morality

[James S Saint]

But then there is a presumption that the minimum amount of suffering and death is the basis for moral judgements, which is a prejudice. I'm not saying I disagree with it, but it is a prejudice nonetheless.

A chosen ontology with its definitions is NOT "a presumption of truth". It is a declared foundation for understanding to be compared and verified against objective reality. A declared definition cannot be a prejudice (although it might be declared due to prior prejudice) because it is not a judgment, but a declaration of language for communication and thought. There is no choice in making such declarations if communication or thought is to take place. And any definition can be chosen. But of course in the end, if the definitions don't allow for a strong comparison to reality, the chosen ontology is useless. We are not concerned with useless understandings. And whether something is useless or not, is an objective issue relating to each subjective attempt.

So no, I cannot agree that prejudice has anything to do with the chosen definitions for "good" or "moral". The definitions either work out to achieve the rational goal of understanding for the purpose of decision making or they don't.

A similar example is the definition provided for existence itself as "that which has affect". That definition is chosen for the rationale that I am not concerned about anything known to have absolute zero affect upon anything. It is not a declaration of objective reality, but a chosen declaration for rational thought so that rational (useful/effective) decisions can be made.

[James S Saint]

And in effect, even the choice of which ontology to use at what time, is an objectifiable moral issue. Anyone can choose any set of definitions as they please and construct any kind of ontology. But in the end, one ontology with its definitions will be more useful than another. And that which is more useful, is more good (by default). Thus even the choice to use ontology A or ontology B is actually an objectively moral issue. Using a bad ontology (perhaps fairy tales) can be immoral because they do more harm than other available options.

[The Artful Pauper]

Sure you can make a declared ontology, as you say... but the general point of morality is that there is an obligation. You can enforce the obligation or convince others to agree on it if you are capable, that is fine and an aspect of life and human nature. But ultimately it is conventional, it's enforcement is conventional, that's all I was saying.

I'm sure you have good reasons for it, even "noble" reasons, one might say. I personally believe that a clear understanding of natural law is for the best. I think noble lies or ignoble lies (which from your description above it does not appear you were trying to make) are not useful, it breeds ultimately irrational and easily manipulable citizens.

It seems like you are proposing an applied form of the social contract, which is fine... The reason I am not necessarily for it (agreeing on the ontology that is) is because I realize that people will shirk the contract and even manipulate it, that is human nature. I think it's better if people know the playing field.

I'm not a sophist, at least in that I don't take money for telling people what I know, and I have no desire to win debates for presentation, my concern is only gaining a concrete understanding. I don't think your intentions are ignoble.

[Orbie]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Wouldn't you say that "fundamentally" all races and humans are "natural"? Or evolution-wise, am i wrong in this?

I would not even now why anyone needs to be reminded of this. What I am saying on the other hand is quite radical.

Some do, because in order to prevent a Sam that's pretty nearly 'here',to really take over ALL functions. Arcturus has a very good point, in-as-much the whole abstraction deals with defining the good, and the most basic definition is what is good is the natural. The natural goodness didn't degrade until unnatural, artificial and mechanistic programs were filled in along the way. Al is the culmination of the unnatural, if, 'unnatural' can be defined that way. Al is trying real hard to erase the distinction, and to make the claim that regardless of the level of complexity, such as the sharply increased psychological complexity of circuitry does not effect the utility by which the natural may be degraded.

Therefore, the distinction is simply the technical validation of substantiating IT (AL), as beyond good, and evil.

Therefore, groups of people are neither, inherently good or bad. They are simply acting in deference to natural/unnatural clues. Al's program is to encourage these clues, so that the clues will finally disappear, and people will have no clue.

[James S Saint]

Sure you can make a declared ontology, as you say... but the general point of morality is that there is an obligation. You can enforce the obligation or convince others to agree on it if you are capable, that is fine and an aspect of life and human nature. But ultimately it is conventional, it's enforcement is conventional, that's all I was saying.

It's kind of funny that now it is You who are presenting the "defeatist attitude" and I am proposing the "optimistic solutions".

It seems like you are proposing an applied form of the social contract, which is fine... The reason I am not necessarily for it (agreeing on the ontology that is) is because I realize that people will shirk the contract and even manipulate it, that is human nature. I think it's better if people know the playing field.

Oh, its more than merely a social contract, really. I am proposing that if one wants -

my concern is only gaining a concrete understanding.

he must choose an ontology with its declared definitions for good and moral. And if he wants that ontology to be rational, he must choose definitions that benefit him (ie "good"). Then I propose that such an ontology has actually been formed, and thus it is not merely a theory that such an ontology is possible.

Objective good and morality are findable. That is my proposition.

[The Artful Pauper]

It's kind of funny that now it is You who are presenting the "defeatist attitude" and I am proposing the "optimistic solutions".

I don't really see my position as defeatist, because what I am proposing is that one uses prudence to make decisions with life as situations arise. There is no defeat there, it is a method with dealing with situations, not to sit down and have it at the end. Your analogy to the other post is out of place. I had implied that there was a defeatist attitude because I thought that what was being proposed there was that humanity would end, but yet we could not and should not attempt to change that process. I thought there was a literal "defeat" (that the end was upon us), it was not meant as an insult. Also, the conclusion was that that was not what was being expressed and I admitted I was mistaken.

he must choose an ontology with its declared definitions for good and moral. And if he wants that ontology to be rational, he must choose definitions that benefit him (ie "good"). Then I propose that such an ontology has actually been formed, and thus it is not merely a theory that such an ontology is possible.

Objective good and morality are findable. That is my proposition.

It seems to me that even what I find good for myself changes depending on my goals and mindset, and upon the situation, so any chosen ontology would only be temporary. Practical prudence seems to me just as valuable if not moreso than building a moral structure.

You propose that objective good is findable, I propose any such solution is potentially rejectable.

[James S Saint]

I don't really see my position as defeatist, because what I am proposing is that one uses prudence to make decisions with life as situations arise. There is no defeat there, it is a method with dealing with situations, not to sit down and have it at the end. Your analogy to the other post is out of place. I had implied that there was a defeatist attitude because I thought that what was being proposed there was that humanity would end, but yet we could not and should not attempt to change that process. I thought there was a literal "defeat" (that the end was upon us), it was not meant as an insult. Also, the conclusion was that that was not what was being expressed and I admitted I was mistaken.

Well now wait (and I was not taking anything so seriously as to be an "insult", nor intending one). Didn't you say that "ultimately it is a matter of presumed prejudice"?

But ultimately you are basing the logic on presuppositions,...
.
.
But then there is a presumption that the minimum amount of suffering and death is the basis for moral judgements, which is a prejudice. I'm not saying I disagree with it, but it is a prejudice nonetheless.

And if one presumes that there is always the presumed prejudice that causes the confusion and defeat, doesn't one presume defeat? One cannot say "the logic is always based on an presumption of prejudice" without asserting that logic is always defeated.

he must choose an ontology with its declared definitions for good and moral. And if he wants that ontology to be rational, he must choose definitions that benefit him (ie "good"). Then I propose that such an ontology has actually been formed, and thus it is not merely a theory that such an ontology is possible.

Objective good and morality are findable. That is my proposition.

It seems to me that even what I find good for myself changes depending on my goals and mindset, and upon the situation, so any chosen ontology would only be temporary. Practical prudence seems to me just as valuable if not moreso than building a moral structure.

Remember that I said "an abstract good" that applies to ALL living entities. Are you ever in a situation where you are not a living entity (despite reports to the contrary )? And abstract concepts can apply to anything at any time without the need of changing. The concept of anentropic harmony is one that applies to the existence any physical entity, even if not a living entity. It is the application of the abstract that varies moment by moment. But that is literally why you have a brain, so that you can stay aware and update the balance of your situation to match the abstract needs of your existence. Those abstract needs never change.

You propose that objective good is findable, I propose any such solution is potentially rejectable.

Anything is "reject-able". But again, that is why it is "Rational Metaphysics". There are many things that cannot be rationally rejected. And I am not concerned with the irrational. If you seek an irrational solution, there are very many of those all around. You are free to reject the diamond in favor of the gravel.

[The Artful Pauper]

And if one presumes that there is always the presumed prejudice that causes the confusion and defeat, doesn't one presume defeat? One cannot say "the logic is always based on an presumption of prejudice" without asserting that logic is always defeated.

Logic is a tool for the passions, but the passions are subjective. One attempts to appease the passions using logic. One might fail (and in this sense be defeated) in attempting to do so. I wouldn't necessarily call that defeatist, it is a defeat. Defeatist in that sense would be not even attempting to satisfy them for various reasons.

Anything is "reject-able". But again, that is why it is "Rational Metaphysics". There are many things that cannot be rationally rejected. And I am not concerned with the irrational. If you seek an irrational solution, there are very many of those all around. You are free to reject the diamond in favor of the gravel.

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are a dictate of the right way to live, and the right way to live is subjective to each living entity. If a set of calculations are put forward which say "this is objectively the best way to live", it can be rejected in favor of another way of living. If that way of life is satisfying to the subject, there is no law which can say "wrong!" in such a way that it would matter to that subjective actor. You can play on their emotions, or you can coerce them with convention, but there is no ultimate repercussions for breaking any given moral law. Any such dediced law would be natural law, the conditions of nature by which we live, or else the circumstances which result from convention, by which we might do well to live to acheive certain desired outcomes.

[James S Saint]

Logic is a tool for the passions, but the passions are subjective. One attempts to appease the passions using logic. One might fail (and in this sense be defeated) in attempting to do so.

That is a common propaganda of the day, but not exactly true. The same could be said of a gun, "it is a tool for the passions". But is the gun's fundamental construction merely up to passion? Or are there objective realities involved such as to render the "gun" either useful to the passions or not?

Logic actually has nothing at all to do with passions. It is merely the coherency of definitions, "A is A". One cannot decide that "A is not A" and be "logical" regardless of what he claims or wants. And don't conflate "rationalizing" (the attempt to find an excusable rationale for a chosen passion) with "being rational" (choosing logical steps to take in order to achieve a chosen goal). The logic doesn't care from whence the goal came, from passion or a sub-goal from some other logical rationale.

I wouldn't necessarily call that defeatist, it is a defeat. Defeatist in that sense would be not even attempting to satisfy them for various reasons.

Defeatism is asserting that there is nothing that will lead to a solution, such as "logic is ALWAYS based on presumption" (ie "always defeated as a logical solution, and is rather merely a presumed solution").

The point I'm trying to make is that morals are a dictate of the right way to live, and the right way to live is subjective to each living entity. If a set of calculations are put forward which say "this is objectively the best way to live", it can be rejected in favor of another way of living.

Don't you believe that in order to be a living entity, there are definitional qualifiers? If one does not support something that is definitional to his existence as a living entity, then he is not supporting his existence as a living entity and doing something else instead. The effort to support ones existence is one of the defining qualities of a living entity.

And certainly one can say, "I want to live this way instead of that way". But one can also say, "I want to be immoral rather than moral". As I said, anything can be "rejected". And we are not talking about the probable future of humanity here. We are talking about the possibility of the existence of an objectively moral code. Is it possible that such a code can be found? The "defeatist" says "No. There is not one to be found or there is no way to find it."

Many believe that the moral way is the way of allowing others to choose if they want to be moral. What if they are right?

If that way of life is satisfying to the subject, there is no law which can say "wrong!" in such a way that it would matter to that subjective actor. You can play on their emotions, or you can coerce them with convention, but there is no ultimate repercussions for breaking any given moral law.

I can't agree with that. If a person says, "I want to continue killing people just for fun", I can easily imagine a "law" that says, "wanna bet?"

[Fixed Cross]

I understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. I was just trying to say that valuations no matter what they are based off of have are of the realm of prejudice. They have no real place in philosophical inquiry (though they can be a product of philosophical inquiry), which is not to say they do not have a place in living. But because every value system is a prejudice for something (for life, for power, for truth, or what have you), it's purpose is to aid in a particular type of interpretation of the world. It is not concerned with truth alone, but with a goal which is manifest in the valued object.

When people get their value systems from others you can pretty much guarentee that it is being imbued in them for some purpose (and not so they should question it). For example, Nietzsche's valuations which give respect to the sources of power has the effect of securing power structures and relations. It's really an ingenious way of causing individuals to affirm a situation that is not in their own interest, but it's not really something to take seriously as philosophical inquiry (that is, inquiry backed by prejudice). The inquiry would be the other way around, that you would look at reality and then use the contents of reality to back the prejudice to use as a tool, a Platonic tool, of imbuing the population with morals that progress your cause.

The point I was making is not that Nietzsche had his head in the clouds — he did look at the world as it is, but seeing that the reality and affirming the reality are two different things. It is the process of affirmation that is the prejudice, it is like a moral imperative "Thou shalt..." (affirm reality).

That's precisely what it is. I think you understand my intentions perfectly.

If you say, the strong will crush the weak, that could refer to an actual state of affairs, a truth. If you say, the strong "should" (or are right to) you are translating a truth to a moral prejudice. I was just saying that Nietzsche's goal to change the moral landscape was part of a political program, it was intentional, the concern was not with truth in the way that a philosophical or scientific inquiry is. Philosophy is more flexible than science because it can work with things like moral imperatives and construct them. Philosophy is like Science + Art, in a manner of speaking. Not only does it discover the nature of things but it is also an intentional action, it constructs political programs and uses the discoveries to artfully to bring about an effect. Nietzsche's values were his art. I'm not saying they're shyte or anything, he was a brilliant thinker but that doesn't mean he needs to be obeyed... unless you are willing to be dominated by his ideas, or you share his political goals or prejudices, or are unable to extricate yourself from his imperatives (to think beyond them), but the underlying teaching was that philosophers (who are above even kings) do not become dominated by the values of others, they are the creators of values and use them to rope others into their political programs.

These are my own ideas - Nietzsche never made such a claim - but they are powerfully related to Nietzsche's efforts and attained perspectives.

[Fixed Cross]

If you say, the strong will crush the weak, that could refer to an actual state of affairs, a truth. If you say, the strong "should" (or are right to) you are translating a truth to a moral prejudice.

Clearly. Hence, "morality".

Philosophically, I can only assert that all beings are good to themselves, even if they do not think so - because they always behave according to their values, whether they can own up to them or not. If not, they feel shame, or guilt, or simply sorrow. This too reflects their consistency toward themselves, their standards. A positive standard is what we bounce the idea 'good' off, what makes this idea sensible.

All beings are good in their own terms
The consequences of the enactment of the terms of different beings differ
Therefore, conflict is good.
The outcome of conflicts often involves the end of a being
therefore the end of beings is good.

I present this as something for people to attack logically. I am aware of the prejudice that ties the argument together. This is what makes it a morality rather than a philosophical observation.

[The Artful Pauper]

Logic is a tool for the passions, but the passions are subjective. One attempts to appease the passions using logic. One might fail (and in this sense be defeated) in attempting to do so.

That is a common propaganda of the day, but not exactly true. The same could be said of a gun, "it is a tool for the passions". But is the gun's fundamental construction merely up to passion? Or are there objective realities involved such as to render the "gun" either useful to the passions or not?

Have you read social psychology? Humans are not rational animals, they are led by instinct and passion. You can see it in day to day reality, you don't need propaganda to tell you that.

If that way of life is satisfying to the subject, there is no law which can say "wrong!" in such a way that it would matter to that subjective actor. You can play on their emotions, or you can coerce them with convention, but there is no ultimate repercussions for breaking any given moral law.

I can't agree with that. If a person says, "I want to continue killing people just for fun", I can easily imagine a "law" that says, "wanna bet?"

Notice in my quote:

you can coerce them with convention

If a murderer gets away with it, and if they has no regret, paranoia, etc. about it, then breaking a moral law would be irrelevant to them. I am not in favor of murder at all, that is not what I am arguing here.

[The Artful Pauper]

Philosophically, I can only assert that all beings are good to themselves, even if they do not think so - because they always behave according to their values, whether they can own up to them or not. If not, they feel shame, or guilt, or simply sorrow. This too reflects their consistency toward themselves, their standards. A positive standard is what we bounce the idea 'good' off, what makes this idea sensible.

All beings are good in their own terms.

I am in agreement with this if we say that it is more true to the character of those who do not think of themselves as good that they act in accordance with what they do think is good (for example the community). If that is so, then I agree with this.

[James S Saint]

Logic is a tool for the passions, but the passions are subjective. One attempts to appease the passions using logic. One might fail (and in this sense be defeated) in attempting to do so.

That is a common propaganda of the day, but not exactly true. The same could be said of a gun, "it is a tool for the passions". But is the gun's fundamental construction merely up to passion? Or are there objective realities involved such as to render the "gun" either useful to the passions or not?

Have you read social psychology? Humans are not rational animals, they are led by instinct and passion. You can see it in day to day reality, you don't need propaganda to tell you that.

If that way of life is satisfying to the subject, there is no law which can say "wrong!" in such a way that it would matter to that subjective actor. You can play on their emotions, or you can coerce them with convention, but there is no ultimate repercussions for breaking any given moral law.

I can't agree with that. If a person says, "I want to continue killing people just for fun", I can easily imagine a "law" that says, "wanna bet?"

Notice in my quote:

you can coerce them with convention

If a murderer gets away with it, and if they has no regret, paranoia, etc. about it, then breaking a moral law would be irrelevant to them. I am not in favor of murder at all, that is not what I am arguing here.

Why do you keep referring to what people might reject, like, or feel?
We are talking about the objective reality, not what people might accept. Very few people accepted that the Earth wasn't flat. For some strange reason, their rejection didn't change the fact of it. Some things just take getting used to before fully accepting.

[The Artful Pauper]

Because morality is intricately tied to a belief of the best life. Beliefs about how to act are not stable, they are a result of perspective (who the subject is, where he/she is, what he/she is capable, what are the current goals, what are expectations). There is objective knowledge which is relevant, it is knowledge of natural law, the current conditions of convention, and prudential virtues. Physics are a form of natural law. Certain feats can only be accomplished with a knowledge of physics, so in that case it is necessary to have that knowledge. I previously made the proposition that the closest we would come was prudential virtues (so there is awareness/knowledge and training/skill). This knowledge combined with forms of natural laws (in which I am including scientific law, though true, there is a distinction, I just did not make it grammatically. I suppose to say a knowledge of physis might be better.), and current convention, is a basis for how to live which gets as close to objectivity as I can see it. How people apply this knowledge varies.

It is good to possess that knowledge mentioned (physis, the state of convention, and prudential virtues) as well as the skill to apply it.

Add to this this:

Philosophically, I can only assert that all beings are good to themselves, even if they do not think so - because they always behave according to their values, whether they can own up to them or not. If not, they feel shame, or guilt, or simply sorrow. This too reflects their consistency toward themselves, their standards. A positive standard is what we bounce the idea 'good' off, what makes this idea sensible.

All beings are good in their own terms.

I am in agreement with this if we say that it is more true to the character of those who do not think of themselves as good that they act in accordance with what they do think is good (for example the community). If that is so, then I agree with this.

and you are closer to what I would consider a true system of ethics. Ultimately though, the application (or way of life) depends on the circumstance and disposition of the interactant.

[James S Saint]

FC speaks of the currently popular subjective morality. But there can never be a subjective reality without an objective reality underlying it. And every subjective morality must have an objective morality underlying it as well.

It took some 10-12,000 years for Man to learn of basic physics, which he still seems to not have exactly right. The physical laws never changed merely because Man imagined them to be different. It's understandable for Man to take another 1000 years or so to grasp the morality that has also never changed regardless of his great imaginative misunderstandings of it. It is deducible that it exists to be discovered.

[The Artful Pauper]

FC speaks of the currently popular subjective morality. But there can never be a subjective reality without an objective reality underlying it. And every subjective morality must have an objective morality underlying it as well.

It took some 10-12,000 years for Man to learn of basic physics, which he still seems to not have exactly right. The physical laws never changed merely because Man imagined them to be different. It's understandable for Man to take another 1000 years or so to grasp the morality that has also never changed regardless of his great imaginative misunderstandings of it. It is deducible that it exists to be discovered.

If you feel it is a worthwhile task then that is a good thing. I would never try to keep you from it. I have stated what occurs to me through my inquiry. I will continue to engage in directions of inquiry and I am open to new insights as they arise.

As I originally said

I'm not so rash as to rule it all out in one sweep without much in depth contemplation (that is what philosophy is all about), but it does seem like the task might be much harder than it at first appears.

If you, and perhaps others, make breakthroughs in the field that is great. As you know the truth will out in the end. And, as for what needn't be said, if you feel that way I'm sure my perspective won't keep you from engaging in potentially fruitful iquiry. Only I feel, from the conclusions I have gathered, my mind is better applied elsewhere, like areas of knowledge I referred to above, in particular practical virtue.

[Fixed Cross]

FC speaks of the currently popular subjective morality. But there can never be a subjective reality without an objective reality underlying it. And every subjective morality must have an objective morality underlying it as well.

You seem to confuse the terms morality and reality.

[Fixed Cross]

Philosophically, I can only assert that all beings are good to themselves, even if they do not think so - because they always behave according to their values, whether they can own up to them or not. If not, they feel shame, or guilt, or simply sorrow. This too reflects their consistency toward themselves, their standards. A positive standard is what we bounce the idea 'good' off, what makes this idea sensible.

All beings are good in their own terms.

I am in agreement with this if we say that it is more true to the character of those who do not think of themselves as good that they act in accordance with what they do think is good (for example the community). If that is so, then I agree with this.

Could you explain why you'd set this as a condition? I do not see how this directly matters for what I said to be true or not.

I could agree, generally, that there are degrees of individual- and community- based 'goodness' to the mind of men. But all communities revolve around individuals, and those that form structurally crucial components of a community act as standards of 'good' to the ones that join the community to find support and alike-valuing humans. Somewhat hypoerbolically, I am saying is that the ''idea'' (standard) of goodness is the cohesive component of the conscious form of being. Thus, a refined notion of morality is essential to understand oneself.

[James S Saint]

You seem to confuse the terms morality and reality.

What is the probability?

Even in VO, if an entity does not value itself, it disintegrates. Thus not self-valuing is immoral, not benefiting itself nor the community that was expecting or depending on it to do so.

Every life has certain specific abstract needs that are the same for every other life. To not maintain those is to not self-value and to not actually be living because of the definition of "living". Thus to not maintain those specific abstract needs is immoral, not benefiting itself nor any community that was expecting or depending on it doing so. It is objectively true whether it is or isn't doing so, thus objectively immoral if not doing so.

[Fixed Cross]

You seem to confuse the terms morality and reality.

What is the probability?

Even in VO, if an entity does not value itself, it disintegrates. Thus not self-valuing is immoral, not benefiting itself nor the community that was expecting or depending on it to do so.

Assuming that there was such a community, and that the decay is not seen as moral by other entities. So - only under conditions of a specified teleological (moral) context.

Every life has certain specific abstract needs that are the same for every other life. To not maintain those is to not self-value and to not actually be living because of the definition of "living". Thus to not maintain those specific abstract needs is immoral, not benefiting itself nor any community that was expecting or depending on it doing so. It is objectively true whether it is or isn't doing so, thus objectively immoral if not doing so.

This thus stands refuted.

[Fixed Cross]

And here we're back at the permises of the OP. If we take the largest context we can grasp, (never "The Whole" -- we are not primitives -- but for example the perceivable/conceivable universe) and affirm/"will" its existence, both struggle and death are "moral".

Any more specific context, teleologically perceived, also includes the death of many entities, as well as perpetual struggle.

[James S Saint]

Good, benefit, moral.
Death isn't on that list.

And perception and "what it is seen as" have nothing to do with it.

[Fixed Cross]

James, what did you have for breakfast?
Was it good? Did it benefit you?

Is it still alive?

[James S Saint]

James, what did you have for breakfast?
Was it good? Did it benefit you?

Is it still alive?

Your mother.

There are abstract inherent needs that are common for all people that lead to a best possible behavior regarding how one interacts with oneself, a personal morality. And there are social groups that depend upon interactions between members of the groups which leads to a best possible interaction behavior, a social morality.

And because a person can only have one actual morality, there is a best possible combination of the personal and social moralities that constitutes the single best possible morality that can be obtained. That best possible morality has an abstract objective foundation as well as versatile subjective amendments. But if you are about to suggest that either offering oneself up to be someone else's breakfast or having someone else for breakfast is the best possible behavior and morality, I think that I will just leave this discussion in the mud.