Baden: I don’t want to protract this thing, though your comments are more constructive. However here for reference is the post at issue that was removed, it having been initially made by me in reply to a previous request by a member asking that I clarify the post preceding it. - Let me say at the outset I’m not quoting this post in order to argue it’s unsusceptible to improvement or anything like that, but rather because I think it serves as an example of how, given its’ subject matter, it doesn’t really contain much scope for the kind of simplification of language which you advise without the language then becoming a vehicle inadequate to expressing the matter I am attempting to discuss:

“Metaphysician Undercover: An adequate summary of the argument is –
‘From the position of a putative creator god, it would constitute an inherent contradiction to assume an attitude of justifiably being able to require of human beings the comprehension and thereby acceptance of a situation ordained for them which in reality was objectively unacceptable and consequently incomprehensible. Accordingly, were our human situation validly found in reality to be objectively unacceptable then such an observation would effectively disprove the possibility of our condition being authored by a Creator God. However the proposition that our human situation actually is in reality objectively unacceptable could not in principle be verified by any process of theoretical reasoning and in practice could be pragmatically agreed among individuals only by reference to their common life experience.’

-Whereas someone else might well express the argument more clearly nonetheless I can’t see anything unduly obscure about it!” (End of quote).

Certainly since - let’s face it – there aren’t too many grammarians in the habit of posting to PF (the standard of language’s so poor at times the sense is near uninterpretable) I am then puzzled as to how in such a context the language in each of my two posts was judged ‘so badly written’ as to merit deletion. Nevertheless since that was the candid opinion of the moderator concerned, both regarding these two recent posts of mine and also my posts historically – my view being that though my posts aint perfect nonetheless that this opinion stems from a confusion of simplicity with simplicitude – there wouldn’t thus seem much mileage in me trying to contribute further to PF. So whilst I’ve enjoyed my sojourn here, guess it’s time for both of us to call it a day!

Heister: I'm not saying jamalrob 'necessarily' made a bad move there or anything - he sounded broken-hearted enough with no hint of gratuitisnous at all :) at being reluctantly forced to inform me, doubtles for my own good, that my posts were "generally gibberish" - but yet I tell you solemnly, for that remark of yours, all thy sins they are forgiven! :)

Well, there really is nothing like constructive advice - and that reply of yours was indeed really nothing like that but instead rather a clueless example of an inability to distinguish between simplicity and simplicitude in the context of written English - together with a not very convincing display of sorrow at having gotten the opportunity to vent an apparantly cumulative petty annoyance at my writing style! All the same though, reckon in future I'd be better leaving The Philosophy Forums to others more suited to meeting those particular standards of linguistic proficiency seeming peculiar to your erudite good self - even if such standards be known only unto the likes of yourself and are partly responsible for sites like these being regarded privately among professional philosophers as a bit of a joke! - Like posting to this groundhog-day site so as to avoid falling asleep on the train back home from work's a big deal! And ultimately - Who gives anyway? - Bye! :)

No, just text! If it can no longer be traced by the moderator I'll just put it down to 'one of those things'! :)

Yeah - Seems some more than others must be required to inculcate that virtue of stoicism being the sole prescription recommended by atheism as the omnipotent means to effect a reconcilliation with our predicament! Also, it seems to me, the idea that that prescription is not ultimately a platitude requires a faith more stubborn and solipsistically persistent in the face of uncomfortable reality than even that of the most fundamentalist of religious persuasions!

Thanks for comments. Of course individual contentment is contingent on personal aspiration as well as situation, and restrictions resulting from disablement for example would likely impose less despair in the case of an individual affected by a reduced level of desires - explaining perhaps why many disabled people in practice report, if not a reconciliation with their situation, at least a decline in the level of their discontent once they have passed the 'hurdle' of youth and are beginning to age.

Although certainly the most positive attitude on the part of a disabled person would undoubtedly be, "There's nothing the able-bodied can do that I cant", nonetheless ultimately such an attitude towards realising personal potential in the face of diffulty, no matter how admirable, cannot fully reconcile the nihilism of extreme inequity. Conversely however, perhaps the unfortunate potentially have an opportunity to eventually conceive of a type of happiness less derivative of circumstance and so less illusory than is the case with the more fortunate. Easier to say of course, but also - if such a journey could finally enable a more sustainable concept of happiness - perhaps then this situation represents another example of how a degree of nihilism is disguised in the atheistic concept of mortality foreseeing everything as it does, including such a hard-earned capacity for sustainable happiness, as being ultimately reduced to the same ineffectual state of annihilation!

Well, exepting the remedies cosmetic surgery may perhaps provide for the less endowed and most inexcusably disatisfied, It's nonetheless a commonly advanced precept - though sometimes emanating maybe more from a requirement to be seen as adhering to approved standards of ‘moral correctness’ than from any genuine personal awareness – that in the case of any given individual, the basis of a valid sense of happiness must consist in acquiring an attitude of personal contentment towards their own intrinsic situation unimpaired by the distractions of what may ostensibly seem the greater good fortune of others!

Additionaly the stoic philosophers, whilst not deriding that sense of happiness deriving plausibly within individuals happening to find themselves thriving in a benign situation, did nevertheless hold it to be the case that happiness of such a type must inevitably to some extent be characterised by a quality of illusion and therefore worthily instructed the serendipitous on the virtues of their consciously inculcating – firstly as a form of insurance against the transience of Fortune (- ‘Youth’s sweet-scented manuscript must close’, and all that) but also secondly in respect of the nobility of the idea in itself of disambiguating ourselves of illusion, together with the further pragmatic benefit of a sense of happiness less derivative of personal circumstance likely being more impervious to the vagaries of fortune - worthily instructed the serendipitous on the virtues of their consciously inculcating a concept of happiness less intrinsically derivative of their personal situation.

Allowing the plausibility of such a position, my argument is that nonetheless there in practice exists a limit to the degree of stoicism in the face of reality which the human mind is capable of inculcating, and that, given the degree of disparity of individual circumstance actually existing (There is for example such a thing, I think, as earthly paradise) contentment on the part of the most unfortunate, tragically, can be sustained only by default; i.e. it is permissible in practice in the most unfortunate only by means of a pragmatic ignorance on their part - borne of the limitations in their experience inescapably imposed even in the most optomistic deliniation of their milieu that realistically could be envisaged - regarding the quality of life available in principle to the most fortunate and further, that such are the disparities of life, that in addition this principle ultimately applies in practice to the great majority of us - if only we but knew it! Though, again with pragmatic good fortune, owing to the similarly insulating effect of our own individually deliniated circumstances, we generally remain oblivious of how superb in principle the quality if life of the most fortunate can actually be!

A rational answer - though also one, forgive me, which I think is at times representative of a somewhat egocentric point of view emanating from the perspective of the able-bodied - supporting the natural preconception that our situation cannot intrinsicslly involve an element of absolute meaningless. However, in the face of the sheer bizarness of the degree of inequity which in reality can divide the circumstances of the fortunate and the unfortunate, and also regarding the level of impairment which in practice disability can impose on the quality of people's lives - I think this kind of argument therefore in reality constitutes a somewhat complacent platitude! I could maybe swallow it if this situation of ours was just a dress-rehearsal - but unfortunatly it aint, the reality being of course that we each have only one shot at life! - Incomprehensible or not, the fact is, sadly, that there's just an element of irredeemable nihilism involved in such disparities which no ingenious concession devised by rational reasoning is capable of reconciling.

From our egocentric human view point, I'd suggest prima facie that the more pertinent question surely is - inasmuch as the answer would determine whether from our perspective the God-debate is purely academic - surely is the one of whether our consciousness is ultmately material in origin? Sometimes, even in philosophical discussions, there seems to be an ostensibly unwaranted assumption involved to the effect that somehow the answer to the two questions is evidentialy related! Certainly the 'God' question always seems to excite more attention - such a curious illogicality in the face of the principles of a posteriori reasoning concerning our fate perhaps being rooted in religious ancestry, which I think historically has tended to conflate the two questions in a somewhat hopeful manner?

Anyway - God or no God - faced with the prospect of being buried once, I personally want dug up again! :) - Do I want it to be the case that consciousness is not ultimately material in origin and that the brain is merely the agent by which we presently experience this three dimensional time-continuom such that thereby, at least in principle, there exists the possibility that we could succeed further to experience a constructive existence? Unappoligetically - Yes absolutely!

In practice, I like personally the idea that we are all individually part of some, 'Universal soup' - ultimately destined to evolve into this 'God-thingy' of which then we will each be an indivisible element!

Yeah - I would say that the two alternative life scenarios which I initially presented here boil down to a choice between whether on the one hand you would prefer to be characterised by a combination of moderate psychological instability and lack of ambition but these negatives ameliorated by a benign disposition or, on the other, by psychological stability together with a highly motivated sense of ambition, but these positive attributes then being qualified in the case given by an attitude of harshness and cyniscism towards others. As is usually the case in practice, each choice necessarily involves ambiguities.

Annyway, I think we could basically agree on the truth of the old adage that Happiness unlike pleasure is inimical to being consciously saught, but is effectively a more elusive and frequently delayed byproduct of aiming - oblivious with regard it - for something higher! A worthy maxim, easier to assimilate on an intellectual basis than inculcate as a personal perception, however! - But that's all our challenge! :)

Timeline: - Without intending to be patronising – it’s refreshing to hear a female voice, for a change, in this forum! I’ve always been a bit curious as to why most philosophy sites don’t appear to have that many female members! (Though who knows what is disguised, both nefarious and worthy, behind the pseudonyms by which we choose to publicly represent ourselves!)

Anyway, I think you imply a significant point – the paradox that in practice a human being can be either happier, or conversely unhappier than he personally believes himself to be. Regarding this idea, we are all of course capable of rationally acknowledging the received truth – as distinct from personaly bearing a psychological witness towards it - that the gratification of pleasure, both physical and psychological (psychological in terms of the elevation of personal vanity and the massaging of the ego) is capable of presenting to an individual a prospect of happiness which effectively is a mirage, so that if the experience of the individual concerned was deficient, and therefore he had no other reference point with regard to which to evaluate this semblance before him, he would most likely be persuaded of its plausibility.

Regarding the maxim however that ‘Personal experience is the only Educator’, there is nonetheless perhaps some evidence that during the course of a person’s life an event may serendipitously occur capable of providing such a reference point, possibly in a cathartic manner, which can then retrospectivly act to provide a more accurate insight into the true reality and meaning of their situation – such damascene revelations sometimes conferring a surprisingly affirmative realisation and, sometimes, a sense of regret and remorse regarding the irrecoverable nihilisms of the past but, more importantly, assuming such experience was valid, also an increased awareness of those objective moral values on which – so we are instructed anyway - sustainable contentment is ultimately contingent!

- Haven't yet managed personally however to attain that Nirvana by educating myself out of envy for what I, of course, perceive to be the undeserved success in relation to my own efforts of others! :)

Yeah! - And to think I know quite a few similar types who seem capable of confounding the laws of reality by being able to reconcile an apparantly successful career with being pissed rather a lot of the time! At the risk of reinforcing the cliché, some of these whom I know are indeed journalists and so maybe have acquired their enviable tolerance of alchohol during the course of long exertions in this indulgence - a capacity for which being evidently almost a condition of their employment! Anyway, in this context, Nietzche's oft quoted maxim does of course come to mind - "That which does not kill us makes us stronger!" (Dont think his works provide many truths but maybe this is an ironic one!) and perhaps - despite an obliviosness towards anything as recondite as philosophy - that subliminal insight to some extent informs the ethos of some of those with whom I am aquainted! All in all though - seems a rhum do! :)

Sapientia: I would say that the general point to recognise concerning such discrepancies of personal experience among individuals regarding their interpretation of sensorialy perceived phenomena - typically as reported in this thread - is that such phenomena, by definition, do not exist objectively but in reality are merely the product of the interplay necessarily occurring between elements external to the observer and the internal neural processes by which interpretation is effected.

In that context then the question, “What is an objects’ ‘real’ colour” is surely a contradiction in terms in that only the wave lengths of the light emitted by an object can have an objective existence, 'its colour' being an attribute not of the object itself but a product of the observer's neural processes. It's merely the innate similarity of the neural processes by which perception is enabled existing among individuals that enables a pragmatically useful consistency of agreement between them regarding their interpretation of any given sensorialy perceived phenomena. -Alien beings for example could in principle be characterised by neural processes relevant to sensorial perception effectively inimical to our own – thus rendering mutually consistent interpretation impossible!

The point to recognise – not one of the more difficult concepts in philosophy perhaps - is that sensorial experience must necessarily be a product of the neural processes mediating between the observer and those elements external to him, the idea that such experience is objective being, understandably, just a popularly received illusion!

An objective description of the mechanisms of such mediation (I think personally btw) is likely more an excercise relevant to the methodology of science than the somewhat byzantine and recondite speculations of metaphysics - the sometimes apocryphal complexities tending to be introduced by the latter discipline into this problem being borne perhaps of its origin in an age ignorant of the concept of 'cause and effect', as this type of interaction to describe the relationships occurring between material phenomena came in subsequent ages to be gradually recognised cocurrent with the development of the scientific method itself as capable to adequately describe - ultimately in a comparatively simple and logically coherent manner - genres of phenomena such as this!

-Ah yes, that!...Well, on reading it again, I think in retrospect that I have in fact answered the question - that it's all essentially a subjective matter and therefore just an arbitrary question of utility as to how we arrange a consistent agreement regarding our assignment of colour value, or any other sensorialy perceived entity for that matter - important in practice but in principle inconsequential and, paradoxically, nothing to do with objective reality! The wave length of the light reflected by an object is an objective value. The colour of that light as this is perceived by any given observer results from an interplay between that objective value and the neural network of the particular observer's brain and accordingly is a subjective experience which will vary as the neural network of the particular observer varies. - Can't say much more!

The principle surely is that our interpretation via sensory perception of external stimuli must by definition inescapably involve an interplay between such stimuli and our internal neural processes and so by reduction must necessarily be subjective. If the neural process by which distinct individuals perceive a given external stimuli - ‘colour’ in this example – happen to be similar then, in terms of their resulting experience, they will share a similar interpretation and so be able to attain to a consistent (and thereby utilitarian) agreement concerning the nature of their interpretation. If however there happens to exist between individuals some relative discrepancy regarding the neural processes relevant to the interpretation of some particular external stimuli then no such agreement of interpretation will be possible.

The term, ‘Colour Blind’, for example, surely then serves merely to refer to such an interpretational discrepancy as it exists on the one hand between a numerically dominant group happening to possess a similar relevant neural process and, on the other, a minority group happening to be characterised by differing neural processes – and thus can have no meaning objectively, other than, owing to neuralogical annomalies, perhaps meaning that in practice the sub-group may be characterised by a lack of consistency of interpretation even on an individual basis.

Of course however, regarding elements as they exist intrinsically, say for example the number of molecules that comprise the table laid before us - this as opposed to our perception of its' shape which must in the case of any given observer derive from the sense of perspective produced by the location of the orbits in the scull – these do represent a set of values unrelated to the neural processes of the observer, and so constitute an objective reality.

-The same argument of course applies generally to our perception of all external stimuli.

Yeah, I've noticed that as well - how farting can sometimes feel like you're releasing an egg, that is! Wonderful, isn't it - how all these centuries later the timeless wisdom of 'The Ancients' still has the capacity to engender our empathy! :)

Dare I say? - a neat analogy perhaps to describe a gestation process appropriate to the birth of at least some of the ideas first to see the light of day on this particular site!

(- Moi-meme excepté, bien sűr!) :)

To expand on what I meant in my last post btw: - asuming anyone’s still watching that is! -

The methodology of Science – proceeding as this does by means of deductive reasoning to describe a putative mechanism characterised by a logical relation involving the concept of cause and effect intended to abstractly replicate the nature of our sensorialy perceived experience as this derives from our observation of either physical or mathematical phenomena (the sensorial basis of the latter being stipulated in elementary geometry) – the methodology of Science surely, in principle, is incapable of describing a mechanism to effectively replicate in the abstract the phenomenon of consciousness, our experience of the latter ultimately being non-sensorial in nature.

Its perhaps difficult to envisage how in principle the idea of a ‘mechanism’ could in itself be suited to describing the interaction occurring between a sensorialy evident cause and the non-sensorialy perceived effect we experience as 'Consciousness'. Perhaps one consequence in practice then of such a paradox could conceivably consist in the pragmatic finding that theories advanced with the intention of describing consciousness by means of a cause and effect mechanism are in reality invariably judged to be unsatisfactory not only in practice - but also in principle: Even the most sophisticated of such theories, such as those invoking the insights of Quantum physics/mathematics being, at their conclusion, typically reduced merely to appealing with regard to the mechanisms by which they purport to describe this phenomenon, ‘Perhaps – “That" - is consciousness?’, without any more exacting attempt being made at constructing a rigorous specifically connective relationship between the causal mechanism proposed and the effect purported to be described - such that, with regard to the criteria concerning a scientific theory intended to describe sensorialy perceived phenomena, such 'descriptions' would not be accorded the status of ‘Scientific theory’ at all.

The problem as constituted then is perhaps not one characterised by limitation of knowledge or degree of complexity but rather is one of kind: How in principle, using the orthodox methodology of Science, to describe the interaction occurring between a sensorialy perceived cause and a non-sensorialy perceived effect - the scientific method, as stated, characteristically proceeding by attempting to abstractly replicate our observed experience through proposing theoretical mechanisms intended to describe, in terms of cause and effect, interactions occurring specifically between sensorialy perceivable phenomena?
Accordingly then, the idea of intending to abstractly replicate the non-sensorialy perceived phenomenon which we call 'Consciousness' through constructing such mechanisms would seem to represent a direct contradiction in terms.

Still - regarding the point of my opening post - Isn’t there something intrinsically demeaning and tragic towards the self respect of a human being concerning the prospect of there being having to be reduced to attempting an empathetic relationship with the illusory simulations of an automaton?!...

Anyway - though slightly tangential to the opening post - nonetheless in this context it’s maybe reassuring of the hope that consciousness is not ultimately material in origin to reflect on how a description of that phenomenon is in principle inimical to the methodology of science – a means of describing the causal hierarchy constituting the relations existing between sensorialy perceived phenomena as that discipline is – consciousness ultimately being a non-sensorial experience occurring independently of the capacity to sensorialy perceive, as any laboratory controlled exercise intending to effect sensory deprivation would of course confirm!

The fact that a causative relationship is possible between a material (and therefore sensorialy perceivable) entity and a non-sensorialy perceived experience is routinely observable - I only need take a beer to witness an example of that – but yet it’s perhaps no exaggeration to observe that the occurrence of such every-day experiences nonetheless constitutes the witnessing of the single most profound type of interaction evident in the Universe?

...Noted! - while publically deferring to my statutorily required adult garb - as (secretly) the world's oldest teenager! :)

Have to say though that - All-in-all - I've been lured into descending worse kinds of rabbit-holes than this particular site represents - if also ones maybe not so labyrinthine and confusing of how and why you should best then extricate yourself from them! - Like how the self-deluding vanity of the idea your posting will somehow esteem you in the eyes of others (my own, like most posts, likely in reality remaining mainly unread) comically acts to lure you in deeper through how you then become entangled in further mutually self-promoting exchanges! There's a collective poignency regarding our efforts nonetheless somewhere there though, no doubt...

Though, refecting on that now, as I stoicly await my train back home 'midst the likewise somewhat solipsistic and individually self-consumed rush-hour crowd - kinda like life in general really! Like some guy said, we are each ultimately obliged to be the lone self-consumer of our woes! :)
(...The English poet, John Clare, who sadly ended his days - understandably perhaps when confronted by such apparantly irreconcilable mutual incomprehension - in an asylum!)

Maybe there's a 'Queen of Hearts' type figure presiding over this site - its' (the site's) ideas also sometimes similarly existing in a sort of parallel wonderland - with a penchant for screaming, "Off with his head"! :)

Wonder how you delete a post btw - assuming you wanted to delete it in the first place of course?!

As a, 'By the way’ - I’ve always been rather curious myself as to whether the blatant incongruity of both the attitudes of Left and Right towards 'Abortion and Capital punishment' - incongruous in that a perverse perception of each idea as being morally the reciprocal of the other is typical in both ideologies - might in fact be illustrative of something profound occurring concerning the irrational interplay between the psychology and the intellect?

...Anyone remember, "Geraldo"?

Bitter Crank: Yeah - Seems the now traditional conceit peculiar to the Modern Popular Music movement that it’s shock effect on older generations derived from their inflexible and naive preconceptions regarding its innovative nature was just that – a self-conceit – and that, when viewed through the longer eye of history, the initial antipathy towards the genre seems in retrospect to have been just another example of that perennial process by which the novel and thereby controvertial gradually in time becomes subsumed into the norm of contemporary society, only to be overtaken in turn, and then forgotten, in the wake of the next ‘unprecedented revolution’ happening to fall off the conveyor-belt! - Human vanity is such of course that every generation likes to flatter itself it has invented anew!
Anyway - Rock on! :)

NB:- Among various personal regrets of my own, some more significant than others of course, is one whereby as a teenager - when at the time it represented the cutting-edge means by which you could realise that need to believe you’re rebelling against convention so indespensible to teenage hubris – I myself allowed my own admittedly herd-instinct aspirations towards assuming the very desirable fashions of ‘Punk Rock’ to be subsumed by social inhibition - and ultimately then to succumb to the somewhat unsympathetic injunction of my elders, “- Just behave yourself”!
Funnily enough though - Can still sometimes recollect that adolescent sense of frustrated ambition whenever I occasionally hear the old anthem – Can’t remember now who sang it at the time - “I wanna be a Punk Rocker"! :)

There is a concept - surely intrinsic to most human beings regarding any situation characterised by a manifest imbalance of moral equilibrium, as exemplified by the likes of the Holocaust say - that a correction of such imbalance as retrospective as possible is innately requisite. While the motivation on the part of the victims of injustice towards achieving a current correction of their situation is of course a simply pragmatic and understandable one, the desire that such correction be imposed retrospectively nonetheless clearly involves more complex urges, characterisable at the most primitive level as an animal instinct for revenge and, at a level more empathetic, as a need to disinform, for reasons of self-respect, the contempt of erstwhile persecutors. Transcending such subjective victim-motives however, the witnessing of moral dis-equilibrium, even from the view point of disinterested observers, seems to promote a feeling of discontent and a sense of nihilism towards the prospect, impelling among most such witnesses the urge to seek an emphatic restoration of equilibrium.

Concerning this, the point I intended to suggest in my initial post in this thread was that, in regard to the concept of a court of absolute universal justice which perforce would require to include in its’ deliberations all factors on which the behaviour of the accused was contingent, a verdict imposing retribution, whilst perhaps equating with the concept of the retrospective restoration of moral equilibrium required, nonetheless would effectively constitute an abnegation of duty on the part of such a court regarding the required consideration of the demonstrable roll of Chance in permitting the opportunity to commit the transgression concerned, and result in turn then in the dichotomy whereby this over-arching factor effectively becomes the ultimate determinant of an individual’s fate - preserving some by default and damming others.

Perhaps the best accommodation regarding these conflicting contingencies which such a putative ideal court could in principle achieve then would be the delivering of a verdict describing the degree of guilt requisite to an individual concerning his culpability for those crimes that were in practice wilfully committed but yet not involving the imposition of an external punishment, appropriate as this would be only in the case of an absolute unqualified responsibility which accordingly in practise cannot exist.

Perhaps again however such a situation could still equate with the idea of a degree of retribution being required concommitant with the transgressions committed, in the sense that there would nonetheless exist an inescapable penalty for the culprit concerned in terms of an innately inevitable inaccessibility towards happiness being formed in proportion to the moral degeneracy incumbent on the degree of transgression committed, this in turn then perhaps promoting a process of remorse and, ultimately by this means, one of moral redemption? So, Retribution as it is required being sort of accomplished, but not in the apparently more satisfactory form of a morally referenced judgment based external punishment but instead - ultimately and ironically - in a form comprised merely of logicaly descended, and therefore in principle amoral, consequences? Maybe however a reconciliation on the part of the victims of injustice, who are after all those most deserving of the equanimity capable of being conferred by reconciliation, could nonetheless be attained, somehow, through resigning themselves towards such a paradox!
(All necessarily somewhat abstract and speculative, of course. Though, in my defence, I did put it as straight-forwardly as the subject matter could allow...I think! )

- Interesting comments, info!

Darthbarracuda – Thanks for your response.

My own view - regarding this question as to why our human situation, at its’ most irreducible level, seems to us to so intrinsically constitute a dilemma – is that an answer to account for that finding can be provided by the theory that everything we experience is the result of a logical descent, by means of a cause and effect manner, from some unknown primal cause – this theory then necessitating as a consequence that every experience realisable in principle for human beings could accordingly in practice be realised in terms that represent its’ logical limits in the abstract. - The iconic - albeit rather hackneyed? - image of the, ‘Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse’, intending to suggest the epitome of what in practice could be possible for humans were their fate in principle soley to be contingent on what are the limiting possibilities in the logical abstract, to me anyway, then seeming to evocatively spring to mind!

In this regard, while of course it could be asserted that if no attempt can possibly be made at identifying the nature of a first cause then there could exist no justifiable means of attributing observed effects to it, perhaps nonetheless, though in the absence of such a required description, the degree of inequity which in practice we witness to characterise the situation of individual human beings – in that it seems to manifest every degree apparently possible - of itself then provides evidence reconcilable with no scenario other than one where our circumstance in general is indeed soley descended in a cause and effect manner from an unconscious - and thereby specifically amoral - primal cause, albeit though that the nature of the latter cause is ultimately unknowable.

Unsatisfactoraly, got to leave it at that now, ‘cause - like the Princess with her slippers – I've got now to promptly beat it back home! :)

Nils loc: Problem there I think is that, to a certain extent, your examples involve a conflation of the idea of adherence to a moral code emanating from the personal comprehension of moral values with an adherence determined by a pragmatic calculation based on the consequences for individual self interest in terms of social prestige, etc.- such as will likely arise from committing a transgression. There is no argument that such considerations can constrain the otherwise criminal impulses of an individual and determine his observance towards a moral code.
The personal inculcation however of an awareness of moral values seems in principle to derive neither from this influence or from a capacity to intellectually acknowledge such values - Nazism in it's propoganda for example promoted a pretentious intellectual acknowledgement of commonly received moral values whilst cynically concealing the reality of it’s transgressions of same in practice - but from a process not really defined.

In this regard there is an interesting idea that there ultimately exists such a thing as a set of moral values that are objective in nature, the perception of which values - in that they are objective - being regarded as not thus in principle subject to the limitations of individual idiosyncratic psychology but in practice amenable to being acquired in the manner, admittedly undefined, alluded to. The idea then is that a sense of morality thus conceived entails an inescapable acquiescence towards it’s values rendering any transgression personally impossible and then that - 'moral free will’ - consists effectively in the nature of such a conception. It is logically impossible, according to this idea, for an individual to wilfully commit an act he 'thus knows’ to be morally wrong! - The possibility of 'Free-Will', in the terms of such an argument, is therefore not one that should in principle be considered to be logically predicatable on questions of causality but instead on ones of morality!

Oh dear! - Not that 'uncomprehending' thing again! Anyway, for better or worse on this Friday the 13th - and to quote John Wayne - "Am outta here!" :)

Javra: "There is nothing contradictory between a hierarchy of morals and there being an invariant, objective good." - The idea that generally accepted moral values could justifiably be subjugated by alternative 'moral' norms happening to be perceived as hierarchically transcendent by some individual considering he was possessed of a more exalted level of insight - along the lines, say, of Nietzche's, 'Man and Superman' ideology - seems to me an example in principle irrconcilable with your statement. In accord with the principle of 'consistency of adherence' on the part of an individual to values personally perceived to be transcendent over commonly received moral values for example, some even argue for the validity of the idea of an 'Honourable Nazi'!

I like many though think the significance accorded to Nietzche's views to be spurious, his casuistic ideology having served in turn for instance to provide a pseudo-authenticity for Neo-Nazi ideology as it has currently been resurected by the extreme right - claiming as it does to constitute an ultimately 'invarient objective good' and using the tired old line to justify transgressing 'conventional' morality, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"!

As far as I’m aware, moral relativism is the view that moral values are hierarchical rather than absolute and that - whereas most human beings from whatever cause do indeed seem innately possessed of a personal sense of ‘moral’ right and wrong - that nonetheless the criteria of judgment regarding individual moral righteousness should in practise be cognisant of the reality that any given individual’s perception of the ethical justifiability of an action must inevitably be circumscribed by the norms, and thus consequent descendant values, inculcated within him by his own limiting societal environment, and therefore that, in such a context, such judgment when adjudicating on what actually constitutes personal morality in the case of a given individual should recognise the primacy, in this moral hierarchy, of the degree of an individual's consistency of adherance, albeit over other extra-societal norms, to his own societally conceived values (such societal values presumedly admitting his sole criteria of reference) and furthermore - that it should indeed recognise the irrelevance in principle of extra-societal norms in terms of configuring an individually relevant verdict!
My own view is that moral relativism as a philosophy is ultimately casuistic. Anyway - excuse my being caught up in a ‘run-on’ type sentence btw but, as an excuse - what a distracting 'Hornet's Nest', I'm sure you'd agree, this type of question really is!

- Ironic how this type of question is paradoxically prompted in the modern angst-ridden world in which we live by an age-old anxiety occasioned by the turn of a year!

Well, concerning as an example of what might in practise justify our apprehension the angst-ridden prospect of nuclear war, the relevant factor regarding this prospect - in terms of a philosophical analysis of the nature of the Human Condition in the abstract that is - is only whether such an event is in principle possible, rather than the pragmatic question of how the prospect might some time in the future actually happen to be realised. Upon the answer to that question in principle profound consequences regarding the fundamental nature of what constitutes our human condition are contingent.

Iconic iterations of what is possible in our situation that occurred in the 20th century – The Battle of the Somme, The Holocaust, as examples – served in their turn to illustrate how events can reveal fundamental aspects of its’ nature previously not anticipated. In that respect the doctrine of ‘Mad’, on which the idea requisite to our psychology of the inherent impossibility of nuclear war is based, might seem, as weapons of mass destruction gradually proliferate, an evermore tenuous thread on which to hang the hope that future eventualities will not nonetheless reveal – albeit perhaps posthumously - further realities regarding the nature of this situation in which we are obliged to exist being yet more incomprehensible in terms of anything we can currently anticipate.

Just a few general points:-
How are we able to know, to the extent we can know at all, that a phenomenon exists? The irreducible answer must simply be that we experience, or observe it. If we are unable to commonly agree on the nature of an experience undergone then the inference is that the phenomenon being experienced exists merely subjectively and is therefore one somehow peculiar to the idiosyncratic nature of the particular observer. Conversely, should we find ourselves able to commonly agree on the nature of a given experience, the inference then is that this phenomenon being experienced exists objectively.

With regard to this point, the view sometimes advanced that in principle ‘anything’ can constitute ‘Art’ would seem ambiguous. Does it intend to mean that there exists an objective general type of aesthetic experience the nature of which is in principle susceptible to common agreement but that the specific occasioning of the experience concerning a given object may be subjective and inimical to common perception, or does it intend that aesthetic experience itself can exist only subjectively?
The alternative perennially recurring question with regard to creative phenomena - ex: visual art, literature, etc. - “Is such and such Art?”, by in itself invoking the idea that there exists some objective criteria with regard to which the appeal on behalf of an object that it possess aesthetically significant characteristics could be commonly evaluated, directly implies both the idea that the phenomenon, ‘Art’, or aesthetic experience or what you will, exists objectively and also that the occasioning of the experience occurs in an objective manner.

These conflicting views then could in principle be arising from inaccurate observation. In order to advance the theory that Art exists objectively for instance, both with regard to the aesthetic experience itself and with regard to the occasioning of the experience, the logical precursor would seem to be to isolate and describe what constitutes the experience of this phenomenon with a view to obtaining a common agreement on the description. Otherwise, the debate could perhaps be compared for ex with one taking place among various scientists seeking to achieve a commonly agreeable description of planetary motions who yet were possessed of disparate tables of measurement concerning their observed paths!

The alternative that in principle no such commonly agreed description is possible surely then means the phenomenon doesn't objectively exist so that, as an artifice informing nothing of reality, it is, despite its psychological appeal, inconsequential.

(Of course, what it actually consists in is the means by which the nature of certain objectively existing phenomena - as exemplified for example in the, 'Spirit of an Age' - personally experiencable only as psychological concepts and so limited by individual pdychology and environment, can nonetheless be intellectually comprehended and thus commonly communicated.)

Er, no - Oh Wise and Holy One! :) Inequality derives primarily from pre-existant inequity which in turn consists in factors - like talent, serendipity, etc - in principle inimical to human intervention and instead contingent on unconscious, and therefore amoral, chance - inequality thus being unjust by descent. Were inequality primarily a reflection of level of personal effort as distinct from level of luck then the situation would not be so meaningless. - But it ain't so it is!

The pecuniary fruits of individual talent might conceivably be equitably distributed by a progressive tax regime - but not the fulfilling experiences or personal enlightenment talent can afford. - These belong alone to the province of the lucky! -There's just sadly no way to equitably balance the 'seesaw'!

- That it is objectively the case that inequity, though innate to our situation, is nonetheless intrinsically unjust - even though that idea doesn't necessarily accommodate a logical proof. Like where's the ethics in the situation where the inheritance of talent, or serendipity, as distinct from exerting personal effort, is a super-imposing criterion for success. To say, "That's just how it is" doesn't of course invest the situation with any ethical nature.

-Good ' nough for Trump no doubt! :( Never mind - Too corny to say? - "God Bless us - Every one"! :)

Why is inequity wrong? For lack of a better explanation – because it just is. Inescapably, some have to dig drains whereas others can attain to superbly fulfilling and exalted careers. We cannot all become astronauts for example, but yet a drain-digger could in principle possess all the personal ambition and capacity for self-fulfilment of the most successful astronaut but ultimately nonetheless be required by unalterable circumstances such as lack of talent to resign himself to his roll in life. A person could of course strive to achieve within the limitations of his situation all the potential for fulfilment it plausibly could permit but neither such a constructive attitude nor the pragmatic reality that such inequity is an inescapable element of our condition can serve to cancel out the element of irredeemable nihilism pertaining to the situation.
Anyway, if the the presumed 'Author' of our condition willed this set up - then I think some at least can take refuge in the realisation that He obviously leans more towards the Republican ticket - and definitely evinces no sympathy for Commies! :)