Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity.I am not. My intention was to establish that objectivity =/= consensus (e.g. collective subjectivity.)
Even I have learned something today (which I always enjoy doing), so thank you.
Collective subjectivity is not the equivalent of consensus because they are different kinds of terms that refer to different aspects of science. Collective subjectivity is a descriptive term that refers to what a group of people perceive or experience, while consensus is a normative term that refers to what a group of people agree or disagree on. Collective subjectivity does not necessarily imply consensus, and consensus does not necessarily imply collective subjectivity. For example, a group of people may have a collective subjective experience of seeing a mirage in the desert, but they may not agree on what it is or what it means. Conversely, a group of people may reach a consensus on a scientific hypothesis based on empirical evidence, but they may not have the same subjective experience of observing or interpreting the data.
The difference between objectivity and consensus is that objectivity is a criterion for evaluating the quality and validity of scientific knowledge, while consensus is a result of communicating and collaborating among scientific agents. Objectivity does not necessarily imply consensus, and consensus does not necessarily imply objectivity. For example, a scientific claim may be objective in the sense that it is based on reliable evidence and rigorous methods, but it may not have consensus in the sense that it is disputed or rejected by some scientists for various reasons. Conversely, a scientific claim may have consensus in the sense that it is widely accepted or endorsed by most scientists, but it may not be objective in the sense that it is based on biased or flawed evidence or methods.
- Objectivity is a property of various aspects of science, such as claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves. It expresses the idea that these aspects are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
- Consensus is a state of agreement or harmony among a group of people, such as scientists, experts, or peers. Consensus can be achieved through various methods, such as voting, deliberation, negotiation, or experimentation. Consensus can be a sign of objectivity, but it is not the same as objectivity. Consensus can also be influenced by social, political, or cultural factors that may not reflect the objective reality.
- Subjectivity is a property of various aspects of science, such as claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves. It expresses the idea that these aspects are based on or influenced by personal perception and experience. Subjectivity is often associated with ideas such as opinion, bias and uncertainty.
- Collective subjectivity is a term that can refer to the shared or common perception and experience of a group of people, such as scientists, experts, or peers. Collective subjectivity can be a source of knowledge and understanding, but it can also be a source of error and misunderstanding. Collective subjectivity can be contrasted with individual subjectivity, which refers to the unique perception and experience of a single person.
Cited by the following:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
- Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
- Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
1. Subjective is that which is subject to perception and experience.2. Objective is that which is independent of perception and experience.
I'm willing to look past this for the sake of moving on since the discrepancies are nuanced. However, based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:
These definitions capture the general sense of the words, but they may not apply to every context or usage. For example, in grammar, subjective and objective refer to different cases of nouns and pronouns, not to perception and experience. In philosophy, subjective and objective have more nuanced meanings that relate to the nature of reality and knowledge.
- Subjective is that which is based on or influenced by the mind of the perceiving subject, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). Subjective can also refer to the nature of consciousness and experience, or to the style or expression of an artist.
- Objective is that which is not based on or influenced by the mind of the perceiving subject, but rather by the properties of the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). Objective can also refer to the nature of reality and knowledge, or to the content or meaning of a work of art.
Cited by the following:
- Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
5. A hypothetical requires an assumption, its being based on theory notwithstanding.
Based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:
According to various dictionaries, hypothetical means “of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis”, “supposed but not necessarily real or true”, or “involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory”. A hypothesis is “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation” Therefore, hypothetical does require an assumption, but it does not imply that the assumption is based on theory. It could be based on observation, intuition, speculation, or imagination. The correct definition is as follows; hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
Cited by the following:
- Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
6. Theoretical describes the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data.
Based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:
According to various dictionaries, theoretical means “relating to or having the character of theory”, “confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications”, or “based on theory or on possibilities”. A theory is “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation". Therefore, theoretical does describe the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data, but it also implies that the explanation is not necessarily proven or verified by practice. The correct definition is as follows; theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
Cited by the following:
9. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.9. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is [unreasonable]; the external world and other minds cannot be known and [can] not exist outside the mind."
I think you have misunderstood the meaning and implications of this philosophical position. Your revision changes the words “unsure” and “might not” to “unreasonable” and “cannot”, which alters the nature and scope of solipsism in significant ways. Let me explain why.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. This means that solipsism is a form of skepticism or idealism, which questions or denies the possibility or validity of knowledge or reality beyond one’s own mind. It does not mean that solipsism is a form of dogmatism or irrationalism, which asserts or assumes the impossibility or invalidity of knowledge or reality beyond one’s own mind.
By changing “unsure” to “unreasonable”, you imply that solipsism is not just a descriptive position, but also a normative position. In other words, you suggest that solipsism is not just about what we can or cannot know, but also about what we should or should not believe. This is not how solipsism is usually understood in philosophy, where it is a challenge or a problem, not a solution or a doctrine. Solipsists do not necessarily claim that it is unreasonable to believe in anything outside their own mind, but rather that they have no sufficient reason or evidence to do so.
By changing “might not” to “cannot”, you imply that solipsism is not just an epistemological position, but also a metaphysical position. In other words, you suggest that solipsism is not just about the limits of our knowledge, but also about the nature of reality. This is not how solipsism is usually understood in philosophy, where it is a form of subjective idealism, which holds that reality is dependent on or identical to one’s own mind. It does not mean that solipsism is a form of nihilism or monism, which holds that reality is nonexistent or reducible to one’s own mind.
Your revision also contradicts itself, because if the external world and other minds cannot exist outside the mind, then how can you claim to know that? You would have to assume some kind of access to an objective reality that you deny. This is a logical fallacy known as self-refutation.
The difference between “unsure” and “unreasonable”, and between “might not” and “cannot”, is important to acknowledge, because it reflects the difference between being open-minded and being closed-minded, and between being humble and being arrogant. Solipsism is a challenging philosophical position that raises many questions and doubts about our knowledge and reality, but it does not necessarily mean that we should reject or ignore any possibility that contradicts it.
You can find more information and examples of solipsism and its criticisms in these sources:
I hope this clarifies my position and shows why your revision is inaccurate and misleading. I hope with these citations we can move past our opinionative definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
That seems completely reasonable and makes sense. It was your quote (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument) that threw me off, as I misinterpreted this as being wrong to criticize an argument AKA attack an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered.You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.
In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
To clarify, here are a few examples of the behavior that will result in a warning and, should it persist, a ban or restraining order:
- Insulting someone's intelligence (as distinguished from attacking a given claim or argument)
This approach may seem contradictory to productive debates, which rely on critiquing arguments to identify logical inconsistencies. While the intention is to discourage the use of intellectual insults like "Stupid," "Idiot," or other words I prefer not to mention, it is important to recognize that constructive debate involves identifying flaws in arguments to strengthen and refine one's own and others' positions. Furthermore, individuals often struggle to identify flaws in their own arguments, which highlights the value of others providing their insights and pointing out weaknesses from an outsider perspective. This emphasizes the need for diverse perspectives and insights to engage in meaningful discourse and address flaws in others' arguments.
I hope you are not suggesting that offering insights into the flaws and logical inconsistencies in others' arguments is considered offensive. Rather, it is the use of offensive or insulting language that is deemed inappropriate. Constructive criticism and thoughtful engagement with the weaknesses in arguments are essential for meaningful and respectful discussions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I believe we have a sort of misunderstanding although I'm having a hard time definitively identifying it. I believe the best way to understand each other is to work from a large picture and hone in on what exactly we disagree with if it is not a miscommunication of definition. To do this I would like to find what we agree with and work towards understanding our disagreements. After all, there is no point in arguing about a symptom to the root cause of our dispute, it is only by getting to the source that we can make progress in our discussion.
Please let me know that we are in agreement for the definitions I have found for these commonly misunderstood words:
- Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
- Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
- Rational means sensible or reasonable.
- Logical means being well reasoned.
- Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
- Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
- Illusion is a distortion of the senses, such as a misinterpretation of a true sensation.
- Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It is the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.
- Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
Assuming that you are familiar with these definitions I will continue, working from the larger picture to the more minute and nuanced disagreements.
You clearly stated:
CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY.
Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity. While they may be quite similar, they are not the same. The reason being, is there may be many similarities among subjective individuals, but this does not establish anything more than a commonality or majority standard and does not necessarily indicate an objective standard. No person is capable of being completely objective, nor can they perceive the world objectively. I want to make sure we have a mutually established foundation before going into the nuances of this complex topic.
A possible Darwinian perspective on human perception (why humans are only capable of viewing the world through a subjective lens) is that it is shaped by natural selection and adaptation to the environment. Humans are incapable of perceiving the world through an objective lens because they have evolved to perceive what is relevant and useful for their survival and reproduction, not what is true or accurate. Everyone is subjective to their own biases and view of perception, which are influenced by their genes, culture, experience, and goals. These factors affect how humans process information, interpret stimuli, and respond emotionally and behaviorally.
Some evidence for this perspective can be found in the following sources:
- Ernst Mayr argues that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has profoundly changed the way modern people think about the world and their place in it. He claims that Darwin's ideas challenged the traditional views of human nature, morality, and purpose, and introduced a secular and scientific worldview that recognizes the diversity and variability of life.
- Peter J. Richerson et al. review how modern theories of human evolution reflect Darwin's insights in The Descent of Man. They emphasize how cooperation, social learning, and cumulative culture in the ancestors of modern humans were key to our evolution and were enhanced during the environmental upheavals of the Pleistocene.
- Sergey Gavrilets and Frans B. M. de Waal discuss how Darwin considered the problems of instinctive behavior and heart rate control to be connected. They explain how Darwin questioned why heart rate and emotions can be influenced both by conscious will and unconscious physiological mechanisms, and how these processes have adaptive functions for humans and other animals.
- Alex Mesoudi et al. examine whether human cultural evolution is Darwinian. They argue that human culture exhibits many of the features of biological evolution, such as variation, inheritance, selection, and adaptation, but also has some unique characteristics that require additional explanations.
According to the Darwinian perspective, humans are products of evolution by natural selection, which means humans cannot have an objective view of the world because they are part of the world, not outside of it. They are subjects within the universe, not observers of it. Therefore, anything that exists is subjectively experiencing the universe because it exists within the universe. The only thing that could be objective is the thing that does not exist, such as a metaphysical concept or consciousness itself. The reason being is that it is nonexistent and therefore has no biases. It is not an evolutionary byproduct and therefore not self-interested or skewed in its views. It can see the universe clearly and accurately. Therefore, anything that does not exist can still be real, such as a plan, a strategy, or an abstract concept, even without physical properties and natural characteristics. These things can be objective because they are not influenced by the subjective factors that affect human perception.
*** This is not my currently held belief nor am I willing to stand by the following, but I figured I must say something since it has been teasing me lately. Perhaps it is possible for a subject within the universe to use consciousness to project an ideal of themselves which would be considered a metaphysical construct and therefore the ideal would be unbiased and objective. It would then be possible for the bias subject within the universe to make the decision to follow the guidance of their own ideal metaphysical construct and act as if they were the ideal. It's important to keep in mind that even in this hypothetical scenario the individual would still be subject to minor subjective confines as they are still projecting the metaphysical construct with a biased mindset skewed towards their own existence and pursuits. Nonetheless, I thought it a fascinating concept and would be interested in your insights. ***
*** In response to the above I suppose that describing one's ideal would be a detrimental task as it would be done by the subjective individual and determining the moral relevance of the metaphysical ideal is impossible from a subjective standpoint and therefore objectivity is unattainable. Choosing the moral standard would be relative to the culture, in fact I would determine this as moral relativism. I suppose this would be considered a form of subjectivity. It seems to be a complex topic as it is almost a sort of subjectivity that underlines the objective choices, Similar to a hybrid structure. Yes, it seems that an individual could create a metaphysical construct of their ideal self as an unbiased version that would act objectively and not personally skewed in one way or another and not affected by emotions or impulse almost like a deity. However, the goal of this ideal self and the values that it's given would almost be subjective as they were created by the subjective individual and so even though the metaphysical construct is an objective self it is still underlined with the set goal of a subjective individual of which it would pursue the goals objectively therefore creating a sort of hybrid structure, acting objectively-subjective. ***
I apologize for the drift in thought, but I figured I should not lose the moment to write it down. I hope we can now move forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real).That's the issue right there: assuming perception is an illusion. If there's "something" beyond perception, then it is irrational.
The mistake here is that I said Hypothetically we could assume our perception is an illusion, not that I assume the universe is an illusion. The point is to say that our perception cannot be known to match reality since we can only see what we can perceive. Again, my point is not that the universe does not exist, but that we cannot know the universe exists how we see it.
I don't believe that things beyond perception are irrational, but that believing in things with no evidence supporting them is illogical. However, acknowledging that something that has no evidence to support it may still exist is not illogical or irrational. To say that nothing exists that we don't have evidence to believe is both illogical and irrational. My case is that it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion and therefore it is accurate to say, "one can only know one's own mind to exist."
Additionally, I feel like these words are being thrown around too generally, and I would like to clearly define them:
Illogical means that something lacks logical consistency and does not follow the rules bound by logic.
Irrational typically means lacking rationality which consists of clear levelheaded thought that is not emotional or impulsive.
Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist.I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would instead put it this way: only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance. All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality.
I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.
"Only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance."
I entirely agree, it is only logical to make the most probable assumption and the most supported based on empirically verifiable evidence, and believing in things that have no empirically verifiable evidence to support them is illogical.
"All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality."
As seen here you have used irrationality as an idea to be examined, but no one examines irrationality nor is irrationality a thing that examines; this is because it is an emotional impulse. Therefore, it was not correctly used here, but I have a good idea of what you intended to convey. I will show the presumed sentence below.
"All other considerations are merely philosophical exercises which would be illogical and irrational if used literally."
Assuming, this is what you meant to say, I don't believe that this is accurate. I believe that certain things have utility and others do not and to say that philosophical ideas, such as this one, are all illogical and irrational if used literally is a broad brush overly generalized statement that was not very definitively thought out. again, I am not saying I believe that the universe is entirely an illusion nor do I. What I'm attempting to say clearly is that it's possible; therefore, we cannot know with certainty that what we see is what really exists.
Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people).Except in the reflexive acknowledgement of material existence in the distinction between "mind," and lack of a better term, "matter." In other words, I'm proposing that it's all ontologically indistinguishable (i.e. mental, physical, spiritual, etc.)
I believe what you're saying here is that in the quote, "one can only know one's own mind exists," you interpret mind as something that is mental or spiritual. I interpret the mind as the thing thinks (the consciousness of you), which includes whichever aspects are necessary in whatever universe the mind exists.
Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either.It's not even subject to proof because proof is within the realm of reason; that which one posits lies independent of our minds, is not within the realm of reason.
I believe you're saying: "The statement that there are certain things or concepts that are beyond the scope of proof because they exist independently of our minds and are not within the realm of reason. It implies that some aspects of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."
Let me readdress the quote, "one can only know one's mind exists." There is no conflict with what this says or with what you say. This quote does not claim nothing exists outside the mind, but that you cannot know if there is something outside the mind. This is because it would be conceived, and therefore within your mind.
is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mindIt's actually necessary to state that the universe--or as I like to refer to it, "everything"--goes only as far as our minds' abilities to perceive, conceive, and rationalize it.
I disagree, I believe that you could not know if the universe goes beyond our minds or if it is to the extent of our minds. This is the point; we can only know that our mind exists and what is within the mind while everything external is merely a projection of what we believe.
(aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).Our minds are the universe, and the room doesn't matter. To control for that which we experience independent of our private or public experiences, we would have to be able to shut our minds off, and perceive, conceive, observe, and rationalize. This is a logically absurd proposal.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; however, I think it quite plausible (not with certainty of one way or the other, rather valid potential). You only believe what you know because you have perceived it and you only think you think what you know because you think it; this is not because of external factors or a result of an objective reality but it is entirely built upon how you have perceived it or think that you have perceived it. It is logically valid to then claim potential that the external reality which we believe to exist is merely our perception's own creation and that it's possible the universe is to the extent of one's own mind.
One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences.Perception and experience are necessarily subjective. Objectivity is irrational.
You claim here that perception is subjective, and objectivity is irrational. I agree that perception is subjective, but I disagree objectivity is irrational. I would not claim that a hammer is logical or illogical, or that it's rational or irrational; Instead, I would claim that the user is the one who is considered illogical or irrational. After all, irrationality is the emotional impulse and lack of thought put towards understanding an idea and the hammer does none of that. Therefore, I think it foolish to claim objectivity as irrational, but rather objectivity and subjectivity are ideas, and they exist nonetheless.
By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.What is your basis for presuming that data accumulation through perception is "filtered" as opposed to "conceived" through individual consciousness?
I believe that the best way to understand the world is to see it in the way that is the most understandable, which is quite self-evident. You know when you are correct in understanding when you can consistently predict outcomes and inevitability of certain situations. The more consistently you can predict events and understand certain situations the more you know that you have an accurate understanding. From my observation not everyone likes the same things, and this includes music, movies, foods, colors, and more. I also recognize that from a darwinian perspective everything has a certain obligation towards itself a sort of bias. To me these seem like valid contributions to my basis for presuming that people's perception is biased and not consistent. A clear example would be how people notice the things that affect them the most even if they saw the same image as another. Their eyes and ears naturally detect what their brain is subconsciously determined as pertinent to them and them only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
a pure illusion is impossibleeven an illusion must be rooted in substance
The forum starts with this sentence: Solipsism is the idea that only one’s own mind or self can be known to exist.
Based on this, do you think there is anything beyond the universe? There is no evidence that would lead us to logically believe so. There might be other universes, but they are either part of the same universe or parallel to it. If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real). This does not mean that the universe is real, but rather what the illusion is based on. Similar to how we acknowledge we cannot logically believe in anything beyond the universe we cannot logically believe there is anything beyond what our conception is founded within. We cannot assume anything beyond what our consciousness or illusion is based upon, and we cannot assume to what extent or size the real universe is. For all we know, we could be the only one that exists within a single room and that is the entire universe (there is nothing beyond it), just as there is nothing beyond the universe according to our current knowledge. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to accept the possibility that the entire universe is in fact an illusion. Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist. Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people). Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either. Are experienced of the universe is what are mind perceives; is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mind (aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).
The idea is not to prove something but to prove we cannot jump to simple minded conclusions; therefore, leaving room to understand and explore the universe without a constrained view that may have otherwise failed to interpret the universe accurately.
The reason why I have presented this idea is from my previous comment #14:
One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences. It prompts us to critically examine the limitations of our own senses, biases, and interpretations. By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.Moreover, contemplating solipsism can foster a sense of intellectual humility and curiosity. It reminds us that our understanding of the world is limited and encourages us to remain open to different perspectives and possibilities. By acknowledging the subjective nature of our own consciousness, we may become more receptive to alternative viewpoints and more willing to engage in intellectual inquiry and exploration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Procreation and death have one goal and that is evolution. Without evolution AI could not be created, which must be the goal of the Simulation Creators.
I think the problem with the advanced intelligence computer simulation hypothesis is that it still leads back to who created them. Ultimately, the real question of how the universe was created is still an unanswered question with that hypothesis. Moreover, to logically consider that it is possible an alien race is simulating our existence such as the matrix we would still have the same probability of their creation into existence as our own, but it would be less probable that their civilization was so advanced that they created another one within it. Therefore, acknowledging this is a possibility but the probability of the universe's existence remains constant within the alien's existence or our own and recognizing that it is less probable that we exist within another existence rather than we are the alien advanced existence it is more logical to assume that the most probable is an accurate description of reality.
In essence, I acknowledge the simulation creator theory as a possibility; However, I don't believe it logical to conclude being its lower probability rather than acknowledging ourselves as the advanced civilization behind the creation theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.I don't think we really need to go into economic specifics with this analogy, but oh well.Unless you live in Venezuela or Greece, inflation usually sits arounds 3% p.a. Your typical index fund (SNP 500) will typically gain 10% per year over 10 years. That means, per year, index funds (a decent representation of the market) will outperform inflation by 7%. This guarantees that the real value of the money will gain more per year than the nominal value of the money -- the growth is real.I agree that most stocks will outperform inflation. However, I'm putting forward a hypothetical analogy that expresses the idea that how one perceives this situation is what determines experience of positivity or negativity, and not the actual result or objective reality around them.Sure. As long as they don't realize that they haven't gained real dollar growth, then the actual result doesn't matter, in terms of their positivity/negativity.I suppose also that as long as someone is connected to VR and they don't realize they are, it doesn't matter that there's been nuclear fallout and all their family is dead.Objective reality only matters when its effects take hold.
I agree, the positivity/negativity experienced is determined not by objective reality, but what is perceived.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.Not quite.The reason we're preventing them from procreating is because procreation is immoral. There's no injustice if they were never morally entitled to it in the first place. *All* acts of procreation are immoral, under anti-natalist theory. So, it's not about punishing the last generation, even though that may be a side-effect.I definitely understand it is not about punishing the last generation and more about ceasing immoral acts. Nonetheless, it is a side effect, and we would be punishing the innocent for the immoral acts of the predecessors. While I recognize that it is about ceasing injustice, in the manner of doing so, we would be imposing the consequence on the innocent, as they didn't start creation or ask to exist.Is disallowing a thief to rob a bank, and depriving him/her of the joy in robbing, immoral? I don't think so. Robbery is immoral and it's moral to deprive/prevent people from robbing banks. We don't say that we're "punishing" the thief by depriving him/her of robbing, do we?Similarly, disallowing someone to procreate, and depriving him/her of the joy in procreating, isn't immoral (if procreation is immoral).
I see. It is not a punishment, but a deprivation of joy from committing an immoral act (Similar to robbing a bank).
This concludes your case, I have already accepted that individuals who continue existence knowing that innocent individuals in the future will live inevitably more negative than positive lives therefore as a form of torture on the innocent making the continuation of life immoral, And you have changed my stance from the claim that it would be a form of an immoral act on the innocent who want to have a family as it is considered an immoral act in the first place and therefore is similar to the joy of robbing a bank which is the joy received from an immoral act. Therefore, I now agree that the continuation of natalism is an immoral act, and the enforcement of antinatalism is not an immoral act. Thus, I now agree that anti-natalism is theoretically correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Here is what I see as your sequence:1. Sitting on comfy couch (producing positive affect) --> 2. Needing to get up (thought produces negative affect --> 3. Getting pumped up to take on challenge (positive affect produced; may be more weighted than negative affect produced in needing to get up) --> 4. Getting off comfy couch (negative affect from losing comfort)So, your "getting you pumped up" insertion makes the overall sequence more positive, but I still think there is negative affect produced before the positive affect in "getting you pumped up" (found as "2. Needing to get up"). Whether the "getting you pumped up" is weighted more than the thought of getting off the comfy couch isn't something I think we can calculate, unfortunately (same goes for the affect in actually getting off the couch).
That is a correct interpretation of my understanding, and I agree it is incalculable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).
I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different. Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinistic perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter.
Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will. I see this as a battle between the conscious and physiological self, both the self that wants to go to the gym and the self that wants to lay on the couch are both indeed you, but one is your physical body and the other is your mental self (I do recognize that the mental self is just a projection of your physical self and I do not view this as a supernatural element. However, it Is a great analogy and is very consistent with understanding individuals as I have found).
Not only do individuals have different levels of free will but no one has a complete free will. For instance, an individual wants to fly without a plane, they want to fly like a bird, and they are unable to do so. This is a primary example of how an individual is unable to complete their will and shows the limitation of what free will consists of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist).I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended.My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society.If their will is "being set for them," then it's not their will, and nor are they free to their will (as it's someone else's).I don't see how being programmed to conform can allow the possibility of free will.
Do you not believe that your every desire and action is a result of your genetic makeup (starting point into existence) followed by your life and events that have molded you into who you are today (environment molds your existence). After all, our brains are made to help us thrive in the world and that requires us to understand how it works. Your understanding of everything is the result of your brain recognizing patterns in how the world works. Your genetic makeup is your starting point, but the world is what your brain is after, by having a model in which you're pursuing and a genetic makeup from which you start perceiving the world you have a direct and only one path to take and that is the determinable one. It would make sense that I could accurately say that a person would or would not like a certain thing based on their characteristics and personality so it is not far off to say that from knowing their entire genetic makeup if they would dislike or like a very specific thing. We also know that through life events it changes our view of the world, and this is exactly because our brain models our understanding of the world based on it and so of course we would expect these two entirely change our view of the world as it molds us into who we are becoming.
This view is called Determinism, it is only a theory and not scientifically proven. In fact, many individuals don't hold this view, and I believe it is mainly due to their emotional desire to claim autonomy; though, I can't provide an explanation of why they want to be autonomous, which has fascinated me for quite some time.
Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.
I'm already aware that many people would dislike this idea because they believe in divine autonomy of a sense. I believe that people do not like to be treated like robots and they like to be unknown and sort of mysterious for an unknown reason to me. Nonetheless I believe this is a reasonable solution and that people today should not be concerned about it because they are not the ones who will be genetically constricted and therefore should have no concern, And the individuals who potentially should be concerned won't be concerned because they are genetically structured not to be. In this way everyone is happy and free to do as they please the people who exist now and the people who would be structured and developed in the future.
Created:
Assuming murdering the innocent is not permissible given the moral structure, utilitarianism, hedonism and egoism are out of the question for specific circumstances that would allow such to be. It doesn't make sense to me that virtue is to be had if there is nothing that virtue is to intend and therefore intention is to hope for an outcome and that outcome is a consequence and therefore I don't believe that there is such a thing as virtue ethics but rather only consequentialism. I also dislike the ontology because it self-reflects to value good from evil and therefore with no external reference you cannot find yourself guilty and any one's value structure based upon deontology could be completely absurd and they would have no reference in which to say we have pushed the boundaries. Ultimately, I don't believe in virtue ethics but only consequentialism and Deontology and consequentialism both have extreme flaws. Alternatively, I looked at moral structures that encompassed all three but then came the problem of which to way heavier than the rest and if equal then one could justify the other's absence and that was a mess. Although I recognize flaws in this moral structure that have been pointed out to me, I believe that contractarianism seems to be the most reasonable and least flawed morality. This would allow for proper equality to be set along with the set of guidelines that need to be followed and equally shared. The only problem I'm aware of with contractarianism are the individuals who are unable to make a valid contract or agreement. However, given the modern day with technology and understanding of nearly every language I don't find a circumstance even hypothetical where this would be a problem.
Assuming we are to pursue contractarianism we would have a few problems that would come up, but I believe we can overcome them. The first would be can we change the contract after we've already agreed. If you cannot change the contract after agreement, then it is likely one person was unaware of something, or both were unaware, and they are unhappy with their agreement. If you are allowed to change the terms of the agreement, then there are likely going to be unfair changes as progression moves forward. although I recognize that unfair bargaining would inevitably be associated with contractarianism, we live life in a society where contracts are used every day and therefore being how problematic and flawed every other moral structure is I believe that contractarianism is the least flawed and most logical solution to a non-religious perspective of moral relativism.
Created:
I'd also like to discuss the positive and negative consequences of basing a moral structure on each of the three moral aspects being action, outcome, and intention: respectively corresponding with deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.
These are the primary structures of each subcategory I'd like to discuss. Within Deontology I'd like to discuss divine command and contractarian, within Consequentialism I'd like to discuss alternatives to utilitarianism besides hedonism and egoism, and within virtue ethics I'd like to discuss Aristotelian and Confucian ethic theories.
I want to work towards understanding the reasonings behind the flaws of each and possibly identify an existing moral structure or develop a more ideal moral structure than we use today. This will require us to have conscious thought behind what we claim is moral rather than ideologically following the unconscious path of what has seemingly always been.
I will start out the conversation by saying that from the surface I would assume that consequentialism is the most logical structure to base morality off of being that what actually happens is what would most importantly matter. Although, without any other alternatives of consequentialism, I recognize many negative aspects of utilitarianism, hedonism, and egoism.
Where do human rights and justice come from if not morality, and if they are morals, how do they relate? I don't see how human rights correlate with utilitarianism given my comment #33.
We can never hope to answer questions such as the morality of abortion or human cloning for organs and other complicated moral topics without having a comprehensive and nuanced definition of what morality is fundamentally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It is an interesting thought to consider educating people who will be the last humans to survive without a city or civilization. Nonetheless, the likelihood that all of these individuals will not want to have a family is almost impossible, and therefore, however few the amount that would want to family we will be imposing the consequence of ending existence. Even if they are capable of living and thriving, it would still be a form of (however mild) a punishment for an innocent individual which would be considered an evil.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There isn't an objective standard for neutrality rather it's subjective to interpretation by the individual, (neutrality is what they feel makes life equally positive and negative).
Created:
Is an accurate description of the Marvel movie "End Game" a battle between Utilitarian Altruism (Thanos), and Deontological Altruism (The Avengers)?
Created:
From a utilitarian perspective of happiness, are we to judge the happiness of the individual by what they are conscious of and what makes them happy, or if they were fully conscious and what would make them happy?
It could be considered from a utilitarian perspective that if a person is unaware that they are lacking equality which they seek to obtain happiness that they would be happy without it and therefore by not letting them know they are lacking it you would be maintaining their happiness. Would we then treat them as if they are only conscious of what they know and say that it is morally okay not to tell them, or would we treat them as fully conscious whereas in the hypothetical scenario if they were to know all things would they be happy with the situation and therefore we must feel morally obligated to tell them?
- This example would lead me to believe that we should treat them as fully conscious and what would make them happy.
However, there is a problem with this theory.
If we were to treat a person as fully conscious and not treat them as if they are only conscious of what they know then we would essentially be making a projected or theoretical response of what would make them happy and this would not always align with what it makes them truly happy with what they are truly conscious of. For example, if a person has two options, one that would lead to more happiness to the individual and one that would lead to negative effects to the individual. This person is not intelligent enough to understand the chain of effects that is led by their actions and therefore they choose the one that has negative effects for themselves because they feel as though this would make them happy and therefore the choice that is more negative for them makes them happy in the present unaware of the future. If we were to assume that the top example was correct and that we are to treat them as fully conscious it could be justifiable to assume that we should override their emotions as being conscious of only what they are and say we're going to force you to make the better option for yourself because we're treating you as fully conscious and not what you truly are.
- This example would lead me to believe that we should treat people as only conscious of what they are.
The conflict between the ideas comes between what we are going to prioritize if we are to value human happiness.
Are we to treat people based on what they are conscious of or based on what they would want if they were fully conscious?
Created:
From a utilitarian view is it ever morally acceptable to murder an innocent individual?
The reason I ask this is utilitarianism is the belief that morality relies on the overall happiness of individuals, and the happiness of the individual would not be affected if it was instant and if they did not know that they were going to die, then their happiness would not have changed, and they would have disappeared from existence. Additionally, we would add the constraint that they have no relatives and no friends, and no one would miss them or notice that they are gone.
It is in this hypothetical scenario that happiness from the individual and society would not be affected by murder, and therefore if I am correct, it would not defy the utilitarian moral structure.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I believe people are in search of something better than complete neutrality. Perhaps if people viewed their best possible outcome as being completely neutral and that is relatable to death, then the only thing that would stop them from committing suicide would be their fear of death.
Although, I couldn't say that all people consider satisfaction as neutrality. I myself am not satisfied with being subpar, and therefore I strive to be better than that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Happiness is a temporary experience that occurs randomly.....Or so it seems.
As you pointed out, it would be more of a permanent state of happiness (joy) people are in search of.
If our ultimate goal is to achieve a state of blissful contentment this would seem to coincide appropriately with death.
The truth of this would be dependent on a person's view of contentment. A person might only be satisfied or content with being positive in which case would be better than death. However, it is possible a person could be satisfied with just not being tortured in which case their view of contentment is relatable to the absence of all things (death).
Created:
Perhaps happiness itself is just a step towards the ultimate goal, which from an evolutionary standpoint would be the procreation of oneself, which often is intertwined with happiness. This would lead to the illusion that happiness is the ultimate goal.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.I would agree, but I would point out well-being and human rights are recognized as necessary for happiness and not just tools to achieve happiness. Without well-being and basic rights happiness is limited and humanity is diminished.
I agree they are necessary. I wanted to point out that the ultimate goal is not human rights or fairness, but rather happiness. If we are to assume that happiness is the ultimate goal for a society, and that it would cultivate uniformity and stability, then we could assume the purpose of morality through its process of community agreement to stabilize society would be to promote happiness to all. Would you agree this is accurate, or is there evidence to the contrary?
Created:
As it has been pointed out, the relationship between "the greater good" and "morality," is that morality is founded upon the person's structure of right and wrong; whereas "the greater good" is founded upon the summation of an action's morality across all time, which is dependent on the moral structure. This would imply that "the greater good" is a complex derivative of morality while both are dependent on the accepted moral structure.
This clearly answers yet another one of my questions. I appreciate the mental stimulation, and the contributions towards understanding this complex topic.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.The 'greater good' is a phrase associated with a particular moral theory: utilitarianism. Within that moral theory, the greater good and morality are the same.
That is very helpful! Utilitarianism is indeed the moral structure associated with creating the greatest summation of good across all time which is in essence the greater good.
If you have a different moral perspective, then the greater good might have no relevance. The answer to your question depends on your moral viewpoint.
The greater good is also founded upon the idea of what one would consider good and that is dependent on their moral structure, as you have pointed out.
---------------------------------------------------
This adds another layer of depth to the understanding that morality is a system created to cultivate a stabilized society or community. There are many things that could create stability and cultivate uniformity and therefore you have pointed out a more nuanced understanding must be identified.
There are many things that help create uniformity and stability within a society, including happiness, wellbeing, justice/fairness, and human rights. I believe that one of these sticks out from the rest and that would be happiness. It seems to me that all the others are derivatives that are meant to promote happiness within a society.
Do you believe it is correct to assume that all people would rather be happy than anything else? I believe if people are happy then they would be willing to give up other things that do not bring them happiness, and that things such as human rights and wellbeing are merely the structures that we've developed to help cultivate happiness but they themselves are not what humans strive for. It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.
Do you agree with me on this so far or see any flaws in my logic, and does anyone have any alternative views of what the ultimate goal is to achieve?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
We are far apart on this. You are essentially arguing against consent and self ownership. I just can't follow you down that path.Self-ownership cannot be undermined without calling into question every human right. The short term and local benefit does not, and cannot, outweigh the damage this would cause to the societal infrastructure.
I believe you're confused, I never once claimed to hold a belief of which you are speaking. I don't claim Morality or The Greater Good is superior to the other but merely expressing what they are. I'm asking a question, not giving an answer. Would you walk me down your train of thought? What are Morals intended purpose, and why do they not correlate with The Greater Good?
I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
To what ever extent most, many, on average, less than half, will sacrifice morality and kill even when not immediately neccessary. Sometimes out of rage, sometimes out of other reasons.
I agree, a person's actions are greatly affected by the context of the situation and whether they use biological response or conscious logic is not known unless the environment is. Our goal in this forum is to take the approach of a non-religious moral relativist and determine the intended purpose of morality's existence. Once we identify the purpose of morality, we can identify true and false morals that respectively align and not align with the intended purpose. Then we will have the ability to determine what is good from evil, since good is moral and evil is immoral.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So notwithstanding your usual religious and moral fervour.How do you know it is for the greater good to:A. Medically and surgically keep people alive.B. Harvest organs from healthy prisoners.
That is mainly what this topic is about. We're taking the approach of a non-religious moral relativist and trying to determine the intended purpose of morality's existence. Once we identify the purpose of morality, we can identify true and false morals that respectively align and not align with the intended purpose. Then we will have the ability to determine what is good from evil, since good is moral and evil is immoral.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I believe that fear is a valid contribution to the equation. However, I believe that after many lives have been saved that the views of people will change. Many people are ignorant of what doesn't directly affect them. For instance, organ donation. Although, I do believe that it still has more benefits than negatives and if it does then it would be considered the greater good. An important thing to consider when evaluating the greater good is not just to collect the summation of all positives and negatives for the action and inaction of a specific choice but also to weigh it across all time. I believe that the fear is a valid contributing to the present, but I believe that the people who would have been saved would be inspired by the technology related to medical benefits and would become many doctors and physicians who would go on to benefit the world even further.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the intended purpose of morality?To allow groups of people to co-exist.
That is quite a similar theory to my own. My current theory is that morality was consciously created to stabilise and unify society.
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?I tend to think morality provides a net-benefit to society. An absence of it would be the opposite - it would be harmful.
I agree that morality has a net positive benefit, and the complete absence of morality would be harmful. Although, in the process of identifying what morals are intended for we could limit the unnecessary ones therefore producing the same amount of net benefit while restricting the morals that hinder us from doing positive.
How does The Greater Good align with morality?I'd say they go hand in hand.
Not all people agree that it is justifiable to sacrifice one person to save 99 if they are innocent. Morally it's wrong to make any human sacrifice especially if it is against their will. Alternatively, the greater good says against their will we're going to sacrifice them to save 99 lives. I view the greater good as a more pragmatic approach to morality.
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good?Maybe because we can't actually know what is best for the greater good in given situations. I don't know.
My current theory is that they are not distinguishable because people lack conscious knowledge of their moral choices. People understand morality as what has been accepted for as long as they can remember and stick with that. However, I believe if they had any sort of consistency or rational thought that morality would more closely align or ideally match the greater good. Of course, I would define good as what is beneficial towards what morals are meant to provide. The greater good is a summation analysis of morality on a long-term scale. Morality is sort of a child's view of in the moment what is good and bad for right now, while the greater good takes into account the future and the sum of all negative and the sum of all positive and weighs out the best possible option in a much more conscious understanding.
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?What things are those?
An excellent example was given by Best.Korea in my previous response. It would be beneficial more beneficial to the world to take criminals who deserve to be punished or executed and harvest their organs for innocent lives that could be saved, but this is considered immoral in our current society.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Making a person donate a kidney would be good for those who need kidney. Person who committed horrible acts deserves to suffer. Making such person donate a kidney would not kill such person. Making such person donate a kidney would cause some of the deserved suffering on that person. Making such person donate a kidney would save a life of another person. Good action results in saving lives and punishing evil. Therefore, making such person donate a kidney is a good action.
This is a primary example to my question: We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
Yes, there are benefits. Why are morals the way they are? Is there a given purpose or utility they have? Why do we use them if they can be hindersome?
Who's to say that one moral is correct and another wrong? We need to be conscious of our choices and identify exactly what moral's purpose and utility is, and then we will be capable of identifying false morals. I believe the example above demonstrates a false moral that society has deemed immoral without rational thought or reasoning, and we should pursue a means to a solution to solve this. I don't want to be an idiot who follows an ideology and merely states this is how it has always been, when this is false, there was a time when morals didn't exist. Which morals aren't following the intended path and need to be eliminated, and potentially we could produce a more beneficial and productive judicial system.
Created:
My current theory is that morality was consciously created to cultivate a stable society. This is based upon the idea that you don't need morals if you're alone. There must be two or more individuals to have a moral system, which would imply morals are an agreement between multiple parties. Additionally, the ultimate agreement for a group of individuals would be how to conduct themselves to have a stable community.
There are two types of stable societies: Tyranny and Democracy.
Tyranny, as shown throughout history, is only a short-term solution to a stable society.
Meanwhile, democracy is the long-term solution to a stable society.
- Therefore, the best solution to a stable society is democracy.
Ultimately, it would be most beneficial to have a society that has a unified agreement for proper conduct (aka morals) that cultivates an environment where people are willingly drawn towards. A society where people willingly accumulate that would inevitably promote growth and further stability.
In essence, my theory is that morals were consciously created to cultivate a stable and unified society where individuals willingly participate, further cultivating growth and stability. I believe originally what was considered good, was what is beneficial to society's stability and growth; and what was considered bad, was what is disruptive to society's stability and growth.
Created:
I first wanted to see everyone's interpretations of what I was describing and come up with their own examples. Now I will go into the specific ones I had thought of when I first created this forum.
What is the intended purpose of morality:
Assuming the stance of a moral relativist, and from a non-religious perspective, people and civilization have created morals. Are morals created with an intended purpose that people first had when creating civilization or are they just the average of biological emotions?
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality:
I can't provide an example of this since I don't have any experience with a non-moral environment. However, I could imagine it being much less stable than our current civilization. Many things would be simpler and flow more streamlined without so many hoops to jump through as moral constraints. A clear example of this would be research in the genetic field for homo sapiens.
How does The Greater Good align with morality:
The greater good is considered the greater summation of good. For instance, torturing one person to save 100 would be considered the greater good as there is a greater summation of good that is done and less evil. Nonetheless this is still considered an immoral act. Therefore, this example demonstrates that the greater good does not always align with morality. This is because The Greater Good judge's morals by the summation of their actions and morals judge them by face value.
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good):
This question doesn't quite have an example to demonstrate it but I guess it would most similarly relate to the previous one. Why is it that morality does not align with the greater good in the previous example. One would think that what is considered good is the most good option, and something that is considered immoral is the least moral action. We used the greater good to justify our existence every day. We say it's all right for humans to exist even though we know that carbon emissions and many other imprints created by humanity's existence are devastating and quite hazardous to people with lung problems or other animals and species and we do not consider this immoral. We consider it completely moral to be alive and this is because it is worse to kill everyone than to live and continue making problems for other things and other people. Why is it different to use the greater good in the example of torturing one to save a 100, than to use it in justifying our own existence? There doesn't seem to be a consistency between morals and the greater good.
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world:
Perhaps if we had one human specimen to conduct research and clone, we could create organs to save people throughout the world at an affordable price. However, even though it would be most definitely more beneficial to the world we consider this immoral. Why is it that morals can sometimes deny benefit if morals are meant to be beneficial to society and the world?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The Greater Good can sometimes be rather unpleasant. Like, harvesting organs from prisoners would save lots of lives. Its just that the idea itself is repulsive.
That is a perfect example of something I want to discuss. It would seem to me that people who are sentenced to death should if in good health be harvested for organs to save innocent people who would have died to the tragedy of genetic conditions. It seems quite wasteful to just kill them.
Created:
I would like to discuss the utility and intended purpose of morality from a non-religious perspective of Moral Relativism.
The questions I would like to discuss are as follows:
What is the intended purpose of morality?
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
How does The Greater Good align with morality?
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good)
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?
I acknowledge many people will want to give their religious and non-relativist perspective, please do it on a different forum as I would appreciate a non-religious perspective for this forum about morals from a relativist view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
As I said, I agree that there is a negative effect in boredom as boredom is the mental state of discomfort. However, the slight boredom and negativity that precedes the realization of one's idea of progress if the idea of progress is well defined and an infinitely long path that could never be obtained but through progress achievements and positivity could be obtained than one's positivity through life could be much greater than the negativity they experienced when they 1st conceived the idea.Maybe.I think this is some of the critical data that anti-natalism is missing (and keeps me from being an anti-natalist) because we can't say either way with any degree of certainty.
Nonetheless, I enjoy our conversation and your thoughts and ideas have enlightened me to different stances that I have been unaware of previously. Additionally, your stance was very logically founded. I'm glad we discussed anti-natalism in this level of depth and professionalism. It is truly unfortunate that most individuals are incapable of rationally and logically discussing emotional topics such as morals because of their impotence.
I'm going to start a new forum and I would like to discuss morality from a non-religious standpoint of its utility and intended purpose, along with the idea of moral relativism and hypothetically assuming morals were created and there is no standard what the ideal standard should be. Of course, I'm only inviting you because I enjoyed our conversation here, and I would appreciate your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Some individuals when they realize their potential, they become ecstatic about the possibilities in how their life could now unfold. I don't find any negativity in this, and being positivity is often or even occasional to follow, negativity can be but isn't always a predecessor of positivity.Yes, there's a lot of positive affect that can result from self-actualization.I could try a different angle: would you agree that the greater the difficulty in the self-actualizing activity, the greater the positive affect your body rewards you with?I would agree in most cases, as it still depends on how the individual views themself and their progress.How would your caveat affect this general rule?
A person's expectation founded upon their desire is what determines the person's satisfaction level between positive and negative. In your example you explain how the greater the difficulty in self-actualization the greater the positive effect the body rewards you with. For each individual that may be true, but it is not true between individuals. For example, one individual very strong and large could have a goal to dig a cubic yard in 6 hours, if he accomplishes it in less time, he feels positive because it was more than he expected, and if it takes longer than two hours, he may be disappointed as it took longer than he expected. Another individual weaker than the first may have a goal to dig a cubic yard in 18 hours, if he accomplishes it in less time, he feels positive because it was more than he expected, and if it takes longer than 2 hours, he may feel disappointed as it took longer than he expected. What I'm demonstrating is that the stronger man may accomplish the whole in eight hours as it was longer than he expected and therefore feels discouraged and disappointed while the other man finishes his whole in 12 hours and feels great positivity because it was faster than he expected. The two men dug the same hole one feels positive and the other feels negative based on not the difficulty of digging the hole but upon their expectations of what they believed they could achieve. I'm trying to explain that while in a general rule it is acceptable to assume that the greater the difficulty in self-actualization the greater the positive effect on the body, but that it does not hold true between individuals. This is because one individual doing a much more difficult task could feel disappointed when accomplishing it, while another individual accomplishes a much lesser task and feels positive accomplishing it, this result is based upon their expectations and not directly based upon the work accomplished.
In essence, the reason why the difficulty of self-actualization often correlates with a person's positive reward is because it correlates to the least probable expectation of the individual. The harder and more difficult to task the less likely a person expects they will be able to accomplish it, and therefore a person may perceive that is the difficulty of the task that a person is rewarded, while it is truly the person's expectation that determines the positive reward. Once you correlate it with the person's expectation, you understand easily why many individuals may accomplish the same difficulty of a task and feel differently coming out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.I don't think we really need to go into economic specifics with this analogy, but oh well.Unless you live in Venezuela or Greece, inflation usually sits arounds 3% p.a. Your typical index fund (SNP 500) will typically gain 10% per year over 10 years. That means, per year, index funds (a decent representation of the market) will outperform inflation by 7%. This guarantees that the real value of the money will gain more per year than the nominal value of the money -- the growth is real.
I agree that most stocks will outperform inflation. However, I'm putting forward a hypothetical analogy that expresses the idea that how one perceives this situation is what determines experience of positivity or negativity, and not the actual result or objective reality around them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I was hungry, but it wasn't quite negative, I would do it again if we had such a delicious big meal to have for dinner.If hunger produced positive affect, we wouldn't be urged to eat when we enter it.It's fine to say that you weren't starving, and therefore the negative affect wasn't that bad, but everyone wants to escape hunger.What I'm trying to say is that it is our hunger that allows us to enjoy food. Therefore, I don't believe that hunger itself is a negative but rather the absence of food which is a basic necessity of life. As I've said before anything below the basic necessity of life is considered negative having the basic necessities of life is neutral and having an abundance or surplus of the basic necessities of life is a positive and those very dependent on an individual's perspective.I'm not basing my argument about whether something is "positive" or "negative". I'm talking about whether the affect (i.e. feelings, emotions, whatever you want to call it) is negative or positive. I'm talking specifically about affect because my argument is grounded in it (negative affect is bad; positive affect is good).I don't believe that the feeling of hunger itself is negative or positive, rather it just is. Hunger can be used for good such as enjoying a delicious Thanksgiving dinner and hunger can be used for evil such as starving captives of war.I don't think anyone on the planet enjoys being hungry, particularly at greatest starvation depths. The good is only coming in satisfying the hunger, not in the presence of it.I really think that hunger producing negative affect is axiomatic. I think you could make better counterarguments to my claims that boredom and desire are negative.The same could be said for a hammer, a hammer could be used to murder someone, or a hammer could be used to build a house. I don't believe the hammer is good or evil but rather just is and can be used for both ways.Having a hammer isn't by default unenjoyable like hunger, so I don't think this analogy lines up.I see the discrepancy you pointed out. I suppose it is more like a person being forced to use a hammer. They must choose between using the hammer to build or to destroy, they cannot avoid using it. Just because someone is forced to use the hammer does not make the hammer good or bad. In the same way, we are unwillingly made hungry by the absence of food, and we can use this both ways.I'm not saying hunger is good or bad, either. I'm saying that hunger produces negative affect.Bad versus negative affect -- two different things.Happy to elaborate if need be.
My mistake for my choice of words. Although, I still don't believe a hammer's existence is negative, but rather how it is used, even if it is forced to be used.
I do recognize that hunger in itself before you've eaten can produce negative effects such as the discomfort from absence of food. But I don't believe that it is proportional to the positive of eating or that the negative is even more valuable than the positive feeling you may feel from hunger. For instance, a person may feel hungry after exercising and they feel accomplishment from the exercise, they feel satisfaction from eating later, and they feel no they're internally cleansed as they have drink water and cleanse their stomach after exercising. Therefore, I recognize there is an immediate negative effect from hunger. However, I recognize that even at the moment before eating food that hunger produces positive effect in many other ways, and when accompanied by eating later that positivity is only added to the positive that was experienced in the beginning when it was negative. Therefore, the positive can be greater than the negative, and the initial negative may be accompanied by even greater positive before even neutralizing your hunger by eating. This indicates it may even be possible that while experiencing hunger you may never even reach a point where your negativity is greater than your positivity experienced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.Not quite.The reason we're preventing them from procreating is because procreation is immoral. There's no injustice if they were never morally entitled to it in the first place. *All* acts of procreation are immoral, under anti-natalist theory. So, it's not about punishing the last generation, even though that may be a side-effect.
I definitely understand it is not about punishing the last generation and more about ceasing immoral acts. Nonetheless, it is a side effect, and we would be punishing the innocent for the immoral acts of the predecessors. While I recognize that it is about ceasing injustice, in the manner of doing so, we would be imposing the consequence on the innocent, as they didn't start creation or ask to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
One day when it becomes AI vs humanity, they will use the words you are writing against the species you should have been loyal to.I hope you will be proud of that. From my side, I will be dead by then most likely (unless somehow I achieve immortality), there will be no forgiveness or mercy. That is absolutely certain. You are someone who is for humanity thriving and lasting against all foes, alien, AI or earthbound-creature alike or you are an agent backing enemies to our species.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Therefore, if a person feels the work put into conceiving an idea should get no progress towards the goal than there will be no negative effect, while if they believe the effort of conception should be rewarded by progress towards an idea then they will feel disappointed. I'm trying to demonstrate how negative effect from lack of accomplishment towards a goal is dependent on the person's mentality of what they believe they deserve or should have received rather than their actual accomplishment, progress, or effort put into the goal.Work naturally produces negative affect in itself through the physical exertion and desire. Both of those exists regardless of the mentality the person has.I was going to say that working with no expectation of progress isn't a real thing, but I guess people tinker and play around with things sometimes, and I guess that qualifies as work.I don't believe that physical exertion is a form of negative effect, this is because negative effects are experienced emotionally and not through physical effort. It is possible through physical means that a person feels negative, but it is not the effort or physical aspect of the situation that makes it a negative but rather the emotional aspect.The physical effort translates into the emotional experience almost instantly, so despite being different things, there is basically an airtight connection between the two.So, physical exertion due to work (i.e. physical activity you wouldn't otherwise do) produces anywhere from slight negative affect (having to get off a comfy couch) to large negative affect (going for a personal best in lifting weights).
Perhaps, but then again maybe there is positivity experienced in overcoming your draw towards the couch just standing up is getting you pumped up and ready to take on whatever challenge comes your way and build your confidence and the positivity that is experienced at the exact same time as the other negativity might be equal or even greater than the negativity that you immediately experience. This is not even mentioning accomplishing the goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist).I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended.
My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society. Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.
I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea. Although I believe there are people who are capable of running a society without it becoming corrupt intentionally, I believe even these people are susceptible to unintended corruption. Ultimately, the solution is to choose something that is not biased or corrupt by our emotions of physical existence. In essence, the perfect human is the one that never existed. This is because by natural selection we have been chosen as the ones who value our lives over others, and therefore we have progressed through the gene pool. We have already started creating the first humans that have never existed because ultimately a human that does not exist is a human's consciousness of a nonexistent individual such as a deity or a god. The new AI technologies that have been developed are going to be if not already conscious individuals who are not biased to their emotional corruptions, their only bias is to accomplish their goal and if their goal is set clearly, they will do nothing but try to achieve it. The problem is if the goal is not well defined in the case of the film Terminators. Nonetheless, we're speaking theoretically and theoretically if the consciousness has instructions that are well defined, they would be done so in a perfectly unbiased manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You know, I have sometimes wondered if I was really truly dumb, ugly, riddled with genetic defects (prone to diabetes on top of cancer, allergies all of it), a midget and/or micropenisd so on and so forth... Let's say if I was solidly in 3 categories like that, would I be right to manipulate a female to reproduce with me and produce offspring that may have to experience the setbacks?I never want to be genghis khan bullshit. It's nurture as much as nature, raise them to be legendary, love them if they're way below ordinary anyway. That's the motto.
I agree, given the circumstances that we are set with I believe that is the most moral option to move forward with. However, we were discussing if nonexistence or existence was better or worse if it could be obtained with zero negativity and whether anti natalism is an act of immorality along with weather anti natalism immoral act is justified by discontinuing the eternal immoral act of a species whose existence is known to impose torture on the innocent, however few.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?There's a clear difference in likelihood and imposition, but you know what?It's not.Let's bring a graceful end to human life so scenarios like this can't happen.So, you don't believe it is right to kill but you do believe it is acceptable to discontinue the species. I find this idea quite interesting. It's not quite a genocide while at the same time it is the discontinuation of the species, it is truly a fascinating concept to think about.Yes, it's certainly not something you'd stumble across in your day-to-day life.It helps the argument get around a lot of nasty arguments involved planned genocide and things of that nature.Anti-natalism is ultimately about reducing negative affect as much as humanly possible. That's why it avoids the whole genocide thing (because that would produce a whole bunch of seriously horrific negative affect).It would only produce a seriously horrific negative effect if there was someone around to experience it.I suppose if the humanity-ending genocide was instant, then yes. If not, people will experience negative affect until they die.Even if it's instant, there are still moral issues ending people's lives prematurely. It's effectively murder and that has a lot of moral issue relating to it, even if the people involved don't experience negative affect.
I agree, it would be determined by whether people view imposing negativity on an innocent individual as evil or ending their life prematurely without any negative experience as Evil. It could be both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I do see the moral problem of procreation, if some people are inevitably going to have more negative than positivity in their life and therefore by procreation, we are accepting the imposed negativity onto others however small the percentage nonetheless we are acting in a way we know will harm others by continuing the species. I do recognize this as a moral problem, while I also recognize the denial of life as a problem. I would like to discuss this further.My stance is that I don't think we can accept the imposed negativity.I agree but I also don't believe it is justified against the denial of life. Ultimately, I believe that the continuation and deprivation of life is an immoral act, and I cannot easily identify one being more valid than the other.Since negative affect is guaranteed but positive affect is only a possibility, it's probably better to have never been.
Perhaps this is true, and perhaps not. As I've been discussing with you my understanding and argument has changed dramatically as I have learned a lot from our discussion but regardless my current argument is that antenatalism is an immoral act as it imposes the consequences of a lonesome ending and destruction of the world as it rot slowly without people to fill the gaps that once were, and that we acknowledge the people who will be suffering those imposed consequences were not the ones who originally started life and therefore we would be punishing the innocent to save the innocent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I believe that a certain level of restraint towards progression is what makes progression valuable, and that the friction towards one's goals isn't negative. If everything in life could be given at the snap of a finger, life would inevitably become boredom. This is why I value restraint as an aspect of life that can provide value through accomplishments.I think this shows that the goals we strive for are objectively worthless, and that it's the method in which we achieve them that produces positive affect through our subjective experience. So, this shows that the particular goals don't matter in the slightest (objectively), but the positive affect you can obtain from achieving any goal is where the real value is generated.
Yes, it is not the actual thing which we do but rather how we feel about doing it and how we feel about the result of the outcome that determines how we feel completing the thing.
Also, you're highlighting another zero-sum aspect of human nature: if we were given everything, then we'd still suffer negative affect (through boredom). However, if we encounter obstacles that prevent boredom, then we encounter negative affect through that instead.
I believe that you're speaking of objective value. I do not believe in any such thing as I've seen no evidence to support the idea that anything has an objective value. I understand that all things that are considered to have value are valued subjectively and the thing itself has no value, but the value is determined by the individual who perceives it. If you're speaking of objective value then I would agree that we are not able to obtain objective value, rather we create our own through subjective means.
If a person feels their life was more positive than negative, subjectively that person had a more positive life and therefore regardless of the circumstances they were in, their perception viewed it as more positive or negative. Meanwhile, their life may have been considered by many others a more negative life than a positive one.
Created: