no, i understand, but i'm saying we have a lot of evidence that shows difference in perception of the things on a really interesting level, not just seeing colors differently, my point, is that thinking we humans are sensing "the truth", it's really human-centric (i hate talkin about x-centric, but in this case i think it makes more sense) but yes, it's not like we can prove it just because of that, i agree with you, but for what i exposed, i think is not that crazy of a position being a radical idealist.

i understand that you can see that pain exist in human life as more than a constant, and that you are creating suffering just by creating life, but my problem is that the idea of causing any suffering where there could have been none, is weird because, it's just the existence that causes pain in itself according to that, so, if i kill a person without family and firends, without him noticing it, i'm doing something good? and i'm not saying that guy's unhappy, but if he dies he can't suffer in the future (because he is going to eventually), and that would mean less suffering in the world. Because eventually, the antinatalist idea solves the problem of suffering in the world, making that nobody is able to suffer because we're all dead, is like if the earth just dissapear without anybody noticing it would be good, again, because nobody would be able to suffer. you can say the difference is the consent, but the problem is obvious, we cannot know if they will consent because they don't exist, that's overthinking the future, probably killing myself would be moral because i can cause pain in the future, and again, any action can or cannot cause pain in the future where should have been none.

oh, yeah, i agree completely with that, that's why moral behaviour need to be reinforced culturally, because we can't expect that everyone in all our society can explain the reasons of acting morally to someone.

so you are saying is only convenient to "us" being moral? or i misunderstood you?

Well, i think is weird questioning what makes ending life bad if we are going to die, (i don't know how to cite one of your last comments) if we took that stance, then morality doesn't matter at all either, genocides doesn't matter, What difference makes people suffering a little more before dying? we all suffer anyway, what difference makes millions dead? the universe will end some day, the earth will explode, what does it matter if children die for millions? of course i don't think it doesn't matter, i say it because i don't think you believe that either, we can rationally make all this nihilistic claims, but that doesn't mean that we feel really that way, is like what happened in Crime and Punishment of Dostoyevski, rationally killing the old lady wasn't bad at all, she would've contribute more dead than alive, but that didn't mean anything at the end, the guy was still a murderer. But adressing the main question, i think probably life isn't moral, but that's why morality exist, because we seem to lack it naturally, we may never been able to know everything, but that doesn't mean we can't try,to direct our lifes on that end, because if we do we will know a lot of things who can make us wiser, we may never been able to be as strong as Schwarzenegger (once was), but if we direct our actions to that end, we probably could get really strong, we harm the earth obviously, but that's not exactly because we are ultra evil and bad, is because we accomplish something really unprecedented, we beat natural selection basically, the problem is not that we kill animals to eat, the problem is that we are too many people, and also that we have the power to destroy entire ecosystems without that much effort, we find power, and we accomplish what all cultures always wanted, we beat nature, the problem is that we gotta learn to live with that power who made us invincible, we gotta extend morality to the rest of nature because we are in an almost impossible position.

Yeah, thanks for the response, i was kind of insecure about my post, i'm not a native speaker of english, but with internet everyone gets good in this language, i'm not that of an expert on Kant, i seem like one because i've been reading his seminal book for more than a year, and i haven't finish it yet, but i'm really trying to get this guy. I don't think Kant would have that position, you gotta know that he give up in knowing the thing-in-itself because he said it was impossible, like i said, he thought that the laws of human experience where deterministic, what he argues is that is not necessarily real, and if you think so, determinism is like a really easy answer to all, that has haunted philosophers since always, because nobody wants to think that, but thinking everything as cause and effect seems to be a really efective way to organize ideas in our minds, if we weren't capable of that, we couldn't relate ideas with others probably, not in like a line, that would mean everything existing at the same time, which seems impossible.

The one who dared to take Kant ideas and try to know the thing in itself, was Schopenhauer, i haven't read him yet because i want to understand all Kant first, but he basically thinks that will is the thing in itself.

the problem here is not if it is or isn't falsifiable, we know that we sense things through our body, we know that our brain makes us understand things in some particular manner (seeing only somebody's head cause he is covered doesn't mean we think he is a floating head), basically, we can't know what things look like in themselves, because we sense them in relation to something, we understand them in relation to something.

it's irrefutable because knowing the thing-in-itself is impossible, we know things in relation to something, our senses, our understanding, our reason, etc. so yes, also, is kind of arrogant assuming that we humans know how things are, obviously a mole don't sense the same world, and things of perception are different in a lot of animals, we can understand that if i cover something with a blanket, the thing didn't dissapear, not every animal can understand this, and babys also can't.

Utilitarism doesn't make sense for a lot of good reasons, the most simple one is that you can't know the consecuences of an action before making it, is just an attempt to make a "scientific" moral system. But even with that said, i understand this problem goes beyond that, i believe in the idea "Treat everyone as ends on themselves" and clearly having children wouldn't necessarily make sense with that stance. But we don't have to forget something, all this moral rules have their limits, who is everyone? is an animal an end on himself? is bad to eat it? is a plant an end on himself? is bad to eat it? what if i want to survive a storm so i look for wood to make a refuge? would i be treating the plant badly? so talking about "everyone" obviously doesn't mean that, and is not just arbitrary, you can't treat people with rules they don't follow, that's why it isn't inmoral to arrest a rapist, cause we can't treat him like an end on himself if he can't function that way, obviously, knowing how to act exactly with this people is entirely a new and big problem, but i say this for a reason, nobody treats children like ends on themselves because they can't do that with the rest, they aren't free men because they don't respect freedom, we know that. A rapist like i said before goes to prison because he was free, but violated freedom, a kid is responsability of his parents, he won't go to prison because he is a free men in process, his parents got to answer for him, so that idea wouldn't apply.

This is a great post dude, but the problem i have with all of this is one really not so spoken problem nowadays, and it has to do with the way that Immanuel Kant treats this topic, if you haven't read the Critique of Pure Reason, or if you had, but you didn't try hard enough to understand everything that Kant put in there, and the system he created, i really recommend you to do it, that is a great thing to do, even if it takes a very long time. But to adress this topic more directly, the problem with the reductionism that you are talking about, is that is clearly this idea of explaining everything through hard science, which is kind of a strange way of functioning, the natural sciences (and some of psychology) are made in a way they build themselves through laws, and every discovery is normally made in the base of those laws. What i'm trying to say, is that in a rush of explaining really complex problems, we try to see them through the only really reliable discoveries that we had acomplished, the problem that Kant had with this, is one that it may had aged poorly, but is kind of difficult to refute, and it has to do with the distinction of Noumenon and Phenomenon, like you probably know, Noumenon is the things-in-itself, and Kant argues that we can't know them, wich is obviously true, we can only sense things in relation to our senses, our understanding, our reason, etc. So the problem is that most of the metaphysical problems, don't have any sense at all, both options make sense, but contradict each other, in the Antinomy, Kant talks about Free Will and Determinism in reference to this, clearly is difficult being deterministic, i mean, thinking that everything is cause and consecuence, has a problem if you try thinking about how is possible that the universe started, if everything occures in relation of the past, of causes, how is possible that a start exist? that would mean that something appear without a cause, that appear from nowhere, or was a consecuence of nothingness wich is the same thing, but thinking that free will is real is kind of strange for the reasons that probably everyone knows, so the solution is on the Trascendental Aesthetic, in which Kant says that Time and Space are not things-in-itselfs, they are part of our mind, our way to organize the world, and with this we kind of get that determinism is basically how we understand time working, (if all this talk about perception sounds extreme, you got to remember Piaget experiments, things that are obvious to us, like the difference between what i see and what you see, are not a reality to a child, that's why they think covering their eyes will make them invisible.) because time is basically things changing in relation to other things, and ourselves staying in the mid of this, Kant thought that the world of Phenomenon functions deterministically, but that doesn't mean that things-in-themselves do, maybe this is kind of strange, cause it would be confusing if we believe we are things-in-ourselves, but it sits a precedent to understand that this problem is almost impossible to solve if we are still discussing it under the same terms.

I know you mention the "esoteric sounding" but you are just throwing away an option just cause it doesn't go well with your epistemological ideas that are a product of the empiricist and causalist mode, that is not just obvious and irrefutable, is an stance that functions well if you want to explain the "natural world", but has really awful consecuences when you try to do it on everything.