death is a burden, a harm — Bartricks

To who? I'd say getting murdered painfully is a burden and harm but death (the final result) certainly isn't. Who is there to be burdened by it? They're dead.

As a matter of logic, the proposition of scientific materialism fails completely, because no cause can be identified for any event in the universe. — GeorgeTheThird

For a single particle quantum effects result in massive uncertainties, but for a large enough aggregate of particles we can know that there is a 99.999999999999% chance that if this aggrigate of particles hits this aggrigate of particles the aggregates will bounce off of eachother and not, say, teleport to the moon (which is technically possible for a particles since its wave function APPROACHES 0 but never reaches it as far as I know). So the thesis is then 99.99999999999999% correct for the majority of situations where we would apply it. Did it really fail then?

Are you asking who should as in: "In any given situation should the spouse or parents take priority" or as in: "Which do you side with the spouse or the parent"

If it's the first: idk
If it's the second: I am leaning towards the parents but it really depends on how hellish hell is

taken it out of America — tim wood

Did anyone ever say this was in America in the first place? I can't find that. Not that I think it would matter

So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility

I never used the word "force" (or maybe I did but that would be just senseless emotional appeal) and I never used "possible person"

It is the public that disagree about things, but unlike philosophers they either conclude (stupidly) that 'it's all a matter of opinion' or 'subjective' or they punch each other.
— Bartricks

Well that is just your subjective opinion. — A Seagull

:up: (I should stop doing this but you seem to read my mind)

this isn’t to say that one needs the other to exist — leo

I think they do

It would be nice to formulate a simple proof, that there is not fundamental unity at the basis of this existence (be it a single force, a single consciousness, a single being, a single particle, ...), but instead that there are at least two things at the root of it all. I was hoping that some of you would help me formulate that proof, but up to now this discussion hasn’t really progressed in that direction. — leo

I think it's simple
1- For every concept x there is a concept representing not x (!x)
2- So any "unity" we come up with and call x, there must also be !x
3- So for every "unity" we come up with there is a complementary concept


So as long as unity is a concept we can grasp it won't be one concept

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now — leo

I think you're hinting at some Daoist principles here. It is a common idea in Daoism that for something to be it must have an opposite. When you conceive of good you necessarily conceive of bad. That's because daoists made the observation that every concept that we can possibly come up with defines itself against other concepts. Good is defined by evil, Pleasure is defined by pain, etc. This sort of "co-operative defining" is what you're describing I think.

After millennia of philosophy it seems we have only arrived at one absolute truth: — leo

Not true. We have arrived at an infinite number of absolute truths. Some examples: No bachelor is married, No circle is a square, etc

I believe "something exists" is one of these trivial truths. Trivial because they're true by definition

Time is a quality, like the colour blue. — ovdtogt

My food looks really time right now

Humanity’s objective responsibility towards existence — Possibility

Doesn't exist as far as I define "responsibility" and "existence". First off you can't be "responsible" to a concept. I can't be responsible to the color blue to make sure to paint as many things blue as possible

A reality can be seen as flawed when it begins to destroy itself. — Possibility

I don't understand the use of "reality" there. How does a "reality" destroy itself

It may be possible, but that doesn’t end existence as a whole. — Possibility

Ok. I'm still not sure how this is relevant. What does our ability to end existence have to do with whether or not it's morally fine to have children

the individual is more important than existence. — Possibility

I agree with that. It's what I'm saying here:

I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals. — khaled

"Existence" is just another concept that doesn't actually have goals or a will but to whom we like to ascribe those properties. Humans actually have a subjective experience, goals and a will though so we should focus on those first I think.

knowing for certain how much harm you may inadvertently cause with your action. — Possibility

Sure so act within your best knowledge. You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left

So you could evaluate (by some subjective or arbitrary measure) that your harmful act to alleviate harm is less harmful than what you’re alleviating, but that just invites others who are harmed by your actions to commit harmful acts in an attempt to alleviate their own harm - which by your premise, they are entitled to do. — Possibility

Oh I agree there are countless problems with applying this premise in real life (as with any sort of intuitive morality) and that these measures are arbitrary and all that. But as I said:
You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left

You can’t say what is ‘enough pain’ for someone else — Possibility

Sure I cannot. But I can surmise that the suffering of a given couple over not having children is less than the suffering the child will experience their entire life. I think that's an evaluation you would agree with no? If a specific couple truely wants children SO BADLY that their suffering due to not having children is likely to be more than all the suffering their children will experience in a lifetime (keeping in mind their children will also face the same suffering due to wanting children and there is no reason to believe it will be less for the children than their parents) then sure they can have children all they want. I think anyone who believes this is narcassistic and delusional though.

and you can’t declare objectively that the temporal aspect of an action ‘doesn’t matter’. — Possibility

None of this is objective. There is no objectivity in ethics. But we both agreed that genetic modification to an egg or sperm is still wrong even if the harmful action takes place before the harmed individual exists so I thought we agreed on this.

Individually, yes - and I’ve already acknowledged that. But existence cannot be nullified in itself — Possibility

The original line was: WATCH ME *presses big red button*. Maybe I should've kept it that way. It is entirely possible though highly unlikely for humanity as a whole to end its own existence

when you believe that no one should exist, — Possibility

I don't believe this. What I believe is we shouldn't procreate. That's an entirely different belief. That no one will exist is a side effect not a goal

A person exists. You think they shouldn’t — Possibility

Please point to the line where I said this. This makes it sound like I want to kill them. If a person exists already then they obviously should exist, because ending their life at that point is painful/harmful (most of the time (euthanasia)). But that doesn't justify bringing another person into existence because that is guaranteed to harm that person.

If you exist, the course of least harm is to continue to exist. If you don't exist, the course of least harm is to continue not existing.

Feel free to structure it for me — Possibility

I can't do that. I can't hop into your mind and see what you're trying to say

The way I see it, you’re arguing for the negation of existence from a position which, in itself, disproves your premise. — Possibility

How so? Could you try laying out my premises and conclusions as you see them. Actually I'll do that

1- An action that will harm someone at some point is wrong unless it alleviates more harm than it causes (significantly more if it's alleviated from oneself)
2- Having a child harms someone at some point and doesn't alleviate enough pain from the parents to justify the act (even though the action happens before the person harmed exists, that doesn't matter)
3- Having a child is wrong

It's really that simple. Notice how no mention of "we shouldn't exist" has been made. I think just about everyone that talks about antinatalism on this site thinks it's a soft form of "I wanna kill everyone" but it really isn't

“anything that prioritises [existence] over the individual is just plain wrong”? — Possibility

I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals. All of these are concepts we made up, they don't have a subjective experience. That why anything that works to further the "goals of America" for example at the expense of the individuals is wrong for me. Say, Japan was struggling from a decreasing population (which it is). It would be very problematic if a politician suggests "state enforced reproduction" even though that definitely serves "the goals of Japan" which would include longevity.

the term refers to a subjective concept. ‘Harm’ is always relative to the perspective of the one being ‘harmed’ — Possibility

Ok

I see harm being done where you don’t. — Possibility

By your own rule: Who's the "one" being harmed in this case whose perspective you're using. We're talking about "harm to unborn children" here. So where is this "person with a perspective" you're talking about? (If you meant by "one" the living person or people to whom the child would have been valuable then I get you now)

What I’m referring to here is what happens when, as an antinatalist, you deny the value that a possible child would have for someone else — Possibility

Ah that's what you're talking about. I'm not denying that value, I just don't think it's significant in the least. First of all, there is always the chance that a possible child would be a harm of other people. Secondly: there is no actual harm done in not having a child in terms of the people he might have helped. Let me explain. If Beethoven hadn't been born, no one would have been harmed. No one would have sat around and said "Oh I feel so much anguish that I can't find good music. Curse everyone who don't have as many children as possible! I know one of those unborn children would have been a music genius" that's ridiculous.

Among all the possible children that could have been there is a genius who would find a new physics law that would allow us to have flying cars. Do you feel any suffering due to the fact that that genius hasn't been born? No (at least I hope so). Isn't it true that that genius would have had massive value for countless people? Yes. So the mere fact that a child would have had value for others doesn't mean that not having him is denying the value he would have had OR that not having him harms anyone. So it's ok to not have him. It's bad to have him because that harms him, even if it helps others. Helping others is not mandatory, not harming them is.

It argues that a possible individual — Possibility

I'm not arguing for "possible individuals" those don't exist

but cannot have value or significance in relation to anyone else — Possibility

I never said this first of all but also I just showed why even if they would have value for others that's not a good reason to have them

But instead you are assuming for someone else’s possible child - you’re anticipating its decision based on your own negative evaluation of their existence — Possibility

I think most children would be happy. I also think one shouldn't have children.

What's a "substance"? And what does "Extended" mean? And again what is "Stuff." I think defining these is just as hard as defining time, which is why I don't think this discussion ever goes anywhere.

In other words: "There may be a refutation to your argument but I don't know it." I don't think that really amounts to anything. That an argument might be wrong doesn't make it a "weak" argument, especially if it has gone without refutation for a long time. Every argument "might" be wrong, including this one

What's a "stuff" and what's a "dimension." I think attempting to define things so basic to our experience like "time", "space" and my favorite "shape" doesn't lead anywhere. I think these are concepts that cannot be reduced to anything else.

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists. — Possibility

Uhhh yes it can? WATCH ME jumps off building

Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option — Possibility

A person (a "one") cannot choose not to have existed. The choice has already been made.

Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option is not a workable philosophy - it’s a sign that we’re misinformed about how the world works. — Possibility

Another baseless claim

My argument is that this is one of many reasons why these principles are flawed. — Possibility

I don't think it's a valid argument then. You haven't shown why reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't exist automatically means that a premise is wrong

The primacy of autonomy and individualism is harmful in practise, and no amount of antinatalism can prevent that. — Possibility

I haven't referred to primacy of autonomy or individualism

interact with a potential child — Possibility

makes no sense. There is no such thing as "potential child"

genetic modification, drug use, contraception, mother’s nutrition, alcohol and smoking, physical activity, etc — Possibility

are examples of things you do which will affect someone later down the line but that someone doesn't exist yet.

a possible child — Possibility

Neither is there a thing called "possible child"

So the only ‘harm’ one can do to a possible child is to deny (ignore or exclude) its value or significance in relation to those who exist, either potentially or actually. — Possibility

This doesn't actually harm anyone though as I'm sure you're aware since you put harm in quotation marks

I agree that we should not procreate. — Possibility

Why? I'm curious

the concept of colors? — Zelebg

Is a completely different thing from colors themselves. The "concept of colors" can be anything, from 4 numbers representing the degree of red, blue and green, to just one concept "color" which represents each color. Both of these renditions do not let you see color however if you've never seen it

The idea that God was created by people — Sherbert

I never said this

choice to do good or not — Sherbert

And the government gives you a choice to shoot people or not. You'll just go to jail if you do. With this definition everything is a choice, no matter how high the consequences. So people in the USSR had just as much choice as wealthy Americans

No, you cannot leave any of them at will. That is just not realistic. — Sherbert

Oh so you CAN commit evil and be rewarded with eternal damnation and that's considered a viable unobstructed choice but God forbid you quit your job and are rewarded with 40 years of homelessness at worst.

If quitting your job is unrealistic then how unrealistic is commiting evil? Is it really a choice at that point

My system is about personal satisfaction - similar, but still majorly different. — Qmeri

Can be considered a version of hedonism

Are you really saying that a non-expert would be able to do as good decisions regarding capitalism as what makes him satisfied? — Qmeri

Yes, he would botch both

Therefore this system is very easy to turn into practical solutions. — Qmeri

What if my personal satisfaction requires shooting people?

‘The game’ is existence, not just procreation. So rendering the game of existence unplayable IS an issue. — Possibility

I know what "the game" stands for. This doesn't answer the question at all, it just says "it's an issue"

Determining a different set of rules doesn’t maintain the game - the game is being played, whether you like it or not — Possibility

Uh huh. This doesn't mean the game SHOULD be played though which is what this post is about (ethics). Your second paragraph just sounds to me like "people are gonna have kids no matter what so whatever you say here doesn't matter." I agree, but that doesn't make procreation moral

You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules — Possibility

And what other people think are the rules in the vast majority of cases but do not apply it to procreation out of hypocrisy

People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules. — Possibility

Interesting you make this point. Tell me, who does an antinatalist hurt? No one. Even if antinatalism is logically flawed it wouldn't hurt anyone. On the other hand who does procreation hurt? Everyone. This "rule" that makes a special case for procreation as opposed to other cases of handling others' resources is the reason we have to make rules to reduce the suffering of individuals in the first place.

Again, you’re removing something from someone whose potential is already recognised as a human being, with all that it entails — Possibility

"Potential" isn't a person. So you're not removing anything from anyone. So there are 2 choices here either:
1- You recognize that harm done is wrong even if the action that causes the harm is done before the person harmed exists
2- You find another way to explain why the genetic modification mentioned is wrong, because it's definitely not removing anything from anyone which you consider to be the definition for "harm." That was your critique of my scenarios right? That no individual is harmed? That's the case here too

My point is that the rules as ‘agreed’ cannot be applied strictly because this renders the game unplayable. — Possibility

Why would rendering the game unplayable be an issue? We already think it is moral to render the game unplayable in some cirucmstances, such as if a couple knows that their children are likely to have a terrible disease. In that case most say it is immoral to procreate

If you believe there is a game to played, then you need to determine a different set of rules. — Possibility

I don't think any set of rules built specifically to maintain the game is respectable or acceptable. "The game" Doesn't have a will or subjective experience. It cannot get hurt. People can. So anything that prioritizes the game over an individual is just plain wrong to me. Unless preserving the game is done WITH THE GOAL of helping the individuals

What is it that is lost in procreation? — Possibility

Ok so you're going to take that direction. My answer: I don't know. Now can you answer this: Is genetically engineering someone to suffer (say, by making them blind, deaf, and missing a leg) morally acceptable, and if not why?

justifying your choice of goals — Qmeri

This doesn't do so either. It says it's a necessity. That's all it does. That's different from "justifying". Example: "People will have children" does not justify having children. "People will kill each other" does not justify murder. "Everyone will try to eat" does not justify eating.

"what actions would make me the most satisfied in the long run?". Since people have much more information about themselves than the world as a whole, such question is much easier to turn into concrete actions than something like utilitarianism. — Qmeri

That question is LITERALLY what a utilitarian would ask though

what actually would increase capitalism is a question that needs expertise. — Qmeri

Not anymore than

"what actions would make me the most satisfied in the long run?" — Qmeri

Fear of dying can make you crave food — ovdtogt

I don't think many patients would report that they eat food because they dread non existence.

It can make you eat dirt, grass and leaves off the tree. Definitely not pleasure or desire is making you eat this stuff. — ovdtogt

When you're near starvation... Which is not the situation discussed at all. Also please explain why anyone would smoke if we are purely motivated by pleasure and pain.

Despite others trying to explain to you that it’s not how you play solitaire, you’re arguing that we shouldn’t make others play solitaire at all because you can’t win playing it the way you think it should be played. — Possibility

I can't speak for schopenhauer1 but at least for me the situation is more like: A majority of players agreed on a set of rules that would forbit making other players play the game if applied strictly but refuse to recognize that those rules apply to the case of procreation

People are loss averse in all their dealings with others' stuff. Ex: If you found my credit card you wouldn't buy anything with it unless you had my consent. People are also loss averse when it comes to others' autonomy. Ex: You can't FORCE me to work a job. Even if I am completely broke. I see procreation as forcing someone you don't know to work a job because YOU like it, and making the cost of quitting extremely high as well. Not many would disagree with the job scenario being immoral but most disagree that the analogy fits procreation in a myriad of different ways. I'm curious to see why you think the analogy isn't apt.

:up:

Even if you crave food the eating need not be enjoyable. What presses your pleasure buttons can be very personal. — ovdtogt

I thought you were the one that said "We are driven by pleasure and pain". Why would you crave food then if you do not find it enjoyable. Are you saying something else other than taste might be causing the drive.

That how drugs work: they directly effect your brain to give what it wants even though it might be detrimental to your overall health and well-being. — ovdtogt

I understand.... I'm just pointing out that drugs don't follow the "Driven by pleasure and pain" perspective you proposed.

It is true enough to say that motivation is based on possible positive and negative outcomes, in the immediate period or in future projections. — I like sushi

How do you explain the motivation to smoke? It has negative outcomes in the short and long term

2. If God does not provide opportunities for salvation to people in hell, then His actions toward those in hell are unjust and unloving. — Marissa

Why would this be true? God says what "unjust" and "unloving" means not us. So if he decides that you deserve eternal damnation for being evil for 70-80 years then that means that is just and loving.

Is your boss at work immoral because he/she is your boss?

Are police immoral? The government? — Sherbert

None of those people/insitutions created him then DEMANDED he work for them, and you can leave any of them at will.

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

This is incorrect. People are motivated by pleasure and pain. — ovdtogt

That is incorrect neurlogically speaking. Most people think that we are "motivated" by pleasure and pain but neurlogically that's just not the case. There is dopamine then there is things like serotonin. While dopamine is called the "feel good" hormone, it is far from it, it's more like the "want" hormone. There have been experiments on people where neurologists gave people a shot of dopamine for pressing a button, the people kept pressing it incessintly but when asked how it felt to press it they said something along the lines of "awful" and "I don't understand why I'm doing it, but it feels like I have to". The subjects couldn't understand why they wanted to press the button so much but they kept expecting a reward that would never come. Dopamine is responsible for making us WANT things but it doesn't make use enjoy getting them, other hormones such as seratonin do that.

There is a condition where the dopamine system stops functioning but the pleasure centers of the brain don't (I don't remember what it's called) but the result is that patients are taken over by sloth and boredom but they still enjoy things. It's hard to visualise but patients report enjoying food, hobbies and everything else as before but they just "don't feel like" doing them. Their families usually have to tell them to eat or sleep because otherwise they just wouldn't bother, DESPITE still gaining pleasure from all those activities. Idk about pain but it is false that we are "motivated by pleasure", the "motivation" system and the "pleasure" system are not the same system in our brains. That's why you get addiction to smoking, depsite the fact that smoking feels awful as reported by smokers. Smoking tricks the motivation system but doesn't affect the pleasure system, making you crave something you think is disgusting.

Everyone would agree with that, right? No, need to take it further back. — Congau

Let's pretend I don't. What would you do.

(And if they don’t, well, I’d be wasting my time talking to them anyway.) — Congau

Huh but I thought you claimed that people cannot possibly disagree with a first premise, but here you say if they do there is not much you can do about that.

It’s definitely not just my emotions that make me believe in it. — Congau

I notice you keep saying emotions this emotions that but I never mentioned emotions or anything to that effect. "Just cuz" doesn't translate to emotions. You and I believe that A + B = B + A just cuz, there is not further explanation. That doesn't mean we believe it because we would like it to be the case emotionally

I could come up with an answer to that too, which would be pretty much along the same lines as the previous answer, and I’m sure you could produce a strawman objection to that too, but what’s the point? I have never heard anyone claim something like that. For any realistic conversation I have now produced a first premise that people would agree with. — Congau

All I'm trying to point out is that you can't convince everyone of everything. You will reach a point where you two disagree on a very root premise and you won't be able to do anything to convince them.

What if I could do something that would cost me a negligible effort but be extremely beneficial for you, wouldn’t it be bad if I didn’t do it? — Congau

No not in the least. That's what I believe. This is the kind of "root premise disagreement" I am referring to. You thought your premise was self evident but I just don't agree, at all. I think if someone could have blinked and saved the world from nuclear armageddon, but chose not to do so, he is completely not at fault (provided of course he didn't cause the armageddon)

Suppose I couldn’t ask you if you agreed, but I was pretty sure you would, do you really think I shouldn’t do it? — Congau

If it included a risk to harm me, yes you shouldn't do it. If it didn't you can choose to do it or not do it. Makes no difference morally.

If I have no one to ask but my own judgment, what else can I do than what I think is best for you? — Congau

With the case of birth, can you point me to this individual called "you" you are so intent on helping?

They think they are doing their unborn child a favor, and in most cases they probably are. — Congau

Do you not see the logical fallacy there. How can you do a favor to NOTHING? Actually let's go with your premise for a bit, let's say that it is bad not to help others if it takes negligable effort from you AND that you can somehow harm nothing (unborn children). Shouldn't it then be REALLY bad to only have one or two children? Shouldn't we all have as many children as we can sustain? Heck, shouldn't it be a law? After all, if you only have 1 or 2 children when you can support 8-10 then you're doing something really bad to like 6 people at best. You are literally denying them a lifetime's worth of pleasure. Wow you monster.

Most people would have chosen to be born, or don’t you think so? — Congau

That question makes no sense. If there are "people" then they've already been born, they can't choose to not have been born.

Well the derivations can be justified from circumstance to circumstance. It's just complicated, not undoable — Qmeri

That is the case with each and every moral system

Especially since very simple but not vague moral rules have been shown by history to not work very well — Qmeri

That is the same with your system. I understand that you begin from a premise that's true by definition, but the problem with moral systems is rarely that the system is unjustified but more so that it's hard to go from ANY vague premise to concrete reality. "People seek stability" (I still don't consider this as a moral premise but nonetheless) doesn't point to anything specific we should do

The details of what this goal system gives to any person is an empirical scientific question — Qmeri

Again, why I asked you to define "stability" in the first place because you weren't going to use "entropy".

Just because a system is very complicated doesn't mean that the system is unhelpful. — Qmeri

This system is too SIMPLE to be helpful.

like utilitarianism which is almost as complicated and vague as my goal system, but you are not complaining about that, are you? — Qmeri

I complain about utilitarianism all the time. I complain about every well established moral system. Because I don't think any of them have a basis, including yours.

1. it gives a personal goal for everyone, not universal goals — Qmeri

No, what it does is state everyone has a personal vague goal which is seeking stability which is true by definition of "stability". That is very different from "gives a personal goal for everyone" because that sounds like saying "everyone should seek stability" where the only thing you can say logically is "everyone seeks stability". Again, those are very different statements

2. it avoids the problem of justifying the choice of this goal by showing that it is unchoosable and therefore doesn't need to be justified as a choice. — Qmeri

Agreed, but as a result the starting premise is true by definition.
"Everyone seeks stability" is like "A bachelor is not married" it is true by definition, however in the same way that "A bachelor is not married" doesn't logically lead to "A bachelor shouldn't be married", "Everyone seeks stability" doesn't lead to "Everyone should seek stability". You need the moral should for the thing to be considered a moral system

But it seems like that you will not accept that people have this unchoosable logically necessary goal. — Qmeri

Oh I accept it, I just think it's a useless premise since it's true by definition.

No that doesn't make unarbitrary value judgements since the whole premise is arbitrary — Qmeri

I didn't say it was unarbitrary. I agree.

If you agree that we have a logically necessary goal, then you should also agree that it does not need to be justified like other goals. No matter how obvious and trivial you say it is, the fact that it does not need to be justified as a choice is not obvious to most people — Qmeri

Yup yup

And the fact that you can derive all your other goals and desires by choosing them as much as they are choosable to serve it and it's optimal achievement is also not obvious to most people — Qmeri

But this "derivation" will be different from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance. Without some guidance or rules (which you can't justify) this system will end up with unjustifiable conclusions as well. That people seek stability will not tell you anything beyond that. It won't tell you whether or not the best way to achieve stability is through self centered behavior, charity, communism, capitalism or what

Sure it has the "functional equivalence" of objective moral systems in that it tells you what to do but it's so vague it doesn't actually help. It's like trying to extract some morality out of cogito ergo sum for example.

a system with which one can make unarbitrary value judgements — Qmeri

"Act such that you ensure you consume the largest amount of cheese possible" is another system that does that. I don't think that would pass as a moral system though

2. therefore some things are desirable to person A (subjective normative statement) — Qmeri

No it isn't. This isn't a normative statement. Check this http://www.philosophy-index.com/terms/normative.php . This is a statement of fact. Some things are indeed desirable to person A.... So what? An answer to the "So what" is a normative statment Ex: Thus A should seek those desirable things. "Some things are desirable to A" is akin to "The sky is blue", it is a statement about a property of an object

We still have a functional need for an unarbitrary system to make value judgements. This system provides that. — Qmeri

Agreed. It doesn't provide a moral system though. It demonstrates a rather vague logical necessity that can predict what we will do. It is akin to saying "People do what they want to do the most". Ok but that doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Also since we agree that seeking stability is a logical necessity how useful is this sytem really for making decisions? Even without knowing this system exists or hearing about it you would have sought stability (necessarily). So unless a more accurate description of "stability" and how to seek it is provided I can't say this sytem would be too useful in actual decisionmaking. Again, it is akin to saying something like "People do what they want to do the most." That is logically necessary (depending on you you define want) and it doesn't actually help anyone to know that fact

I'm trying to say that mind isn't a physical object. What you're asking for is akin to asking "Is heat located in a hot iron". I just think it's a category error to try and "locate" a property. Where is the color purple on thephilosophyforum's heading?

Because it is empty of own-being ~ Nāgārjuna — Wayfarer

Is it just me or does this sound very similar to Sartre's "essence". I find that nihilism, existentialism and everyone from that neighbourhood (jungian psychology as well but I'm not too familiar with it) come closest to Eastern philosophies/religions. But they all sort of "slipped" and ended on an extreme. Nihilism "slipped" in that it saw the lack of "essence" or "own being" of things as a reason to denounce the world and thought that mere fact was the cause of human suffering.

Existentialism got closer by recognizing that the world doesn't "owe" us to have its own self being and that our suffering is not due only to that fact but but more so to our "lack of purpose" and we can create our own puposes to solve the issue. It didn't notice that this "creating of purpose" would never end. Despite acknowledging that our source of suffering is failing to achieve our purposes, it didn't go the extra step of advising people to have no such rigid purpose which is what Zen and Buddhism preach.

I don't think you "locate" mind. Can you point to it? Extract it? Throw it around? No, then you can't "locate" it can you.

To me your "moral should" is the same as "according to this objective goal so and so should". — Qmeri

Ok so does the use of should in these two sentences sound EXACTLY the same to you?
1- You should not steal
2- In order to cook a steak you should turn on the stove

I think your entire system is based on the should in sentence #2 which I'm not even sure counts as normative. A normative statement says something about whether the situation is desirable or undesirable (google) or in other words (mine) talks about how things should be/ how we want them to be. In #2 this should isn't talking about how things should be or how deirable or undesirable turning on the stove is, it is simply describing HOW to cook a steak. A normative statement doesn't describe how to do something but WHETHER on should or shouldn't do something. Sentence 2 is not an instruction, it simply describing a state of affairs (that in order to cook a steak one would need to turn on the stove)

You can't create a system of morality based on the should in #2. In order to cook a steak one should light a stove, so what? Does that say one should light the stove? No. Does it say one should cook a steak? No. So similarly

1- People seek stability
2.i- People should try to obtain stability (and covnersely, people who don't try are immoral)
2.ii- People need to try to obtain stability (by necessity)

I think you need 2.i to make a moral system but I think 2.ii is what is equivalent to 1 and that 2.i is not quite the same statement. Another example

1- I am hungry
2.i- I should eat
2.ii- In order to eat I would need a steak

2.ii makes sense as a statement and is unrelated to 1 and is true. 2.i DOESN'T follow from 1 if by should you mean "Morally obliged to" not "Need to".

In order to distinguish these, I suggest we use "should" to mean morally and "need to" or "will" to mean instructionally.

But since this is a moral system whose purpose is to show that there is a logically necessary goal (unstable systems are trying to achieve a change in their state) and that the optimal way of solving that problem of not having achieved ones logically necessary goals in any unstable state is achieving stability, all the conclusions stay the same. Although, I do agree that there is a nuance difference. — Qmeri

The conclusions don't change but I never agreed with the conclusion in the first place
Your argument as I understand it is:

1- People seek change until they achieve stability
2- Therefore people should seek change until they achieve stability (I think is a non sequitur)
3- Therefore we have a system of morality that bypasses Hume's law

You can't reach 3 if 2 is a non sequitur

it goes from true to false to true to false to.....