The Moral Debate: Do Greatness and/or Badness exist?

[Artsu Tharaz]

[bringing the debate here]

Primary axiom: goodness exists in various degrees.

Proof: assume the contrary, then all actions are equally preferable, thus we may assume that goodness exists is true, lest all things be true, in which case it is also true anyway

[is there a flaw in that proof?]

Temporary Definition: the null state is equivalent to non-existence, it is neither good nor bad

Bad: anything to which the null state is preferrable

Great: an action is great insofar as its goodness exists outside of the total experience of the acting agent

Evil: the equivalent of Great, however for bad.

A numerical equivalence for each of these moral states.

x = the experiential state of the acting agent
y = the experiential state of that which is directly caused by the acting agent, yet shares no experience with that agent

The null state := x = 0
Goodness := x, 0 < x < 1
Badness := x, -1 < x < 0
Greatness := 0 < y < inf
Evil := -inf < y < 0

Morality is subjective if and only if y = 0 for all x.

The number 1 is used to denote the state of perfect experience within the subjective world of a given individual conscious agent.

Cases in point:

Historical Figures such as Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler are said to have had a great influence on the world, owing to the individuals themselves, and so that any action of said individuals had a tremendous impact, such that in each case surely y would be positive or negative and also a very large number, far greater than 1.

Rough counter-argument: the actual individuals themselves, Jesus and Hitler, in fact had essentially no impact on the world, however rather have become symbolic of the changes that occurred in their epochs, and that appearances would indicate that they did have a tremendous impact only because they were roughly at the centre of a change of events in world history. Had these individuals not been born, the state of the world would be essentially the same, however greatly differing in appearance.


If anyone cares for this debate, I wish for any input such as: are there obvious flaws and counter-arguments. I will clarify any points if inquired of, this is just a rough concise statement of competing moral theories.

Otherwise, where do your own personal beliefs fall in this?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as badness? Do you believe that we can ever truly influence another being? Do you have any alternate theory to propose?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A Dangerous Idea

To me, one of the most dangerous ideas, is that of a zero-sum game. This says that if the acting agent benefits, then others are hindered to the same degree, and if others benefit, then the acting agent is hindered to the same degree.

This leaves the acting agent in a state of complete chaos, where no action is preferable to another, whatever its effect may be.

The only thing preventing this state of affairs is the perpetual doubt regarding the existence of other minds, thus leaving things tipped slightly in favour of the acting agent.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A Safe Idea

A safe idea, to me, is that x = y, so greatness is equal to goodness.

This would imply that other minds exist stemming from goodness existing, and further more that so-called Greatness is not so Great afterall, however on the other hand it may be said to be even better.

I'll call this... doublesum.

 

[Tannhauser]

[bringing the debate here]
Proof: assume the contrary, then all actions are equally preferable, thus we may assume that goodness exists is true, lest all things be true, in which case it is also true anyway

the argument seems to be that if goodness doesn't exist then all things are true? I don't follow that one. What has truth values to do with the existence of goodness as a moral dimension?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

the argument seems to be that if goodness doesn't exist then all things are true? I don't follow that one. What has truth values to do with the existence of goodness as a moral dimension?

ok lol, was that all you got from that? haha

well, replace the word true with whatever word works better, "treatable as true", whatever.

either way, the proof works. it's a flawless vindication. \(o.O)/

"then we may assume anything at all since none of it matters at all" etc.

choose your own word for whatever you think "good" means,

it just says, nihilism in an instability point, because if youre actually a nihilist then there is no reason to be a nihilist.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

the argument seems to be that if goodness doesn't exist then all things are true? I don't follow that one. What has truth values to do with the existence of goodness as a moral dimension?

Just curious, am I reading you correctly in that you have a preference for fine-tuning the details of proofs for the things that are already most likely to be true, rather than thinking about the parts of something that are more open for debate, and not so locked in?

Like, yeah I get I'm definitely not a strong Ti user, however wondering if that is a particular kind of Ti.

What I said does technically work, since if there was no preference for doing anything then we could just say that anything is true, I think I said that, but yeah you're right it could use some work in how I worded it.

Making it a bit clearer and more visual:

Which is correct:
a) there is a reason to choose one answer over another
b) there is no reason to choose one answer over another

(I'll also point out that this is simplified, like it's not really about choose from a set of answers so much, we don't operate on discrete choices, we just tend to simplify things like that. From what I understand not even binary on a computer is just 2 choices, there's always cases where some other thing happens instead)

 

[Tannhauser]

Problem with proofs without well defined concepts is that the proof is subject to interpretation. Which sort of nullifies the whole point of having a proof..

But if by true you mean something like "preferable", then it appears its a false proof because if there are no preferences, then you cannot say it is true that preferences exist, which was the proposition.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This reminds me, there's a similar philosophical dilemma: does human rights exist (?)

And now, I vanish in a puff of smoke.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Problem with proofs without well defined concepts is that the proof is subject to interpretation. Which sort of nullifies the whole point of having a proof..

But if by true you mean something like "preferable", then it appears its a false proof because if there are no preferences, then you cannot say it is true that preferences exist, which was the proposition.

well, yes you could, because there would be no reason not to

that is why it is a vindication. i learned that word in a philosophy course. it means something like, it isnt necessarily true but it beats the other option(s).*

i mean, look at that a) or b) thing. if you think b) is true, then doesn't a) also become true?

*i called this a "weakly-dominating" strategy as per game theory, this term may also be incorrect but i think it is correct

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This reminds me, there's a similar philosophical dilemma: does human rights exist (?)

And now, I vanish in a puff of smoke.

maybe so but what about human lefts?

 

[Tannhauser]

Just curious, am I reading you correctly in that you have a preference for fine-tuning the details of proofs for the things that are already most likely to be true, rather than thinking about the parts of something that are more open for debate, and not so locked in?

I have to confess I see it necessary to be obsessed with the consistency of things, mostly because I do mathematical work for a living. I dont think it is limited to already established arguments though, although it is definitely much easier to find faults with existing arguments than creating new ones from scratch.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I have to confess I see it necessary to be obsessed with the consistency of things, mostly because I do mathematical work for a living. I dont think it is limited to already established arguments though, although it is definitely much easier to find faults with existing arguments than creating new ones from scratch.

i am a better mathematician than you however we probably do different mathsies

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

i could even solve the einstein equation if i put my mind to it

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

this is my post #1500 , 1500 is a divisble by 10 and also 5 and 3 as well

edited: this also is posted at 10:37 in my timezone and 37 times 3 is 111 and 10 is a divisible into 1500

 

[Tannhauser]

well, yes you could, because there would be no reason not to

But then it seems you are treating "goodness" as "logically true". In that case the whole thing becomes nonsensical because you are using rules internal to the system to analyse the system itself. Such things will always lead to paradoxes.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

But then it seems you are treating "goodness" as "logically true". In that case the whole thing becomes nonsensical because you are using rules internal to the system to analyse the system itself. Such things will always lead to paradoxes.

well yeah if you wanna go all goedel or whatever then whatever but in the REAL world my proof is a logical CONSISTENT forever. so nyeaa

 

[Tannhauser]

i am a better mathematician than you however we probably do different mathsies

Youre welcome to show off your mathematical prowess in the math thread.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

;sippin on mah bourbon and mountain jew, gj yep dats right

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Youre welcome to show off your mathematical prowess in the math thread.

m8 m8 i am the best mathematics i have the medals to prove it i dont need your math thread.

is there any cool problems there though?

last one i was solving was that 15 school girls problem, but i got to the point where i knew i was about to solve it but my head was spinning so i probably just went and had a psychosis or something instead meh

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A visual representation of the moral status of actions could be represented by a sphere.

At the centre of the sphere, is the null state, which is wholly void of any kind of experience or awareness - this is the ultimate bad. As we move towards the surface of the sphere, the quality of the action increases, and so too do the number of possible actions which are equal in status, showing that there is no one correct answer to any moral problem.

So, the Ultimate Hell, is simply a "blip" of non-existence. Whether we may reach the absolute surface of the sphere, the state of the Ultimate Heaven, is debatable.

We may also equivalently express this in an equivalent manner through an inversion of the positions on the sphere, which would instead represent the deviation from the perfect action. In such a case, we remove the centre of the sphere, treating it as a singularity, and assign all infinitely far positions from this centre as being the same point, Infinity. In this case, the distance from the centre of the sphere is one-to-one with the deviation from the Perfect State.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Nice bullshit dude

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Nice bullshit dude

Can you please elaborate on why this is bullshit?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Can you please elaborate on why this is bullshit?

Because the specific features of a sphere are entirely redundant to the point your metaphor is designed to convey.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Because the specific features of a sphere are entirely redundant to the point your metaphor is designed to convey.

What is the point of the metaphor, by the way?

 

[Brontosaurie]

What is the point of the metaphor, by the way?

I'm not wasting more time here.

 

[Grayman]

What is the point of the metaphor, by the way?

Seems more like a model of your own experiences in making moral decisions as apposed to a model that depicts the function of morals.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't think logical proofs work for this kind of topic. Surely in philosophy, it's great to have analytic definitions. (Though I'm not sure you've generated great analytic definitions.) But treating concepts such as "goodness" and "badness" as variables in a logical proof just doesn't seem to make much sense.

But the real problem with this entire attempt is that there is a glaring ambiguity. The word "exists" can be understood in two different ways, and you seem to play on this. In your title, you seem to treat "exists" ontologically: that is, as to whether or not there is an objective status for goodness as a real feature of the world around us. Yet here, where you say "then all things are equally preferable", you seem to treat "exists" subjectively - (as an intersubjective quality of human experience).

Here is the logical flaw in doing so. By confusing these two very different meanings of "exists", you run into this problem: that it is possible for there to be no objective goodness (as an ontological feature of the world) and yet for goodness to exist in degrees (subjectively), such that it would not follow that "all actions are equally preferable" (or, more simply, that relativism is true). Goodness would not exist objectively, but would exist in degrees subjectively (relative to human experience, or the human condition). And so, if goodness existed subjectively at least, we'd have reason to say "not all things are permissible". And even if goodness did exist as a separate and distinct ontological feature of reality, it wouldn't necessarily follow that goodness exists in degrees in human experience (subjectively). This is because even if goodness was objectively real, we may not know it, in which case "all things would be permissible/preferable". For goodness as a feature of subjective human experience is contingent. That is, it could have been the case that humans never experienced or understood the quality of goodness.

So, this sounds like a kind of equivocation. Clever sophistry, but bad logic.

Secondly, you commit a kind of categorical error in conflating moral permissibility with truth (as someone suggested). And certainly, it's easy to see why. Both morality and truth are thought to be either absolute or relative. (And further, moral absolutism is confused with the ontological status of morality in your argument. But these are two different things. Moral absolutism has to do with whether or not moral truths hold the same for everyone, or if there are no more truths and only relative moral values. And the ontological status of morality clearly has to do with to what extent morality is either an objective feature of the world, or merely a subjective result of human valuation.) So you are essentially saying "morality is either real or it is relative", but this extremely illogical and mistaken. You cross ontology with axiology. But these are two very distinct philosophical sub-disciplines. (One deals with reality, while the other deals with values. And denying one does not imply the other, necessarily, and vice versa.)

But moral permissibility and truth have nothing to do with one another, just as ontology and axiology are logically distinct philosophical matters. If nothing is ever morally impermissible, it doesn't follow that "all things are true". It follows that "all actions are morally permissible". And so, it wouldn't follow from moral relativism that it is true that moral goodness exists (in either sense of the word "exists"). Because again, the idea that all actions are permissible does not mean that all statements are true.

Truth and morality are distinct conceptual topics. To confuse them with one another is a kind of category error. (That is, you do not treat a state of morality as if it holds implications for truth - especially about some other state of morality.)

There may have been other fallacious errors, but this is all I could easily pick out.

Enjoy your day.

(Graded for a philosophy professor, tutored for logic, and helped students review for professional ethics - as an SI Leader. I also impressed many of my professors with some of my work. So you could say this is natural for me.)

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

hi thanks for taking the time to reply, my bain is not working well this morning so i dont think i can respond properly right now, and also i am not even in mindstate where i can read it properly honestly, so will try again later i hope

however, its not so much a proof i am trying to do except the first bit (i will try see later why you say its wrong, with those philosophy terms etc. but to me, all will happen is i will rephrase it, to me what i am saying is an inevitable truth, always true. however its a belief of mine really, not a proven concept).

it is more a visualisation for me, i am expressing certain of my ideas relating to morality and what i beleive of the truth of philosophy. i feel this morning like my rational mind is a bit messed up.

i failed my first philosophy class (i really do have strong proof that i am a brilliant mathematician, but i seem to be the only one who thinks my philosophies are brilliant too! :P )

might be able to incorporate what you said above to make my ideas easier to understand to philosophically trained persons

i just thought certainly at least one person had read my posts and thought "wow that is really cool, makes so much sense great way to look at it!"

:/

i think onesteptwostep know the gist of what i am saying haha :P

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I don't think logical proofs work for this kind of topic. Surely in philosophy, it's great to have analytic definitions. (Though I'm not sure you've generated great analytic definitions.) But treating concepts such as "goodness" and "badness" as variables in a logical proof just doesn't seem to make much sense.

Yes it does. Many moral theories do this, such as Utilitarianism. Kant probably does it, too, and if not then it can surely be done, right?

But the real problem with this entire attempt is that there is a glaring ambiguity. The word "exists" can be understood in two different ways, and you seem to play on this. In your title, you seem to treat "exists" ontologically: that is, as to whether or not there is an objective status for goodness as a real feature of the world around us. Yet here, where you say "then all things are equally preferable", you seem to treat "exists" subjectively - (as an intersubjective quality of human experience).

I didn't go into it too much here, however I treat all things as inter-subjective, and the subjective and objective as dual aspects of this. As such, the division is moot.

Here is the logical flaw in doing so. By confusing these two very different meanings of "exists", you run into this problem: that it is possible for there to be no objective goodness (as an ontological feature of the world) and yet for goodness to exist in degrees (subjectively), such that it would not follow that "all actions are equally preferable" (or, more simply, that relativism is true). Goodness would not exist objectively, but would exist in degrees subjectively (relative to human experience, or the human condition). And so, if goodness existed subjectively at least, we'd have reason to say "not all things are permissible". And even if goodness did exist as a separate and distinct ontological feature of reality, it wouldn't necessarily follow that goodness exists in degrees in human experience (subjectively). This is because even if goodness was objectively real, we may not know it, in which case "all things would be permissible/preferable". For goodness as a feature of subjective human experience is contingent. That is, it could have been the case that humans never experienced or understood the quality of goodness.

So, this sounds like a kind of equivocation. Clever sophistry, but bad logic.

Equivocation is used constantly. There's the whole issue of "can of coke" is not "can do", however equivocation extends afar beyond this. In particular, it is difficult to know what I meant by the opening statement. Mostly, it was not even a proof but a question for where people's beliefs fall.

I stated my beliefs in "A Safe Idea".

Secondly, you commit a kind of categorical error in conflating moral permissibility with truth (as someone suggested). And certainly, it's easy to see why. Both morality and truth are thought to be either absolute or relative. (And further, moral absolutism is confused with the ontological status of morality in your argument. But these are two different things. Moral absolutism has to do with whether or not moral truths hold the same for everyone, or if there are no more truths and only relative moral values. And the ontological status of morality clearly has to do with to what extent morality is either an objective feature of the world, or merely a subjective result of human valuation.) So you are essentially saying "morality is either real or it is relative", but this extremely illogical and mistaken. You cross ontology with axiology. But these are two very distinct philosophical sub-disciplines. (One deals with reality, while the other deals with values. And denying one does not imply the other, necessarily, and vice versa.)

So, absolutism deals with the necessary conditions for conscious experience, at least in this universe, whereas relativism refers to modifications made thereupon?

But moral permissibility and truth have nothing to do with one another, just as ontology and axiology are logically distinct philosophical matters. If nothing is ever morally impermissible, it doesn't follow that "all things are true". It follows that "all actions are morally permissible". And so, it wouldn't follow from moral relativism that it is true that moral goodness exists (in either sense of the word "exists"). Because again, the idea that all actions are permissible does not mean that all statements are true.

I covered for this already, however I'll add that I'm here trying to get to the truth of morality. Otherwise, what is the use of moral philososophy, if it does not bring one closer to morality? If it cannot be said to be true that one state is better than another, then there is some glaring problem with this that I am not quite grasping.

Truth and morality are distinct conceptual topics. To confuse them with one another is a kind of category error. (That is, you do not treat a state of morality as if it holds implications for truth - especially about some other state of morality.)

There may have been other fallacious errors, but this is all I could easily pick out.

Enjoy your day.

(Graded for a philosophy professor, tutored for logic, and helped students review for professional ethics - as an SI Leader. I also impressed many of my professors with some of my work. So you could say this is natural for me.)

Ok, so Truth is not Morality. Yeah, I would mostly agree as these represent to the two basic axes of philosophy that I use, I'll use the Schopenhauer metaphor again here... "Will" vs "Representation".

Relative morality is Absolute morality modified with Relative truth.

I still have not however fully grasped how what I've said crosses these boundaries in a way which does not make sense. Hopefully it occurs to me later.

If it's simply a matter of me using the wrong terms, then -equivocation-, how I understand the value in appealing to a wider audience.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Seems more like a model of your own experiences in making moral decisions as apposed to a model that depicts the function of morals.

Yeah, I get that it's mostly a personal thing, however, is it not an actual model which summarises different moral theories?

In particular, individualistic hedonism and Utilitarianism may be said to have the same state of experience being made the end goal, yet differ completely as Utilitarianism is collectivist.

I attempt to reconcile this through my statement "x=y".

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Moral philosophy presupposes that morality exists, except for moral theories which are amoral theories. These are instability points, as I demonstrated through my a) vs b) wherein b) leaves no reason choose between a) and b), however that Truth is not a) or b), I use the phrase "period 3 implies Chaos" to express this, however if that statement means nothing to you, it would be foolish to try to disprove it.

So, I suppose the existence of morality so that the debate* may be had, yet this seems to be where the problem lies, and so if it is to me an unquestionable statement, then clearly the terms are being interpreted incorrectly, and as I stated, making the theories more digestible could have value, however I would prefer to break new ground at the moment, rather than assimilate into ground already trodden.

Or, to assimilate into the higher moral theories, rather than ones which say little. I admit, I tend to give little respect to the validity of academic philosophy. One of my favourite philosophers is Nietzsche, and it seems that he would basically agree with me there, however I would prefer to state his morality differently to my own.

Some will say, "Nietzsche went against morality though!". Yes and no. Mostly no.

* if not debate, then simply an expression of opinions

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I say yes-no a lot, however I am good at multiple choice.

 

[TheManBeyond]

you should care in my opinion
i do care

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

you should care in my opinion
i do care

I agree!

I think that by caring for another, it also makes us happier.

So we do what is best for ourself by doing what is best for others!



However, doing what is best for oneself on an individual level will also, in my opinion, help others as well, because self-care can be contagious.

If a person does something to intentionally hurt another, they're going to have a bad time. That's like the law of karma - what we intend to do to someone, we do to our own self as well.

That reminds me I should have a look through my copy of The Bhagavad Gita next chance I get, I really like that book. It says something about transcending Karma, I want to find out more about this.

 

[Cipher]

I had a blast reading this thread.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Actions aren't good or evil, but the actors can be, at a specific instant in time (because actors can learn and change). I think that's how it works, anyway. I'm constantly revising my understanding of this stuff.

What do you think, Artsu? Has anything changed for you since the thread started?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

i.e. help yourself

cos you're the best at it anyway

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

So, what is the meaning of life?

... ... ...

...

Let's ask Dr Dre!

 

[Haim]

So, what is the meaning of life?

... ... ...

...

Let's ask Dr Dre!

I will just quote myself

Does their claim can be disproved at all?most people don't even use logic in arguments, logic is irrelevant to emotional claims(and be sure to will end up using emotional arguments) .Also you have things which you need to take a look back to the way humans work to understand, for example a mistake that some Nihilist people have is they claim that logically life is meaningless, while forgetting that meaning is emotion, a subjective thing that is not be true for everyone(meaning it is not a logical statement).

and

The problem is that you are trying to apply human concept to things which are not human.
Meaning is just an emotion,it does not exist,not that the universe have negative meaning it is that meaning does not apply to it in the first place,you individually choose that meaning,and it live only inside of you,if you decide that eating pie is the meaning of life then it is,if you decide it has no meaning then it is(negative meaning),but remember that the universe is no human,you saying it is meaningless is only your subjective emotion not a logical conclusion,that came from emotional type of thinking,one where true or false or chance does not apply.

 

[Haim]

Flawless argument?really?, you think you are capable of making a complex argument that people which are categorized as intp can not disprove?
Moral is a system of categorizing the only exists in one human brain, each human has different Moral table, a title in that table can be "Greatness".The thing is that this is just a label not the actual data."Greatness" and "Badness" are just one way to organise the data.The actual thing/data are actions and people,which are what they are people and actions not good nor bad nor "gray", it is only the subjective mind that later sort them that way.

[bringing the debate here]

Primary axiom: goodness exists in various degrees.

Proof: assume the contrary, then all actions are equally preferable, thus we may assume that goodness exists is true, lest all things be true, in which case it is also true anyway

There are preferable actions only if the subjective human decide and can reasonable predict the result of the choice."preferable" is the same brain labeling mechanism that "good" is, you are relying on that "preference" is real but it is the same as "goodness", you are actual trying to prove logically incorrect(not false but erroneous) statement by saying that the also the opposite also logically incorrect statement is incorrect, that is some amazing logical fallacy, "actions are equally preferable" is subjective thing which true,false or chance of being correct does not apply(thus logic does not apply), in one person mind that can be true, logic can not be mixed with subjective, like say "dog"+32 does not mix, you can convert 32 to the word "thirty two" but it will not be number anymore, same if you convert dog to a number, it can only stay "dog" and 32 separated.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Flawless argument?really?, you think you are capable of making a complex argument that people which are categorized as intp can not disprove?
Moral is a system of categorizing the only exists in one human brain, each human has different Moral table, a title in that table can be "Greatness".The thing is that this is just a label not the actual data."Greatness" and "Badness" are just one way to organise the data.The actual thing/data are actions and people,which are what they are people and actions not good nor bad nor "gray", it is only the subjective mind that later sort them that way.


There are preferable actions only if the subjective human decide and can reasonable predict the result of the choice."preferable" is the same brain labeling mechanism that "good" is, you are relying on that "preference" is real but it is the same as "goodness", you are actual trying to prove logically incorrect(not false but erroneous) statement by saying that the also the opposite also logically incorrect statement is incorrect, that is some amazing logical fallacy, "actions are equally preferable" is subjective thing which true,false or chance of being correct does not apply(thus logic does not apply), in one person mind that can be true, logic can not be mixed with subjective, like say "dog"+32 does not mix, you can convert 32 to the word "thirty two" but it will not be number anymore, same if you convert dog to a number, it can only stay "dog" and 32 separated.

I was initially dismissive of this response, however it stayed on my mind, and I was able to realise some errors I had made in my response.

The two errors were in positing badness as being non-goodness, and this is a highly problematic way to approach things. The other was that I seem to be unclear as to whether what I am claiming applies normatively rather than simply descriptively regarding the moral status of an action.

Despite the seeming ridiculousness of attempting to express such a humanistic subject in a mathematical language, I still stand by its potential legitimacy.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I have a new theory:

The goodness of a state of existence never diminishes, so that however good something is, it never gets worse, so the future is always better than the present, and the past always worse. This is based on all things being good, and the present containing all past.

This is like an opposite of entropy, or could be considered the same as entropy if you suppose that disorder is good.

So, the supposition that happiness is good is based on illusion, in that case, and actually goodness increases very gradually. It could be said that we judge things as good when overall goodness is increasing at a rapid rate, and judge them as bad when there is stagnation.

I have considered that the increase in goodness may occur in something like evolutionary phases, almost discretely. In such a case, either the increase occurs almost randomly, when the agent stumbles upon some golden principle, or may occur gradually, such as "giving birth" to a new mode of existence after an indefinite incubatory period.

To quote Iggy Azalea, "once you go great, you never go good, you never go back, even if you could".

--

Also, as an application of the principle, also from Iggy Azalea, of "impossible is nothing", there is no limit to how good existence can get, or how fast goodness can increase.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This is based on ... the present containing all past.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily require that but that's a similar principle. It works in a more differential fashion, i.e. in that moment A + X = moment B where X is some choice.

I've also considered that if the zero-sum game is dangerous, then this theory that all increases at some rate could be considered dull depending on how one looks at it. There are other ideas relevant such as:

Potential versus Kinetic versus Thermal good, where potential is there but not felt and can be transferred to kinetic which is felt, and thermal is environmentally based on floats into the others.

The x=y theory, which I vaguely described is probably better. Roughly it is that all that is felt is felt by 2 agents (perhaps exactly 2) and so goodness follows from good interactions. Such interactions may be potential turning into kinetic.

So we then have that all existence is good, and the goodness (and perhaps the existence itself) stems from the interaction of separate agencies. This goodness, we shall assume the kinetic form, can rise and fall but is always positive.

I predict that one day humanity will realise that all is permitted, and once certain barriers are overcome, there will be widespread killing and destruction.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I think the reason that I think about things like this, is that I figure if I don't know what I should be doing, then I should be trying to figure out what I should do, and I sorta go from the ground up in doing that by considering the very meaning of 'should', and so identifying primary goals in life and how to relate this to the bigger picture. So my answer to the question "what should I do?" is "get a better understanding of what I should do". Hopefully, relating back to a previous post, this eventually gives rise to living a better life through laying down foundations now so that I eventually no longer need to think about it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your thinking is messy.

If you define good and bad as preference, and preferences exist, then all you've said is that preferences exist. Preferences are inherently subjective, so this is a difficult place from which to argue an objective morality.

Morality is subjective if and only if y = 0 for all x.

I like this, but think it wrong. You've turned it into a false dichotomy by which, either morality is objective or subjective morality has no correlation between agents. But the development of moral agency shares common cause, and we'd expect it to be correlated. Things like survival, nutrition, shelter, reproduction, and status all heavily influence what we perceive as good. It's not surprising that I'm able to make y=>0 if we share common interests such as staying fed and watered.

But while a subjective value is variable and difficult to disprove in such a way, an objective morality is easily disproven using similar logic.

1) If objective morality, then all preferences are the same.
2) My mum doesn't like mushrooms.
3) If my mum doesn't like mushrooms, then I don't like mushrooms (1, 2)
4) I like mushrooms.
C) I both like mushrooms and don't like mushrooms (3, 4), therefore, not objective morality (reductio ad absurdum)

Re: a dangerous idea
Sounds karmic. We know that's not the way things work though. Value can be created.

I have a new theory:

The goodness of a state of existence never diminishes, so that however good something is, it never gets worse, so the future is always better than the present, and the past always worse. This is based on all things being good, and the present containing all past.

This is like an opposite of entropy, or could be considered the same as entropy if you suppose that disorder is good.

It sounds interesting, but it makes no sense. You have an arm, I chop it off. You are in a worse position than you were before. Who benefits? How is this anywhere near as good as stagnation?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Your thinking is messy.

If you define good and bad as preference, and preferences exist, then all you've said is that preferences exist. Preferences are inherently subjective, so this is a difficult place from which to argue an objective morality.

Well, what I'm talking about is not preferences per se, it is experience itself.

I like this, but think it wrong. You've turned it into a false dichotomy by which, either morality is objective or subjective morality has no correlation between agents. But the development of moral agency shares common cause, and we'd expect it to be correlated. Things like survival, nutrition, shelter, reproduction, and status all heavily influence what we perceive as good. It's not surprising that I'm able to make y=>0 if we share common interests such as staying fed and watered.

But while a subjective value is variable and difficult to disprove in such a way, an objective morality is easily disproven using similar logic.

1) If objective morality, then all preferences are the same.
2) My mum doesn't like mushrooms.
3) If my mum doesn't like mushrooms, then I don't like mushrooms (1, 2)
4) I like mushrooms.
C) I both like mushrooms and don't like mushrooms (3, 4), therefore, not objective morality (reductio ad absurdum)

Ok, I should have probably used relative and absolute, and said "only relative if". So only relative means absolute in no way at all, meaning there is no way to even measure it.

Re: a dangerous idea
Sounds karmic. We know that's not the way things work though. Value can be created.

Actually, it's the opposite of karmic. Safe idea is much more karmic. Safe idea says that for every good thing that happens, something good happens somewhere else. Dangerous says that for ever good thing that happens, something bad happens somewhere else.

It sounds interesting, but it makes no sense. You have an arm, I chop it off. You are in a worse position than you were before. Who benefits? How is this anywhere near as good as stagnation?

Well, I have read that people's happiness levels tend to return to quite normal levels after a disaster like that, and happiness is one of the things associated with preferences and what is good, so there is empirical evidence for it.

You could make a case for death being worse, but that implies that you know what happens after death.

 

[Hadoblado]

Well, what I'm talking about is not preferences per se, it is experience itself.

Okay, but what you experience as good or bad is dictated by preference. Experience encompasses all things good and bad that you are subject to, preference dictates what of that experience is good and what is bad. By talking in terms of experience alone you are not differentiating good from bad.

Ok, I should have probably used relative and absolute, and said "only relative if". So only relative means absolute in no way at all, meaning there is no way to even measure it.

Okay so you're arguing that goodness is absolute? Am I mistaken in thinking it's possible to measure relative things so long as you know something about what those things are held relative to?

Actually, it's the opposite of karmic. Safe idea is much more karmic. Safe idea says that for every good thing that happens, something good happens somewhere else. Dangerous says that for ever good thing that happens, something bad happens somewhere else.

I meant karmic in the sense that there was some sort of just universe thing happening. That there was some sort of score-keeping happening. Maybe that use of the term was too liberal, mb.

Well, I have read that people's happiness levels tend to return to quite normal levels after a disaster like that, and happiness is one of the things associated with preferences and what is good, so there is empirical evidence for it.

You could make a case for death being worse, but that implies that you know what happens after death.

That's a dangerous area to make strong claims in without providing evidence. People do naturally recover from things, but that doesn't mean they're left unscarred. PTSD is an observable phenomenon that stands as counterpoint to any such hedonic reset. What about depression? People are capable of coming back, but it's not written in stone.

What about if I had a child who died, causing my partner to then commit suicide from grief? How is that not worse than stagnation? At one moment I have a happy family, the next I don't. It feels like you're filling in gaps with wishful thinking.

 

[Black Rose]

Objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity. This means if morality is objective it is not subjective. Objectivity means that wich is not the self because self is subjective. The world is objective because it is not the self. Therefore morality that is not part of the self is Objective morality. If morality does not come from the self it comes from an outside force. This morality is authoritarianism. Morality is Objective because of god as some will say. But is Gods morality Good? Some will define God as all Good and therefore "his" morality must be followed because all morality that is not Good is Bad.

This is interesting because once you separate Gods morality from your morality you can define Gods morality as Evil. Because God is not you and the definition did not come from you but another human being then the only reason the define God as Good is so they can subjugate you. God may agree with you and not them but they define God as Good but then commit Evil acts in your Eyes. Thus either God is not Good or they are Evil defining Evil as Good. Thus they create God in their image (Evil). And thus wars happen. And witch hunts happen. And subjugation happens. If morality is Objective then God is Evil. If God is subjective God is Good.

The reason some define God as Love is because Love is all inclusive. Love is subjective. The reason you love someone is because they are you. Love is subjective because you are them. Objective morality is Evil because God does not love you because you are not part of "him". Subjective morality is Good because then God loves you. This is why God is a girl because Love is subjective. You are not Gods property. You are not Gods slave. God does not subjugate you. You are Gods One True Love. This is why Morality is subjective because God considers you as herself. Subjective morality is Love.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Okay, but what you experience as good or bad is dictated by preference. Experience encompasses all things good and bad that you are subject to, preference dictates what of that experience is good and what is bad. By talking in terms of experience alone you are not differentiating good from bad.

Ok, well then it would be preference in a really innate way. I guess that works.

Okay so you're arguing that goodness is absolute? Am I mistaken in thinking it's possible to measure relative things so long as you know something about what those things are held relative to?

Well, yeah I guess like with velocity, the object has no velocity inherently, that rather is a relativistic measurement. So maybe goodness is no longer good if you change the frame of reference.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by relative and so on, but only that there is some kind of nihilistic view that I keep hearing which sounds completely absurd to me (maybe that is part of the point) in saying that there is no such thing as goodness. I don't quite understand the view I am arguing against, only that it makes no sense from what I have gathered.

I meant karmic in the sense that there was some sort of just universe thing happening. That there was some sort of score-keeping happening. Maybe that use of the term was too liberal, mb.

I tend to view karma as an expression of the "physics" of the universe - sort of like for every force there is an equal and opposite force, and applying that to a different situation (the moral).

That's a dangerous area to make strong claims in without providing evidence. People do naturally recover from things, but that doesn't mean they're left unscarred. PTSD is an observable phenomenon that stands as counterpoint to any such hedonic reset. What about depression? People are capable of coming back, but it's not written in stone.

What about if I had a child who died, causing my partner to then commit suicide from grief? How is that not worse than stagnation? At one moment I have a happy family, the next I don't. It feels like you're filling in gaps with wishful thinking.

Well yeah it's very hard to justify that claim by looking at the real world, but in order to properly claim (as ridiculous as it may seem) that something is worse than stagnation, you would need some kind of way of measuring goodness.

Oh and I don't see why it's wishful thinking? It's a particular theory of goodness that I came up with/was considering. It could potentially be dangerous if taken too literally yeah, but it's just theoretical.