What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Since I have no idea what you mean by morality there is no way for me to identify any purpose it might have to anyone. Having seen all the views of morality promoted on this thread, I cannot imagine any of them having any purpose whatsoever in anyone's life.

You may not have an idea what I mean by morality, but you seem to know what you mean by morality.

What is the purpose of morality as you mean it?

If there are principles that can be called moral principles, what purpose they would have in any individual's personal life could only be answered by the individual. No one can speak for others, which is exactly what most moralists attempt to do.

I am asking the individual?

The only principles that matter are those that determine how an individual must choose and live if they are to live happily and successfully in this world. Most of what is put over as, "morality," is in defiance of those principles.

Surely you are speaking for yourself here; and not for other individuals?

Is the purpose of your principles to live happily and successfully?
If so - what brings you happiness and success?

[Belinda]

I doubt if it matters whether I take stories about God metaphorically or literally. What undoubtedly matters is the symbol, the narrative itself.

Well, the narratives are only as meaningful/significant as the significance you give it.

I can appreciate the Abrahamic religions for their metaphorical wisdom and also recognize that they lead to undesirable outcomes if they are taken as literal gospel.

In the end - if you don't allow other people to dictate to you what to do then no narrative matters.

Decide for yourself.

The metal statue of Edward Colston the rich slave trader which Black Lives |Matter demonstrators toppled over the dock side was a bad symbol and needed to be relegated. But another metal statue 'The Angel of the North' is a good symbol.(I don't refer to the skills of the sculptors.) The symbols themselves may be revered as good or bad symbols. Therefore I'd ask first "What do you mean by 'God' ? "

Like - it doesn't have any single meaning for me. I reasonably understand what it symbolises for other people. I use the word differently in different contexts (depending on audience).

In the particular conversation and in the context of objective morality what I probably mean by "God" is the ability to exercise good judgment.
Well-developed, emotionally intelligent, powerful human able to discern right from wrong and act accordingly.. Which in the language of Philosophy probably translates to "the archetype of wisdom"; or decisiveness or something.

When the idea symbolised is self discipline then the symbol is a good symbol. Some God narratives symbolise self discipline. Freedom is not freedom without self disciplne. This is because if there is not self discipline there will be discipline through the agencies of outsiders.

I suppose self-discipline is part of it.

I love nature in the wider sense. Therefore I claim emotions originate ideas.

Absolutely. Inspiration doesn't emerge from the void of human minds - we get inspired by the things we observe empirically.

e.g My epistemology is inspired by quantum physics which is formulated/studied as Linear logic.

However men are not exactly wild animals and we are so vastly subject to cultural influences that it is also important every individual can reason as objectively as he can. Reason is of course always subjective by definition, except in the cases of maths and formal logic which are like specialised/ limited jargons.

There's a thing about us humans, we crystallise our thinking if we can study something ostensively. We must be able to see it, touch it, visualise it.
It's far far easier to study something that's before your eyes, than it is to study it while it's inside your head.

That's all there is to logic/mathematics really. You externalise/express your idea so you can study them. It also helps communicating those ideas (that's what language is for after all).

For example, I understand very well that x^2 + y^2 = 1 is a circle.
But I could never have gained that understanding while the idea of a "circle" was only in my head. You need the geometric + algebraic intuitions to gain a deeper understanding why that exact expression describes a "circle".

That's the way I see Maths/Logic - LEGO for your mind. But that's why I am a Constructivist... LEGO is for construction.

Of the Abrahamic religions Christianity is mostly about believing ideas in order to be virtuous . Most religious behaviour ,among other faiths, is mostly about doing rituals in order to be virtuous. The decline of Xity could be because the beliefs are so out of date. The beliefs are so out of date so insignifant generally that God talk is immediately suspected of being supernatural nonsense , and so the God narratives have largely outworn their symbolic value. The Bible as literature is good on the whole , especially the Wisdom literature, and the English language of the King James version, but as a symbolic artifact it is draped with superstition.
Fortunately the Protestant reformation and the printing press has allowed the moral tenets in the Bible to survive in the form of for instance Humanism, or as the honour of the scientific community, or as socialism.

I do agree we could not, literally could not, abstract material to reason about without the something physical and our awareness of it to abstract the material from. Your maths symbols are a closed book to me. I bet they clarify your thinking lucky you.

[RCSaunders]

I see. So a person couldn't "discover" his life's purpose; the truth is that his existence intrinsically has none at all, according to your view? There's nothing to "discover," or "fulfill"?

That's right, so long as you do not make it mean more than I said. There is no intrinsic purpose to discover, but that does not mean there is, "nothing," to discover. There is all of existence and its nature to discover, and one's own nature to discover, of course. If one chooses to live and prosper and to be all he can be as a human being the nature of reality and his own nature will determine what choices will succeed, (and which will fail), in pursuit of that chosen purpose.

And in such a world as you describe, the very existence of human beings is itself without purpose ...

That's right too! [/quote]
Well, it seems my question above is redundant. It seems that is what you do think.

Okay, I can't fault your consistency.

I regard the almost panic desire to know where everything came from a kind of mental defect. I only need to know what is, not how it got here, because how it got here does not change what it is.

Well, actually, if God created you, as I believe, it would change all of what you say. Then, life would have an intended purpose, because human beings would have been designed intentionally by a conscious Creator, to achieve a purpose of His. Even you would have to recognize that that would be true, if I am correct.

I could hold my nose and agree if human beings are born slaves, that is, to serve the purpose of some other being, you would be correct, but it is a premise I could not consider without contempt. How can you oppose slavery when you believe human beings are only slaves? I know you do not think of it that way, but it is the only way I can see it.

However, I understand that you have dismissed that possibility, so again, I cannot fault your logical consistency in that, even if I disagree with your conclusion.

... Every person has the right to live and die by what he truly believes to be real.

Yes, exactly. As long as I live by the principles I hold and do not attempt to force anyone else to accept them or adapt to them, and if all others did the same, half the problems of the word would go away.

[RCSaunders]

Since I have no idea what you mean by morality there is no way for me to identify any purpose it might have to anyone. Having seen all the views of morality promoted on this thread, I cannot imagine any of them having any purpose whatsoever in anyone's life.

You may not have an idea what I mean by morality, but you seem to know what you mean by morality.

What is the purpose of morality as you mean it?

I think I've answered that question in detail on the thread, "The Moral Nature." Moral principles are needed as a guide to life because human beings are volitional beings and must choose how to live their lives.

The only principles that matter are those that determine how an individual must choose and live if they are to live happily and successfully in this world. Most of what is put over as, "morality," is in defiance of those principles.

Surely you are speaking for yourself here; and not for other individuals?

I never speak for anyone else. The principles I believe in are universal, in the same way gravity and fire are universal. No one has to consider gravity or fire in making their choices, but they cannot evade the consequences of defying the nature of either. No one has to observe the principles that determine whether one's life will be a success or failure, but the cannot defy them without ruining their lives. But everyone's life is their own to live as they choose.

Is the purpose of your principles to live happily and successfully?
If so - what brings you happiness and success?

The same thing that makes any organisms life successful, living according to the requirements of one's nature. All creatures, except human beings, live exactly as their natures require for them to live be successful as the kind of creatures they are, because their nature determines their behavior.

Human beings, like all creatures, have a particular nature that determines how they must live to be successful as human beings, but their nature does not determine that behavior. Human beings must discover what their nature is, what the requirements of that nature are, and choose to live according to those requirements. The primary requirements of human nature are to learn, to think, and to choose to produce both the physical and psychological requirements of their life.

[Skepdick]

Moral principles are needed as a guide to life because human beings are volitional beings and must choose how to live their lives.

So, could you choose not to choose how to live your life?

e.g just let life happen to you.

I never speak for anyone else. The principles I believe in are universal,

I've never seen anybody contradict themselves so quickly.

Are you saying your principles apply to me?

in the same way gravity and fire are universal.

Meaning that they aren't. Humans defy both gravity and fire pretty regularly.

No one has to observe the principles that determine whether one's life will be a success or failure, but the cannot defy them without ruining their lives. But everyone's life is their own to live as they choose.

What is your universal notion of "ruin"?

The same thing that makes any organisms life successful, living according to the requirements of one's nature.

So you are talking for me? You said you were only talking about yourself.

All creatures, except human beings, live exactly as their natures require for them to live be successful as the kind of creatures they are, because their nature determines their behavior.

So you are saying that your nature is the same as my nature?

Human beings, like all creatures, have a particular nature that determines how they must live to be successful as human beings, but their nature does not determine that behavior. Human beings must discover what their nature is, what the requirements of that nature are, and choose to live according to those requirements. The primary requirements of human nature are to learn, to think, and to choose to produce both the physical and psychological requirements of their life.

This double-speak is so confusing!

Tell me what YOUR nature is.

[RCSaunders]

Moral principles are needed as a guide to life because human beings are volitional beings and must choose how to live their lives.

So, could you choose not to choose how to live your life?

e.g just let life happen to you.

No! For human beings every act must be chosen. To not choose is to not act. To not act is to die. Life is not something that happens to you, life is something you do. Things happen to a rock.

I never speak for anyone else. The principles I believe in are universal,

I've never seen anybody contradict themselves so quickly.

Are you saying your principles apply to me?

No principles are mine. Gravity is not something I made up, it applies to everything. No one has to observe it, and it's not up to me to tell others not to jump off cliffs or tall buildings, but no one can defy gravity and get away with it.

in the same way gravity and fire are universal.

Meaning that they aren't. Humans defy both gravity and fire pretty regularly.

Most human beings defy most of the principles of reality which is why there is so much misery and suffering in the world.

No one has to observe the principles that determine whether one's life will be a success or failure, but the cannot defy them without ruining their lives. But everyone's life is their own to live as they choose.

What is your universal notion of "ruin"?

Death, at the extreme, or a life so mismanaged as to make it impossible to enjoy or worth living.

The same thing that makes any organisms life successful, living according to the requirements of one's nature.

So you are talking for me? You said you were only talking about yourself.

I don't care if you want to squander your life. Live any way you want. I don't make the laws of nature.

All creatures, except human beings, live exactly as their natures require for them to live be successful as the kind of creatures they are, because their nature determines their behavior.

So you are saying that your nature is the same as my nature?

I doubt it very much. I'm interested in knowing the truth so I can order my life to conform to the requirements of reality. I do not detect any such interest on your part.

Human beings, like all creatures, have a particular nature that determines how they must live to be successful as human beings, but their nature does not determine that behavior. Human beings must discover what their nature is, what the requirements of that nature are, and choose to live according to those requirements. The primary requirements of human nature are to learn, to think, and to choose to produce both the physical and psychological requirements of their life.

This double-speak is so confusing!

I'm not at all surprised you are confused.

Tell me what YOUR nature is.

I have, in great detail, although I'm not sure why. Why don't you tell me what YOUR nature is, and I'll explain mine by comparing the differences.

[Skepdick]

No! For human beings every act must be chosen. To not choose is to not act. To not act is to die. Life is not something that happens to you, life is something you do. Things happen to a rock.

Why the special pleading? Rocks DO things. This rock we call "The Moon" causes high and low tides without which life on Earth probably wouldn't exist.

Also. Why only humans? Animals seem to be living just fine. Surely they make choices also?

No principles are mine. Gravity is not something I made up, it applies to everything. No one has to observe it, and it's not up to me to tell others not to jump off cliffs or tall buildings, but no one can defy gravity and get away with it.

Horseshit. Airplanes define gravity gravity all the time - predominantly without consequences. Do you understand how rockets work? They defy gravity too.

Most human beings defy most of the principles of reality which is why there is so much misery and suffering in the world.

Oh, you think us defying reality's principles is what causes suffering? Maybe we should tell doctors/scientists/engineers to stop defying reality.

Perhaps you would much prefer living in the days of Moses?

Death, at the extreme, or a life so mismanaged as to make it impossible to enjoy or worth living.

Well, you have to make up your mind. The average life expectancy of humans who didn't defy reality was about 35.

You sound significantly older than your "real" shelf-life. All thanks to reality-defying humans.

I don't care if you want to squander your life. Live any way you want. I don't make the laws of nature.

Yeah but you clearly obey them. I don't.

I prefer defying nature than complying with it.

I doubt it very much. I'm interested in knowing the truth so I can order my life to conform to the requirements of reality. I do not detect any such interest on your part.

Reality requires you to die. Sooner rather than later.

I object to reality's requirements.

I'm not at all surprised you are confused.

I am not at all confused. I was surprised at the level of your confusion.

I have, in great detail, although I'm not sure why. Why don't you tell me what YOUR nature is, and I'll explain mine by comparing the differences.

I don't have a nature - or at least, I have NO idea what my nature is.

What I DO is I invent myself and I engineer my surroundings to maximise my the expectancy and improve the quality of life of me and other humans as I see fit.

[RCSaunders]

No! For human beings every act must be chosen. To not choose is to not act. To not act is to die. Life is not something that happens to you, life is something you do. Things happen to a rock.

Why the special pleading? Rocks DO things. This rock we call "The Moon" causes high and low tides without which life on Earth probably wouldn't exist.

Also. Why only humans? Animals seem to be living just fine. Surely they make choices also?

If you believe what a rock, "does," is the same as the behavior of a living organism and that there is no difference between an animal's behavior and human chosen behavior, I have to take your word for it.

No principles are mine. Gravity is not something I made up, it applies to everything. No one has to observe it, and it's not up to me to tell others not to jump off cliffs or tall buildings, but no one can defy gravity and get away with it.

Airplanes define (sic) gravity gravity all the time - predominantly without consequences. Do you understand how rockets work? They defy gravity too.

Really? You mean there is no need for any force to counter the force of gravity? Who knew?

Most human beings defy most of the principles of reality which is why there is so much misery and suffering in the world.

Oh, you think us defying reality's principles is what causes suffering? Maybe we should tell doctors/scientists/engineers to stop defying reality.

Perhaps you would much prefer living in the days of Moses?

Yes, that would be a good idea, and tell them to stop believing in God, too. When doctors are successful it's because what they do does conform to reality, not the superstitious nonsense you are apparently promoting.

Death, at the extreme, or a life so mismanaged as to make it impossible to enjoy or worth living.

Well, you have to make up your mind. The average life expectancy of humans who didn't defy reality was about 35.

You think before scientists discovered the real causes of diseases and men discovered the principles of reality that made the production of the food, goods, and medicine of the present age was better? Keep you superstitious beliefs if you like. Rejecting the knowledge of science and technology is defiance of reality.

I don't care if you want to squander your life. Live any way you want. I don't make the laws of nature.

Yeah but you clearly obey them. I don't.

I prefer defying nature than complying with it.

Well, good luck with that, but I don't believe you. If you have a headache and have to choose between aspirin and abrin to eliminate it, even though they both will work, I suspect you'll choose aspirin, just because if you choose abrin, it will kill you. Why wouldn't you defy nature, in that case?

I doubt it very much. I'm interested in knowing the truth so I can order my life to conform to the requirements of reality. I do not detect any such interest on your part.

Reality requires you to die. Sooner rather than later.

Knowing reality and how to deal with it makes it possible to live. It's being ignorant or reality and believing you can defy it that kills you.

I object to reality's requirements.

Well life and reality are tough and ruthless, but, as John Wayne said, "it's tougher if your stupid."

I have, in great detail, although I'm not sure why. Why don't you tell me what YOUR nature is, and I'll explain mine by comparing the differences.

I don't have a nature - or at least, I have NO idea what my nature is.

What I DO is I invent myself and I engineer my surroundings to maximise my the expectancy and improve the quality of life of me and other humans as I see fit.

You don't think there is any difference between you and a rock, tree, fish, or dog? None of those things, "invent," themselves, or engineer anything, but you can and do. No other creature is concerned with the, "quality of life," of themselves or anything else, and none of them will be posting here to explain why. By, "nature," I only mean whatever it is that you are that is not what any other organism or thing is, and what those differences are. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about, "nature." Nature is just what is the way it is.

I have a lot of sympathy with the view of, "inventing," oneself, except I would say, one must make of oneself whatever kind of individual one chooses to be.

[Skepdick]

If you believe what a rock, "does," is the same as the behavior of a living organism and that there is no difference between an animal's behavior and human chosen behavior, I have to take your word for it.

Well, you didn't differentiate so I took your word for it.

Really? You mean there is no need for any force to counter the force of gravity? Who knew?

So you are agreeing then? The principles of nature can be countered. They aren't absolute.

Yes, that would be a good idea, and tell them to stop believing in God, too. When doctors are successful it's because what they do does conform to reality, not the superstitious nonsense you are apparently promoting.

Which part of preventing you from dying at 35 is "conforming to reality" exactly?

Dying is conformist. Living isn't

You think before scientists discovered the real causes of diseases and men discovered the principles of reality that made the production of the food, goods, and medicine of the present age was better? Keep you superstitious beliefs if you like. Rejecting the knowledge of science and technology is defiance of reality.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me.

I am not rejecting the knowledge of science/technology. I am outright embracing the knowledge science has invented.

Nature didn't give us ANY of that stuff. Humans did it.

Well, good luck with that, but I don't believe you. If you have a headache and have to choose between aspirin and abrin to eliminate it, even though they both will work, I suspect you'll choose aspirin, just because if you choose abrin, it will kill you. Why wouldn't you defy nature, in that case?

Sorry, aspirin? Don't you mean willow tree? Aspirin was only invented in the 19th century.

Knowing reality and how to deal with it makes it possible to live. It's being ignorant or reality and believing you can defy it that kills you.

Exactly! Living is defiance. Dying is conformism.

Well life and reality are tough and ruthless, but, as John Wayne said, "it's tougher if your stupid."

And you are stupid.

You don't think there is any difference between you and a rock, tree, fish, or dog? None of those things, "invent," themselves, or engineer anything, but you can and do. No other creature is concerned with the, "quality of life," of themselves or anything else, and none of them will be posting here to explain why. By, "nature," I only mean whatever it is that you are that is not what any other organism or thing is, and what those differences are. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about, "nature." Nature is just what is the way it is.

I don't like the way nature is. It mostly sucks. Majority of the universe is uninhabitable.

I have a lot of sympathy with the view of, "inventing," oneself, except I would say, one must make of oneself whatever kind of individual one chooses to be.

What kind of individual could you CHOOSE to be if you died by the age of 35?

You'd be a dead individual. Very natural.

[RCSaunders]

I don't like the way nature is. It mostly sucks. Majority of the universe is uninhabitable.

Just stamp your little foot and pout,
Run in circles, scream and shout.

Sorry reality doesn't care what you like...

...poor baby!

[Skepdick]

I don't like the way nature is. It mostly sucks. Majority of the universe is uninhabitable.

Just stamp your little foot and pout,
Run in circles, scream and shout.

Sorry reality doesn't care what you like...

...poor baby!

And your point? Reality doesn't care. Full stop.

We can do to and with reality whatever the fuck we, humans, please.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

We can do to and with reality whatever the fuck we, humans, please.

Would you not rather say "we may do" ? "We can do" implies we have the power to do it.

[Skepdick]

Would you not rather say "we may do" ? "We can do" implies we have the power to do it.

There''s definitely a spectrum of power but we are certainly not powerless.

But that is how the two cliches go... knowledge is power; and where there is a will - there is a way.

It's quite literal. With an element of luck involved.

[Belinda]

Would you not rather say "we may do" ? "We can do" implies we have the power to do it.

There''s definitely a spectrum of power but we are certainly not powerless.

But that is how the two cliches go... knowledge is power; and where there is a will - there is a way.

It's quite literal. With an element of luck involved.

Power is what nature v. human will is all about. Power is what keeps all life forms ticking over. When power is gone comes entropy.

True, among men possession of power socially is a continuum. But best guess about absolute power is there is no Free Will and each man is a facet of that very nature against which he contends to keep himself alive. That dynamic tension is dealt with in various ways according to different cultures of belief. An attractive belief is the narrative about harmonising as far as possible with nature.That particular belief, since the advent of coronavirus , demonstrates nature's imperative over our little efforts at control.

[Skepdick]

Power is what nature v. human will is all about. Power is what keeps all life forms ticking over. When power is gone comes entropy.

Entropy is ever-present and always increasing. It's wha allows us to tell time - past from future.

True, among men possession of power socially is a continuum. But best guess about absolute power is there is no Free Will and each man is a facet of that very nature against which he contends to keep himself alive.

I believe in free will - my brain cells made me say it. What choice did I have?

As an empirical notion Free Will is meaningless. It's just what we say.

That dynamic tension is dealt with in various ways according to different cultures of belief. An attractive belief is the narrative about harmonising as far as possible with nature.

Sure. Harmonising/exploiting - not much difference if we don't kill ourselves in the process.

That particular belief, since the advent of coronavirus , demonstrates nature's imperative over our little efforts at control.

Of course, but that's not the extent of our control. There's much wisdom in the saying "expect the unexpected".

We humans are perfectly capable planning for the eventuality that our own understanding/knowledge is wrong. Is the simple idea of redundancy.

And if we've learned anything from COVID-19 is that we can distribute accurate information across the globe in seconds (previously days), and we can coordinate a global response to a global threat in days or weeks (previously months). This level of coordination/sophistication/reaction to threat was impossible just 100 years ago.

Humanity has developed an auto-immune system!