical answers;

Would you rather live a life that is one hundred years long and pleasurable than live a life of eternal hell?
Given 1. yes I would live a life that is one hundred years long [if that is an assured certainty], not necessary pleasurable [with equanimity and optimality] than eternal hell.

Would you rather live in horrible pain for all eternity than live a finite life of pleasure?
Given 1, I would not prefer to live a life in horrible pain but I would strive to lessen the pain knowing there are ways to modulate the pain [pain-killers, etc.].

As for the OP re morality, we have to be realistic, i.e. there is no fact of eternity but there is the fact of inevitable mortality.

Thus within the limit of the empirical fact of inevitable mortality, humanity can established 'ought' from 'is' as a guide for morality.

[Prismatic567]

It is "is" that generates 'ought'.

This is the attempt that succeeds only through the terms "ought" consists of and what they refer to, but is it a valid attempt from its origins? This is my question.

There is no question of origins in this case.

Origin is only referred to from the theological perspective.
This is where God forced his original 'ought' upon believers and if they don't they will be sent to Hell.

The typical question, re Hume, can we get an 'ought' from 'is' on the basis that an 'ought' is reasoned while 'is' is empirical which are like oil versus water.

It is "is' that 'ought' need to follow.

Yes this is the basis of morality, but is it justified?

I believe it is justifiable to the individual[s] on a personal basis since no individual would want to kill themselves.
However we can achieve intersubjective consensus. i.e. justified objectively depending on the extend the experiment I suggested above.
The confidence level will depend on how many human being who responded, if 50% then 50% confident level, or 80%, 90% and preferable responses from 99% of all humans on Earth.
I believe 99.9% of humans [except] the mentally ill, will not want to be killed, thus we have a highly justifiable 'ought' from 'is.'

But morality do not demand that what 'ought' MUST be followed, thus no enforcement.

That's the thing: since oughts are generated in terms of "is" and in reference to "is" does that mean that the authority of the origin "is"? Does it mean the authority of the origin is legitimate?

As I had emphasized there is no question of authority, like the ought from God which is punishable with threat of Hell if believers do not comply.
In the case of secular morality, the 'ought' is merely a guide. Note 'guide only' there should be no enforcement at all by any authority.

If any government were to adopt 'no killing' as a legal 'ought' that is not morality but rather that is politics and legislature.

What morality induces is, from "what is" it is preferable to do 'what ought'.
So the question of morality is how to motivate all humans to prefer 'what ought' than preferring what-ought-not to be done.

Whether or not it "is" preferable to do what "ought" to be done is down to "is", not "ought".
The "ought" gives it this supernatural and/or imposed legitimacy

Not sure of your question.
In secular morality there is no involvement of the supernatural at all.

The question of 'motivation' in this case is grounded on human psychology.
Thus the ultimate of dealing with morality has to be traced to the mechanisms of the human brain, thus neuro-psychology backed by the neurosciences.

Absolutely it's grounded in psychology. Are people more likely to accept what "is" or would they prefer to impose alternatives through some other less legitimate means - such as the supernatural?

Even today few people accept the most logically sound arguments if they counter what they would prefer to believe.

"Oughts" are a way to give false legitimacy to such commands, because they can come "from nowhere".
Necessitate that they come from what "is", and "oughts" go out the window unless they are justified by what "is", and are in fact "is" all along.
You can put "is" in terms of ought, like Magnus tried, in sentences that imply they are the same thing that could potentially be misused to justify all use of "ought" as "is", or "ought" from "is", but this is a deception - meaningfully or not. Using "is" as "ought" to justify "ought" from "is" is just "is" from "is", and this interchangeability should not be accepted as valid for the general case just because of less legitimate specific cases.

The question of such 'ought' from 'is' is whether their application is positive to mankind or not.

If [note the big 'if'] every human being can spontaneously carry the consciousness of not killing any other human being, then there will be no murders, genocides, and killing at all within humanity.

So the task is how to implant such spontaneity in every human being so that they will not want to kill any other human being. Note it has to be natural and spontaneous, no forcing will be involved.

Given the current trend, I believe the above is possible in the future in 75 years, 100, 150 years or longer .. and eventually humanity will achieve such a state.

[Magnus Anderson]

I would live a life that is one hundred years long [if that is an assured certainty], not necessary pleasurable [with equanimity and optimality] than eternal hell.

That answers my new question. And it does so in a way that shows that you are not striving to live as long as possible.

[Prismatic567]

I would live a life that is one hundred years long [if that is an assured certainty], not necessary pleasurable [with equanimity and optimality] than eternal hell.

That answers my new question. And it does so in a way that shows that you are not striving to live as long as possible.

Your question is very theoretical and theoretically I would strive to live as long as possible in accordance to the program that is inherent in my DNA.

As stated what is critically to the OP is;

1. DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive at all costs.
2. DNA wise and empirically, mortality is a fact.

On the subject of morality, the origin of morality should be pivoted on the above two main variables.

[Magnus Anderson]

Not sure what you mean when you say that my question is very theoretical (or theoretical at all.) Note that what we're discussing here is what humans want (i.e. their personal preferences) and not what humans are (mortal or immortal, etc.) If you say that you want to live for as long as possible this means that you'd rather live an eternal life of pain than a finite life of pleasure. By claiming otherwise, you're telling us that you do not strive to live for as long as possible.

[obsrvr524]

In searching this topic, I'm seeing your WTMIJOT thought rising again.

Addressing that purpose of life issue, origin of morality issue, and longevity over pleasure issue is this discussion between phyllo and James.

The definition of "a living being" implies an inherent purpose. To fulfill that purpose, one must not grow or choose contrary to it. To do so is analogous to a government choosing to ignore the purpose for which it was formed and subvert it population (a historically common practice).

Thus purpose is not actually an entirely subjective issue. Purpose is objectively inherited by every living entity (despite often being thwarted via confusion and ignorance). Along with inherit objective purpose comes objective morality even if never known.

This purpose can be stated, in it's simplest form, as "survival and growth".

It's applicable for the individual organism and also a society formed by social organisms.

"Growth" can be considered improvement and reproduction.

Right?

I would state it more as simply survival (aka "anentropy"), as long as everyone understands the sophisticated philosophies of survival. Growth and reproduction are merely ways to try to survive. A cell grows and/or reproduces more of its own kind so as to surround itself with something compatible. Birds flock for the same reason. People gather and bear children for the same reason. Just about everything every species is know for, is their inherent philosophy and method for surviving.

Of course such "attempts" are not generally conscious attempts. They are literally inherited traits which lend toward survival even though not quite accomplishing it. A fundamental purpose cannot be chosen, but must be given because to chose implies a decision making arbitration that cannot exist without an already established purpose. Surviving requires a very complex strategy, as every individual being, species, and government throughout history has demonstrated.

The truly best method for surviving, whatever that might actually be (still quite unknown to most), is what constitutes the morality (again, as long as everyone understands the nature of the task). The confusion arises because people do not inherently understand the sophistication and are not well taught, more often entirely misled.

As you know, I often refer to Anentropic Harmony and MIJOT (Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time) as the inherent purpose, goal, objective, "direction", path, way, or Tao. I use those terms rather than merely "survive" so as to point out the more relevant details of what survival requires and to avoid presumptions concerning survival strategies. And from those deeper details comes essential values that form the most rational morality possible.

James is expressing that the origin of morality is necessarily an inherent property of life and inherently leads to a striving to live as joyously as possible for as long as possible even though most people do not realize it and get very confused by the issue.

That is at least one answer to the topic question. But I still think that getting anyone to believe that answer or any other is the greater problem as is being witnessed in this very thread.

[Magnus Anderson]

James's position isn't quite clear. According to him, is Integral of Joy Over Time an end or a means?

[Ecmandu]

James's position isn't quite clear. According to him, is Integral of Joy Over Time an end or a means?

Actually, james' position is quite clear.

Everything that happens to us is perfect, because of the "one true God" (trademark)!!

James can be seen as someone who enters the dustbin of history.

This is so far from perfect, you can't even make a joke about it.

[obsrvr524]

James's position isn't quite clear. According to him, is Integral of Joy Over Time an end or a means?

It seems to me that he intends that the integral is a measure, IJOT, and to maximize that measure is the highest goal or priority of any and every life, MIJOT. And I think he means whether human or not and whether they are even aware that it is the inherent goal or not.

Your Will-to-MIJOT, WTMIJOT, adds another dimension concerning the push or drive to achieve MIJOT.

For what it's worth, that is how I am reading it.

[obsrvr524]

Everything that happens to us is perfect, because of the "one true God" (trademark)!!

I haven't seen him say anything like that. Do you have a reference?

[Ecmandu]

Everything that happens to us is perfect, because of the "one true God" (trademark)!!

I haven't seen him say anything like that. Do you have a reference?

People on these boards made fun of James because he was a theist.

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

James vehemently believed in god

[obsrvr524]

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:

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.

[Magnus Anderson]

It seems to me that he intends that the integral is a measure, IJOT, and to maximize that measure is the highest goal or priority of any and every life, MIJOT. And I think he means whether human or not and whether they are even aware that it is the inherent goal or not.

Either the highest goal is to maximize IJOT or it is to maximize survival of the individual. It can't be both. This is what is not clear.

[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:

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]

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.