Morality is what comes with intelligence, it's something that is created. If we were just a horse or something "right" and "wrong" would just be words with no meaning to us. So by default morality is an opinion, it's not something anyone can be right or wrong about. So to say to someone, "you know that was wrong of you" is incorrect. In reality it's, "you know I think that was wrong of you". That's just how I see it (this is a redo my other comment got deleted? Something like that...)
@Deathbydefault Morality in general is to follow the laws of the universe. It fits in with deterministic chaos theory. Chaos theory states that under every chaotic system is a underlining ordered structure. Don't forget the universe is singular and we're part of it.
@reece I'm going from the definition of morality. Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Synonymous with ethics.
Morals by definition are principles of right and wrong. While saying something is "right" or "wrong" is only an opinion. Morals are created not set in place. Therefore my viewpoint on morality still stands.
Youre trying to say no outside party could accurately discern whether something is right or wrong to do as it concerns you. I disagree. I wholly believe that people on the outside of your ethics bubble are fully capable of comparing your limited view of a particular choice to their experience (with you and thousands of others theyve seen like you) and are able to make a clear determination of whats right or wrong about what youve done.
I'm not sure if my point is getting across here. "Right" and "wrong". "Good " and "evil". Those are all highly opinion based words, all of which were created by humans. You may have a sense for what is right or wrong or good or evil, but that's all self created. It's a bunch of opinions you agree with. Murder is wrong. I see murder as wrong. You probably see murder as wrong. But saying murder is wrong is just an opinion. These webs of opinions concerning "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" are something we as humans created to have a better coexistence. Things like murder and rape and theft all are considered evil or wrong doings, but they are only wrong because we say they are wrong.
I believe multiverse can also cover this, since it doesn't only apply to constants. Let's say there are trillions of different realities out there. In one of those realities everything was set up like it is now but it came to a point where morals were being decided. In that world they have a different view of murder, so killing people who make you angry is okay to them. If we were to meet with that world both sides would be confused at the others moral behavior. I don't know if you're getting the point I was trying to make or not. I'm saying that morals are created with intelligence by intelligence. No one can factually say what I said is "right" or "wrong" because it would only be their opinion. Same for me to them as well I suppose. This is all just my viewpoint you know :P
In response to @reece now. I don't know a super lot about determinism other than that it was something to do with multiverse theory. I believe it was philosophy that stated everything in our universe has already been decided for us, as it has for everything else in every alternate universe. I'll read up on that and get back to you on it. But if it is like I stated above then it still does not matter because the decisions we make as people are real enough to us that if there is a being dictating our will we don't notice it. I definitely don't believe in that if that is true about determinism. But then again I don't believe anything remotely spiritual anyways. You would have a better argument if you used the simulation theory but my answer to that would remain the same. If reality is being determined for us or set up for us then it's still real to us because we are making decisions that are real to us. Theories that use that type of hit to ones psychology are only good for confusion. The world we perceive is real to us therefore everything we see and do is real to us.
"Murder is wrong. I see murder as wrong. You probably see murder as wrong. But saying murder is wrong is just an opinion."
It becomes a little more than an opinion when the very fabric of the universe bucks against your doing it. When enough people start seeing it as wrong (because of the natural results it brings) and their combined thought process reflects that, it kinda becomes a completely different entity entirely. Not just an opinion. 1 opinion alone has very little power. This is many, normalized by the natural effects incurred by the decisions of many. Its like knowing a tidbit about a particular subject and forming an opinion, versus having billions upon billions of tidbits about that same knowledge that all form a much greater understanding of that subject (the subject of course being nature). Having enough samples from people all brought together is what helps paint this entire picture of good versus evil.
"In that world they have a different view of murder, so killing people who make you angry is okay to them."
This is false. If it was set up the same way as it is now ... People would come to the exact same conclusion that they did in this reality. Their opinion is dictated by their surroundings and how that surrounding meets them with force based on their decision. Nature is the ultimate deciding factor here, in the macro morality model (i should coin that term).
@Deathbydefault even that's pushing it, but okay. About how you don't believe in anything spiritual... I don't either. I don't believe in absolute randomness, freewill, luck, miracles, god(s), etc. Their just placeholders for our ignorance. Determinism for me is a universe 100% governed by laws. This is where chaos theory comes in. The universe is singular, the universe doesn't revolve around us. Whats your point that everything is still real to us? I don't disagree with that, well i don't think so.
#FreedomBeforeEquality you don't make no sense homie. I don't understand what you are saying. Let me make it clear one more time. For you or me or even a god to say something is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" is an OPINION. Opinion:a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Get that through your head man. I don't know what you mean by fabric of the universe bucking against murder. Cause the fabric must be bucking pretty damn hard right about now. Murder is an every day occurrence. You're saying good and evil and stuff and you don't seem to get that those are opinion based words. Even if god were to say that Satan himself was evil it would still only be gods opinion. Do you understand? Do you? I can't tell if you ever learned the difference in second grade. Here's a refresher!
A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
Something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
Evil is not a fact. There is no such thing as an evil person. There are people described as evil. There are people you may thing are evil. But there is no such thing as a factually evil being.
Same thing with good.
Same thing with morally right
Same thing with morally wrong.
NO one is morally right or wrong, because your morals are based on your opinions.
Opinions are not facts, therefore morals are not facts.
It might be a fact that you believe in a set of morals. The morals themselves are not fact.
You also had an opinion on my example using multiverse. What I said was, "Let's say there are trillions of different realities out there. In one of those realities everything was set up like it is now but it came to a point where morals were being decided." Set up the same. It was set up the same. It did not end the same, obviously, it it was set up the same. Everything up until the point where it became morally correct for them to kill people they dislike was the exact same as our universe. That is what I meant there.
- Lastly - When a bunch of people subscribe to the same set of morals the morals become a society type thing. Like in America all these different things are illegal because they fell in line with public morals. We live in a moral based society. A society based on opinions. To prove that point, when enough people have a different opinion on something, gay marriage for example, they change it in law as well. Same with smoking pot. So many people had an opinion change on it that it pretty much had to become legal or jails would fill up super fast. I don't know if you can comprehend my examples, or if you just don't want to listen to what I have to say. I read what you wrote and tried, because it took effort, to understand what they meant. Do the same kindness for me.
@reece I like your opinion of determinism. What I recalled from determinism is it saying that everything we do is already set in place. I'm not sure if they actually said that of course, I was recalling memory from years ago. But my pinion on that was that even if everything is already set in place it's real to us so what does it matter. It's hard to understand, I know. I remember trying to understand my own viewpoint when I first developed it.
@Deathbydefault You're trying to stand your ground in what you believe? I'm more than happy for you to prove me wrong, in fact i want you to prove me wrong. Are you happy for someone to prove YOU wrong?
I dont doubt that there can be an opinion of right and wrong in you. Im saying that according to your opinions you are either rewarded by nature or punished by it, thats not an opinion. Your erasure from existence is a consequence of objective morality. You can have whatever opinion on its treatment of you that you want, you'll still be judged wrong by it. Unless you consider that erasure to be a good thing, but you said yourself you didn't believe in anything remotely religious (i.E. Afterlife) so I dont know where you could figure punishment and death to be good things for you.
I think youre mixing peoples opinions on morality with the morality of nature. People can have opinions, nature cannot. Both have their own sense of morality. You follow the opinions, you might be right some of the time. You follow nature, you'll be right all of the time.
@Freedom An example for death being a good thing would be my beliefs.
I believe that when we die there is nothingness, you will just cease to exist.
By that belief it means all pain and suffering and worries will just end.
@reece I like being proven wrong, it leads to developing a better viewpoint.
If you can prove me wrong then you can prove me wrong.
I, however, am not interested in proving you wrong.
Not a comments section.
If you want to debate this then feel free to invite me.
Yes, Is there anywhere in either of those 3 definitions from webster's that means "opinion of man" to you? Please point that out and lets discuss.
I only separate them in the sense that a single human and his thought process can deviate from that morality, albeit mistakenly or whatever. It might be natural for there to exist a certain amount of failures overall, that doesn't make them any less a failure though.
Sorry I take so long to comment, my phone doesn't message me for this comments section anymore. @Freedom no they don't say "opinion of ma" or anything like that. An opinion is an opinion doesn't matter what gives it. God can say Satan is evil but that wouldn't make it a fact.
Reece, I was referring to an example of how nature dictates morality. I apologize if this was unclear. I do realize that natural law exists, but I am unaware of the link you are making between natural law and morality. My guess would be a utilization of the naturalistic fallacy (which is solved by this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy), but I do not wish to falsely presume you are making any statement you are not.
No ... It's not that something has to be natural or unnatural to be considered right/wrong. Both will exist. Nature tends to auto-correct things that are wrong as they happen, to come back to equilibrium. Continuously fighting against said natural correction of a wrong is what makes something morally wrong.
And not all things that you have to work against in nature make them immoral either. Your struggle can be seen as a way of assisting that correction along, too (which also takes work and can be mistaken for the immoral sides struggle). I think the best way to tell whether you're helping or bucking natural law is to take a step back and see if the thing you've done or massive change you've made can stand on it's own right without your constant opposition to it.
@Nac So you think we're not natural? Guess what? All things are natural. They all follow the guidelines of the universe. Can you explain how the naturalistic fallacy contradicts deterministic chaos theory?
Freedom, I will respond to your posts in the order you gave them, starting here.
Is this post made in response to me? I do not know where I implied that inanimate objects have opinions, or are capable of doing so. So I will assume that you are referring to someone else, but please, by all means correct me if this is incorrect.
Freedom, combining your latter two posts seems to describe a picture which utilizes the naturalistic fallacy. X exists, therefore it is morally just for X to exist. Your statements of morality leave me with only two choices: this, and a statement that something unspoken here as of yet is moral.
Reece, my question is this: how can a natural law decide morality? How can an "is" derive an "ought?" I am sorrowfully ignorant of this particulars of cosmology, so I am not attempting to imply this is impossible. I am asking in complete earnest, in order to understand your position. What I have derived is a statement that natural laws determine morality, which I wish for you to elaborate on.
To your evolution argument: evolution does describe how morality develops, due to benefit for the species and other causes. However, benefit appears to be subjective. Is parity or equality better? Is it just for a woman to abort her child? Should LGBTQs be accepted into society? I see these issues as being wholly based on opinion.
This is not to say that a society should not dictate certain judgments through laws and legislation. These ideas are not, however, statements akin to personal morality. Both a societal and individual society exist, to the best of my knowledge.
As an aside, thank you for providing keywords to help in independent study. I am interested in these topics, and this provides a great tool to expand my understanding.
@Nac If you're interested, Read the first quote in my profile. It's not one single law. We don't have a unified theory of everything. You're not just yourself, you're also your environment. It's a intertwined chaotic system. Genetics, education, temperatures, family up bring...Me... Almost everything you can think of in the present and past dictates your next idea. It's deterministic but it's not predictable.
Reece, does that not talk about metaphysical determinism, or the belief that no free will exists exclusively? Do you see a link between morality and determinism? I must remain skeptical in regards to the natural effects of the theory, as I know next to nothing about it, but I am confused as to how this relates to morality.
I believe, as well, that we are possibly talking past each other. You seem to be talking exclusively about the origins of morality (please correct me if this is incorrect), and I am talking about what morality is. My response in my first post of this comment was actually meant to defend against Freedom's criticism in his voting comment. I intended to defend my ethical subjectivism.
However, in doing this, I neglected to ask you your opinions on what morality exists as in this context. Do you believe morality is subjective, or objective? If the answer is objective (and I would like to ask Freedom this question as well), then to what measure can something be deemed moral?
I will explain what I mean by that with some examples. Utilitarianism states that the measure of morality is that which brings the most good to the most people. Altruism states that it is whatever does the best for everyone except oneself. Egoism states that it is whatever does the best for oneself. Contractarian Ethics states that morality is decided by public consensus.
When explaining a meta ethical philosophy (or the branch of ethics which attempts to find what morality exists as i.e. subjective or objective, propositions with truth values or not), I find it easiest to discuss what normative ethical position (or a position which states what an individual believes is the standard to which actions should be evaluated) and ask them questions about the implications of this worldview.
In short, this conversation is not about the origins of morality as explained by science, as I honestly agree that it arose through evolution. I am attempting to discuss the nature of the morality evolution established, and if the standard to which morality is judged is different for each and every person.
However, I am open to this dialogue if you wish, and find this issue interesting. I simply wish for you to explain that you are not discussing meta ethics if you do, or provide a causal link between the origins of morality and its nature.
I apologize if this is cumbersome, but I would like nothing more than to be on the same page when discussing an idea with anyone.
@Nac I don't understand your first question? This will help to explain the answer to your second question and what you said after: I'm not only talking about the origins of morality, i'm also talking about the nature of it.Maybe read through what I've said again. To your third question: There are two answers...It's subjective going by how the universe is singular.But going by abductive (normal) reasoning morality is both subjective and social. I define morality as an experience of knowing right from wrong both separately for yourself and for others. Before picking the questions to ask me, could you read through what I've said in case I've already answered them?
First question: This was in response to your quote which states that the big bang dictates our next thought. I can see no relevance between this statement and morality, so I attempted to ask if you agree and, if you do not, if you could provide a case for the opposite.
Second question: Many of your statements appear to denote the conclusion I stated in my eyes, unless you are attempting to disprove the naturalistic fallacy.
Third question: I agree with your statements, excluding the definition of morality. To the extent of my knowledge personal morality is subjective, but society creates a different standard of morality, which is set in place by the public consensus. This standard is agreed upon by the citizens of this area by continuing to reside within the area this laws permeates. I view morality as a standard by which one measures his or her actions. However, I am curious as to how you hold this view while stating that natural law dictates our morality. Could you please elaborate?
@Nac First question: I'm talking about chaos theory.. Do you know the butterfly effect? That's the link. Second question: Can you explain the naturalistic fallacy in your words? Last question: Read my definition again. I Use words very careful when i explain myself... Emphasis on experience.
1. The link is the massive effect of small events on massive events occurring at a later date? I am unsure how this describes morality, though I do see how it shows the effects of a moral action. Is this the intention? Because I do not see how it describes anything else. It essentially states that an action is moral if it has a good outcome, but both words are needlessly vague, which is my problem with this.
2. The naturalistic fallacy states this: X is existent, therefore X ought to be existent, where X is any phenomena. This would justify murder, rape, and slavery, since they were all existent at one point. It essentially states that we should never attempt to change anything, since the situation right now is moral simply for existing right now. Natural law's link to morality seems to be predicated on this idea, as morality is gained from human nature by this system. I could be misreading it, though, and if I am, please correct me.
3. No. 2 shows my contention with the link, as it would seem to create an objective morality described by the last sentence. Your definition suggests to me that it is the knowledge of the standards you and others hold and their differences, gained through a process of perceiving these occurrences and deriving conclusions from them. Is this an accurate paraphrasing, as this makes much more sense in my mind. I find it strange to think that morality is an experience, as this denotes to me a single occurrence.
@Nac 1. It also show the effects leading up to ideas, including contemplating morality. " It essentially states that an action is moral if it has a good outcome." what does? 2. How does that (naturalistic fallacy) contradict what I've been saying? Again, morality is the experience of knowing right from wrong. You're using the word "moral" as an adjective for something good when in fact it should be for both good and bad in this context. But anyway we will keep evolving and changing, that's what the universe does, We can attempt not to change anything but we'll fail. You can't stop the universe from complexifying upon itself, it's in our nature. 3. What do you mean "No." 2. I'll explain. Everything that happens, happens in your mind via chemical and electrical pulses. Do you dictate those pulses, or do those pulses dictate you? They are one in the same. You have no control over them but their still you.
1. A link between the butterfly effect and morality would state something along those lines, I would guess. The best guess I can make for a causal link would be that an action is moral if it leads to a positive outcome. However, I suppose you were just talking about the reach of morality, and the effects of actions. This appears wholly irrelevant to the nature of morality itself, so I am unsure how to go about discussing the idea.
2. So you are stating that morality is time relative? How does this coincide with natural law? Is it just related to a paradigm shift? Would this theory not display solely societal morality?
3. No. 2 was meant to refer to my second argument. Are you describing the origins of ethics with the rest of your post? How does this relate to the experience of right and wrong?
Deathbydefault made mention of inanimate things making opinions (gods opinion of satan etc. Even the mention of nature driving morality hints on the fact that such things are not opinion. The inanimate does what it does without and opinion about it. Humans can form an opinion based on what they see ... And since they can't see the entire scope of everything all at once ... That opinion can often be flawed. What nature deals upon humanity as form of punishment for deviation is not an opinion.
"seems to describe a picture which utilizes the naturalistic fallacy. X exists, therefore it is morally just for X to exist."
I'm not measuring morality in pleasantness really. For someone to find the easier path pleasant is purely consequential. I'm not saying that natural morality should make people happier or whatnot. They will be allowed to exist at all if they follow it. They will curb that existence, in favor of ones that will follow it appropriately, as they move away from it.
Also it's not a matter of is-ought really. It is how it is. I'm not preaching to others to ask them to follow "how it ought to be". I'm completely confident that it will all be worked out on it's own. It is that way already. I just find it strange that people are surprised or in so much inner strife over the fact that things cannot be what they think it ought to be. Especially when they/we are surrounded by signs that would spell such things out to them.
"Freedom, could you please provide an example of nature correcting a wrong?"
Utopia. It, or anything near its likeness, cannot stand on it's own. Nothing thought to be perfect by humans will ever be able to stand on it's own. People's morality differs slightly from that of nature and therefore their endevors will never be allowed to stand indefinitely. I'd venture to guess thats why human morality is in continuous change, because what they think is perfect and moral they pursue and just as soon as they escape the bounds nature will allow for, it comes crashing down whether through their own folly or through the natural creation of a strong enough antithesis to their idea.
At some level ... Yes. But I cannot say, though, that just because we are existing the way we are at this very moment is due to us being morally right. It might take 100,00 years for us to reach the point where our lifestyle becomes an issue. Some aspects of it though are met with much more immediate repercussions.
Freedom, so nature has a separate morality from man, and nature's morality is that which allows for us to exist? Is that the demarcation between types of morality and standard of morality one side uses? I apologize, but much of this is difficult to understand for me. Namely, because we seem to hold differing definitions of morality.
I'd say so, yes. It's the reason why many different moralities can exist at once (though each containing their own flaws and latent defects). Some ideas don't last as long as others. Ones that can stand the test of time are more likely to be in line with some form of natural law, because that idea has been allowed to exist via the people who have been allowed to exist.
Reece, I would state that it is the measure by which a person determines what is good or bad. An objective moral code would, therefore, make a statement that a certain ideal should be perpetuated by our actions.
And to what you said about absolute morality, you would be statistically more likely to fail if you held true to an absolute morality. The chances that you are headed toward a natural limit to your lifestyle are much higher if you cant adapt when you reach the brink.
I can almost guarantee that no human made morality exists today that could lie perfectly in line with natures form of morality ... And ergo would not stand the test of time. Lucky for us we have such short lifespans that we often don't have to consider the repercussions for what we do outside of a few generations.
Freedom, so you are stating that moral codes, as people hold them, are subjective, but that natural law (which can be translated to be evolution, if I am correct) dictates what is moral by allowing people to live?
Could you and Reece both define natural law in your own words, please? This would help a lot.
I think in the classic sense people refer to natural law as an interpretation already. I mean, everything kinda has to be an interpretation ... Since we can only know those things 2nd hand. But whatever we are interpreting those things from is most certainly absolute. Laws of physics etc. would not apply universally if nature and it's laws changed constantly like our interpretation and human morality does.
"Freedom, the term "principles" seem rather vague. Could you please provide examples?"
Sadly, I cannot say definitively for I am human ... Haha. But I could give you my best guesses based on historical instances etc. I would say look to any document or following that has been able to stay popular for the longest amount of time. Certain religious laws, religious laws carried over into national laws, things we've accepted as fact, as far as social law goes. Those things I can say bet do lie within the bounds of natural morality. That is why i so closely relate with conservatives I suppose. Minimal change is good change. Trying to over-correct or change continuously toward any extent is a bad thing.
In short though I suppose you could say ... Human morality is subjective and is based off of Natural morality which is objective. Therefore the human morality that is in parity with the natural (since that is majorly the one that exists due to nature having allowed for it) then a close majority of human morality is by extension objective.
"So genetics is where you draw the line. I just include the whole universe, the passing of information to be complexified upon."
Reece is right here. Matter passes on information perfectly in line with natural law. Every single aspect, every single force, all applied instantaneously. With people, however, there is a lag time there. What they do based on outside force can be interpreted and reacted to correctly sometimes and other times it not. Maybe they don't even receive enough in their lifetime to come to a proper conclusion, and is why their idea of morality can be debated.
Oh actually ... Scratch that ... If we were all smart enough to learn from previous mistakes, being more developed makes us more likely (on a personal level) to adhere to natural law. When I think about it from your bacteria standpoint ... Their approach is fairly aimless. The right ones live ... The wrong ones die. They run some set pattern of loss and gain over time. I think our existence is a bit more complex a pattern. We might even be able to modify our morality to be closer in line to that of nature in time. Adapt quicker, I mean. We might also just blow it. Who knows.
"People replace ignorance with the words freewill,god(s), miracles, luck, etc"
Those could be good replacements for an outright total ignorance to a natural law though, couldn't they? That means they are susceptible to some sort of manipulation based on someone elses interpretation of things still, so they aren't totally beyond help if they can still do that. I mean, you are no less a follower of the species path than they are.
They will be just as reactionary to close calls with extinction as you would be ... They'd just have a different solution to it. Most people do not invite death ... No matter where they think they are going afterwards. Existience is still paramount. Natural law still applies.
@FreedomBeforeEquality My point is that deterministic natural laws should be the default. Look through out history... We're learning faster than ever before about the universe. Things that once seemed chaotic are now easily explained by processes.
Reece, so you are stating that morality is just natural law? Can you please explain how this does not contradict this quote from earlier, " I define morality as an experience of knowing right from wrong both separately for yourself and for others."?
Freedom, I think I finally understand your view of morality. I will explain my understanding of your morality to the fullest. Please correct me, even if it is merely to state that I am missing something.
1. There exists an objective morality which we call natural law.
2. There exists a subjective morality which we call human law.
3. The human law is subjective only because it is an interpretation of the natural law.
4. Incorrect versions of human law are removed from society as time passes.
5. Therefore, we know if a moral code is correct if it is maintained as time passes.
This is what I have derived from your explanation to the fullest extent. If anything is wrong, missing, or unnecessary, please tell me. If you affirm this set of standards, I will proceed based on this set to formulate contentions.
Reece, so, at any point in this system, a being is capable of gaining knowledge?
P1) Morality is an experience of knowing.
P2) There are things in the universe incapable of knowing.
P3) Therefore, not all things in the universe have morality.
This is the problem I have.
@Nac No. When you say "being" you mean any one thing in existence, right? Morality is an experience of reacting accordingly to our self's and the environment. Humans use knowledge to describe how we think of this like any other animal. Some animals almost have the same mental capacity as a rock (metaphorically speaking) I just fine that there is no line to draw when it comes to morality.
And yes, youve got my idea of morality pretty darn close. I don't think bad ideas/morality are entirely eliminated because they are bad though. They are often adapted or latched on to other ideas that might be good to give them a false sense of goodness. That type of thinking is due to human 'reason' and emotion as well. Bad stuff has been allowed to piggyback itself in with existing good because of how illogical we are about things. We are forced to make illogical decisions though because we arent capable of being responsive to all the data all at once ... So in hindsight those decisions end up being bad ones more often than not. It's quite a predicament we are in.
Freedom, is that considered stimuli? I was under the impression that stimuli caused a reaction in an organism, and solely this.
I understand now, I think.
P1) Morality is a system of reacting to all stimuli, regardless of its nature.
P2) Because of the broad reach of the stimuli phrasing, this extends to all things.
P3) There exists nothing else in morality's definition.
That interaction in the organic sense is one in the same. Its just a chain of reactions. You can have complex chains in inorganic also, in the sense that literally everything in the universe is affecting every other thing in the universe to at least some miniscule degree at all times.
Well under that theory of morality where is it that you justify defying nature at all? All of those outside forces being much much much larger than what you could ever hope to exert, what is the point of doing anything outside of what your body does on it's own ... And what it would do if you were lifeless. Wouldn't that struggle be immoral?
Yes. I mean ... Based on his premises of that theory ... Where does the idea of right and wrong come in at all? Or are you saying there literally is no right and wrong? It would seem to me that with the moving state of the universe that a direction could be formed. Youre saying there is no direction ... And things just 'are'.
If the inorganic doesnt have direction and just 'is what it is' ... Its not making a direction for us to base morality on, no dichotomy. How can we say then that it's objective in nature? That would point more to the idea that it is almost completely subjective in nature, human created.
Ive gotta throw this one out there then. The only reason perhaps that we have been able to 'complexify' at all is because of the formation of our planet in its rather unique goldilocks zone etc. Matter being in the right place at the right time in the right density etc. etc. That internal friction you refer to utterly destroys every sense of opposing moralities if the concentration is too dense or too sparse.
Theres a band of human success and two vast regions outside of that band where there lies destruction. Over complexity kills, under complexity is nothing. Where does the drive come from to stay in the middle? Against the will of the universe? Is that sense of survival immoral?
@FreedomBeforeEquality Me being progressive, conservative or anarchist has nothing to do with it. Look into chaos theory which I've already explained.. It states that all chaotic systems have an underlying system.
"Yin and yang are part of each other. We don't go against the will of the universe."
To the contrary, we are almost always going against the will of the universe. We have inertia like any other thing out there and our sense of survival is the human characteristic rendition of that forces existence in us.
They do. But you following the order of the inorganics movements around you will 100% lead to your demise. Their order does not create favorable conditions for you indefinitely. Inviting death by the disorder (or order as you put it) of the universe is anarchist. Order is a relative thing.
Hmm ... Maybe there should be such a thing as conservative and progressive objective morality. Mine seems to invite that we follow what nature has established for us within this band of our own existence, whereas yours seems to envelop areas outside our existence as being morally good.
@FreedomBeforeEquality inorganics movements? I haven't heard of them.It will lead to my demise? Are you going to tell me to the almighty god next? Anyway i don't see a line between something inorganic and organic except for the state it's in. Organic matter is more complex as I've already states and thus more important to an extent.
"What is the will of the universe?"
Well in the broadest sense it would be the action of constantly imploding and exploding. If what physics we know of are any indication ... Matter is simplistic in how it reacts in those extremes and it is always always moving toward either imploding or exploding. We seem to want to move in a tangent to that though and have the ability to increase our resistance to that "will of the universe" with each passing day. I dont know if thats what it was going for ...
"i don't see a line between something inorganic and organic except for the state it's in"
It's a control thing. Whos in control. Inorganic is completely out of control of its own state or position amongst other things. Organic can control and can reposition itself amongst things.
"Organic matter is more complex as I've already states and thus more important to an extent."
Exactly. It is more important. But either extent the universe and its movements take us result in that matter being decimated.
@FreedomBeforeEquality Coming back the chaos theory.. The universe is deterministic, but not predictable. People use the words god(s), miracles, luck and Freewill as placements of ignorance for the causality's.
It does degrade though from a capability that you admitted to being heightened back down to a level of being inanimate. At either extent exist atoms and molecules separated by type or fused into one. That in between area that we exist in is the most complex ... In the sense that less physical collisions are needed to make things happen.
@FreedomBeforeEquality Power/force only gets spread out, it doesn't disappear. So at the same time of a matters state being weakened, other states become more powerful. "At either extent exist atoms and molecules separated by type or fused into one." And there exists atoms and molecules that are. So what? "In the sense that less physical collisions are needed to make things happen." There needs to be both, It ties back into yin and yang.
Both only exist here in the middle though. In the case of the universe its always heading towards either Yin or yang. There is a huge, vast amount of area on either path towards implosion or explosion that render complex functions that occur here by organics, right now, extinct, by molding them together or shattering them. We exist in the balance here and now. That yin and yang balance does not exist much farther outside of where we are now. The universe has no intent on maintaining such a balance either.
Yeah, i agree with most of that. Keep in mind we're the universe too, and if humanity wants to keep progressing who is to say the universe doesn't have intent? I could tap into quantum physics but i'm not bothered.
"Earth has more activity going on than the rest of the known universe. If you enlarged earth that is."
I agree. And its for that reason that we should not be siding with the idea that there would (or could) be anything higher if the universe changed the states of all the matter we know and possess here on earth into something else when it inevitably tries to collapse or explode again. I think it'd be easier to swallow some ying yang all-things-come-round-full-circle idea if we had some other instance of it to point out. As its stands we do not. Things here are unique and a conservative approach to preserving the physics that made that come about needs to be paramount.
@FreedomBeforeEquality Now back to totally disagreeing with you. I'm siding with the idea because it's a rational law (law of complexity-consciousness) It's an observation. Change is inevitable, progress is inevitable. Conservative beliefs have always held back humanity. By the way you don't need to remind me that change should come within reason. I don't believe things come back around full circle. I think it infinitely complexifies. How can conservatives preserve physics? Anyway, if it involves progress, then it's also a progressive approach. Whats better, a conservatives approach (trying to keep things the way they are) or a progressive approach (trying to become better), which you can see humanity has through out history. So yeah, change comes with reason. I think progressives know more about that field.
"or a progressive approach (trying to become better)"
When your belief that what is better is that nature be allowed to guide us into a zone treacherous to our survival, because it follows the ebb and flow of the universe ... Then yes being progressive is a very bad thing. In fact an immoral thing in my opinion and based on my experience.
What do you mean by become "better" if there is no morality? What is better? You don't put humanity first. You don't value the instance nature has created (humanity). How can you say anything could be better. How do you know youre even expanding on our complexity? If anything it would make us more complex that we are able to outlast what other matter has succumb to naturally. We would be an anomaly.
@FreedomBeforeEquality organisms spread, that's what they do. For survival and/or curiosity. It's instinctual. Would you wan't all off humanity on this rock when a mass extinction happens? We're going to keep spreading. It's better to do it sooner than later.
"Would you wan't all off humanity on this rock when a mass extinction happens?"
If we want to be putting humanity before nature ... Then sure. I thought I recalled you saying you didnt like that idea though.
@FreedomBeforeEquality humans follow natural law. When i said "i get frustrated when people place humanity above nature." i meant when people think we're superior even though we're one in the same even though we're more complex. Wait, can i reply to you're newer comments first please
We didnt define our existence. We didnt self create. We owe that honor to something else. I think that "something else" is whats defining right and wrong in the greatest sense imaginable, by affecting literally every particle around you simultaneously.
@FreedomBeforeEquality Thanks. The universe is a hierarchy... The more powerful a force is, the more power it has over weaker ones. Yeah, we can respect the states of matter that came before us (Read the first quote in my profile) but now we're the power house. Unless there is states of matter out there more complex than us e.g. alien life.
But you said yourself we are part of nature. How can a function that contains us as a subset ever be considered less complex? Again ... We did not self create. In the same sense we can never fully know what complexity had to come about to make us or know entirely what right and wrong is as dictated by that higher echelon complexity. Its never going to happen ... But we will always be subject to it.
@FreedomBeforeEquality The universe is a dynamic system, that's why we can be more complex than our counter parts. I kinda explained it in the environmental manipulation comment up above. I know we're you're coming from, i have the same prospective but it depends one what context. I think we will begin to know once we start to manipulate time. I agree with your last point. I'm a determinist.
@FreedomBeforeEquality Order doesn't HAVE to be explainable. I said it CAN be explainable. I think i have to explain chaos too.. By chaos i meant ignorance.. Things seem chaotic when you're ignorant. Or are you fine with being ignorant?
Really I dont think there is such a thing as chaos in reality. I think that concept is a thing concived by beings who are ignorant to their surroundings to varying degrees. Order and chaos are not a dichotomy ... Maybe in the mind ... But in reality nothing is chaotic, unless by stating a thing is chaotic you are willfully ignoring elements about that thing. Thats a personal choice, but thats not the reality of it.
@FreedomBeforeEquality You should use a better term than "reality" to differentiate your talking points. The universe (reality) perceives itself in many ways, including human minds which aren't capable of fully performing said task. You saying 'for something to be chaotic you need to be willfully ignoring elements about that thing' is nonsensical. That would require you to be fully capable of comprehending it. By the way, i'm using the scientific standard of chaos.
None of them, it's: high-mindedness/understanding. This leads to feeling empathy, resulting in fair judgement. If you are held in the belief that your perception of morality is the correct one, you are holding no consideration for others which counteracts itself before you've even started arguing.
That would be true if your morality was predicated on feeling empathy towards others at all. Morality is essentially objective ... So your feelings toward someone elses morals dont really matter, from an individuals perspective. Yes, your idea is correct in explaining how subjective morality is contradictory.
That would be true if your morality was predicated on feeling empathy towards others at all. Morality is essentially objective ... So your feelings toward someone elses morals dont really matter, from an individuals perspective. Yes, your idea is correct in explaining how subjective morality is contradictory.
"You saying 'for something to be chaotic you need to be willfully ignoring elements about that thing' is nonsensical. That would require you to be fully capable of comprehending it."
Why again would you have to be fully capable of understanding everything? You can ignore any amount of what you see, be it from a place of total comprehension or from the mindset of a fish. On some scale you can ignore things and them seem chaotic to you. The only reason there is a term for chaos at all is because no one here has been able to completely comprehend everything. If they could ... There would be no chaos in their mind.