M, Thank you for your reply and elucidation. Just wanted to make a 'succinct' point about some dangers of dichotomizing. — 3017amen

If this word means what I understand it to mean, then in essence this is the basis of my argument. Dichotomizing meaning, from what I can infer, things existing in a paradoxical state, in one that is simultaneously two contradictory things.

I see morality as no more separable from natural, physical law, no more separable from impartial, empirical, mathematical logic as the existence of a rock, the trajectory of a thrown rock, or anything else that exists within this world.

The experience of a rock is in no way defined by subjective interpretations of that experience, and by the same logic no physical, material entity within the universe is in any way influenced by subjective interpretations of the experience of said object. Humans are explicitly physical, material entities, and thus every aspect of their existence is just as much defined entirely by impartial, objective, empirical logic as any rock on the ground is.

Look, you can come up with some lengthy and elaborate explanation for why you said what you did, but none of it matters. If you end up concluding that I'm not an individual, when I clearly am, then you've obviously gone wrong somewhere, whether that's due to bad logic or due to defining words in unusual ways. — S

At this point it is a matter of semantics. Is an organ an individual? I can divide the organ out of a person's body.

My point is that the organ does not exist or survive without the human body that it is contained within, thus the organ does not function as an individual. It cannot be divided without losing the inherent justification and purpose of its own existence.

A non-functional kidney lying in the street is not a kidney. It's just essentially just fertilizer, it does not function as a kidney, it does not provide any function that is different than fertilizer, thus it qualifies as fertilizer, but not a kidney.

Why don't you just say something along the lines that you value collectives and cooperation, that you think they're a good thing, and that you think that an ideal society could be founded on that basis?

That would be fine. It would just be your opinion, and it would be up for debate. But you keep overstepping your bounds by saying things like that's morality itself. No, it's just your opinion. — S

Because it's not a fucking opinion. It's an impartial, objective, measurable quality of cooperation within a society. It's not up for debate whether or not ten people can pull a cart with greater speed and efficiency than an individual. The only way the individual can pull the cart farther is when those 10 people all kill each other. Hence, this is why I argue that morality is the system of rules/equations that allows these 10 people to not kill each other.

I don't value anything personally. I loathe the human race. I'd rather not see them exist. I'm just arguing an entirely objective point for entertainment sake.

None of that science will ever be logically relevant in ethics because of the is-ought problem. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is". — S

Again. You "ought" to change the oil on your car consistently. This is an "ought" point. An ought point is just a very vague and non-formalized version of an "is" point. "It has been proven that changing the oil of a car after X miles, say 5,000, significantly improves the life span and health of the car. Failing to do so will result in severe damage to your car."

This is the basis of my argument here. Ever "ought" statement can be formalized into something that is no longer opinion based and is formalized using impartial and objective data.

Why defend vagueness over specificity?

"A person oughtta do some things and oughtta not do other things." - This argument is the "epitome" of philosophical morality when you defend vagueness, generalizations, opinions, and other sorts of non-impartial and non-empirical metrics to function as the basis of your argument. It emphasizes the vague generalization that philosophy defends when they try to argue that philosophy some cannot be subjected to impartial, empirical, and scientific formalization.

"I figure." is the epitome of any arguments regarding subjective philosophical reasoning to explain anything.

Philosophy is sitting between these two poles, these two finish lines. One is the extremely specific, empirical, impartial, calculable formalization. The other is all-encompassing vagueness. Philsophy tries to draw a line in the sand between the two ends and then argue that line is the "finish line" thus philosophy has won, and is now the pinnacle of legitimacy.

Lines in the sand are logically fucking nonsense. You're either trying to discover and explain truth in a formalized and verifiable manner, or you're trying to make vague, general, baseless, all-encompassing statements. There's no middle ground here.that has any legitimacy.

Either be the tallest or the shortest. There's no value in being "average sized" here. Science has proven that being the tallest provides an incredible amount of measurable value to society. Being the shortest here, it serves at the very least to prove a point. Being "average sized", doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that you're not optimized with regards to either of the possible standards of legitimate optimization.

The only optimization that philosophy may be able to claim is accessibility and communicability. Why is a system that optimizes accessibility and communicability over veracity and functional legitimacy still respected by anyone seeking any sort of truth or insight?

Consulting philosophy for truth is itself illogical because philosophy does not produce truth, it just produces communicable and accessible statements. There is nothing that exists, of yet, to actually measure philosophical arguments in a way that serves to prove them in objective and impartial manners.

It is inherently possible to do this, but philosophy makes no attempt at doing so. It's shameless really to claim you are somehow a source of truth when you have absolutely no standards by which the truth is accurately measured and validated.

It just sounds to me like you're trying to do in different words what Darwin already did, and did better. Survival of the fittest.

What's that got to do with morality? Darwin wasn't a moral philosopher. He was doing science, not ethics. — S

The entire point of this argument is saying that morality can be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. Of course I'm going to use arguments rooted in known science to validate my point...

But there are plenty of examples in nature of life that is far from flourishing. Animals can live for significant periods without flourishing, when they're malnourished, struggling, and just about surviving. — S

This is temporary struggle, and this is largely irrelevant. Flourishing here occurs over the period of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years. It is the collective performance of the speices over this very long period of time that defines whether or not they have flourished or failed to do so. If the animals consistently struggle and suffer to the point of failing to compete for this entire period of time, then they are more than likely will go extinct.

Even if the animal suffers every second of their life, this is irrelevant so long as their numbers are increasing. Flourishing here just referring to the increasing density of the animal population over an indefinite period of time.

Look at Africa, while they may be struggling, malnourished, and suffering, the fact that they continually cause their population to increase means that this population is flourishing. This is the only real metric of flourishing, at least so long as their overproduction doesn't cause the human race in Africa to go extinct, which it likely wont.

This is opposed to places like Europe and Japan, where the birthrate is below replacement, and as this causes their populations to decrease, despite their own well-being, success, happiness, and comfort, these societies do not qualify as flourishing because despite their success, their populations are decreasing rather than increasing.

I'm not arguing in favor of altruism. — Marzipanmaddox


Then why define morality in accordance with altruism, as you did in your opening post? That is to argue in favour of altruism. You're not making any sense. — S

The two definitions of altruism here. The reason I am drawing this semantic line is because there are some significant differences.

-the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

This is somewhat accurate, but my argument isn't inherently altruistic. It is Disinterested and selfless concern for the success of society, of the human species, but not for any individual human. Nothing about my argument defends anyone's well-being. If there is a trade off between the indefinite success of society and an individual's well-being, society is what is defended and the person's well-being is disregarded.

Altruism here promotes a sense of caring about other humans, having compassion for others. Altruism would be associated with the strong protecting the weak and vulnerable. That is not my argument at all.


2-behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

This would not really benefit any other animal, as everything is done with respect to society as a whole. Any benefit to any animal is done because this benefit to the animal is measurably beneficial to the overall success of society as a whole.

It is perhaps societal altruism, but the word gets associated with very sympathetic and empathetic arguments which I condemn.

My definition of morality is "That which holds the groups together, thus enabling them to dominate the individual." — Marzipanmaddox


But this the problem. I don't accept that definition. That could be used to describe a whole number of things. So you'll just be talking about something else and calling it morality. Why don't you just make your point without trying to redefine morality? That's not a feasible approach — S

It's fair that you don't accept the definition, but I lack a better word for this concept. Morality has always been the fabric of individuals banding together and cooperate. Morality is easily the only thing that produces this result, and this is why I equate morality to this process, and this is why I equate anything that accomplishes this to morality.

Once an individual is part of a collective, they are no longer an individual, they are a part of that collective, and they cannot exist without the collective so they are not an individual. — Marzipanmaddox


But that's nonsense. Of course I'm an individual, and whether I'm part of a collective or dependent on the collective for survival is logically irrelevant. — S

That is a very broad sense of individual. I see an individual as something that operates entirely independently. Something like a car part. True, independently these things do exist, but without the car they functionally have far less value and have very little justification for their existence. This is why I see the individual human as something akin to a car part, yes, an individual car part, but the car is what is providing value here, the car is what legitimizes the existence of the car part. Without the car, that individual part is not comparable to functional car part, the carburetor that functions inside of a car provides far more value to the owner and to society than the carburetor that sits in the junkyard.

As the car part cannot be divided from the car and retain the same degree of functionality and value, it cannot provide this value without the existence of a car to exist within, that is why I argue that the person, so inherently co-dependent upon the society it exists within, cannot be respected as an individual. The society is what gives the person such a high degree of value, as without this society the value of a modern person plummets significantly. Without the car, the car-part is just scrap metal, but within the car, the part is able to provide legitimizing and competitive value that justifies its existence.

In a world where the independent individual has become functionally irrelevant in the face of society, this is why I argue that no human can be an individual, because existing within this car, providing value to the society, has become a definitive trait of the modern human.

You said that the sole definition of life is to flourish competitively. That's not true, and that's not to be found in any dictionary definition. That's just what you imagine the purpose of life to be. The world "definition" was the wrong word to use. — S

That is a fair semantic argument, and I will admit I easily misused the word definition there.

The point being that definition, meaning the defining trait of life, that in it's purest essence, life is just flourishing competitively, indefinitely. I would argue that anything that does this qualifies as life. Even if robots exist, exterminate humanity, but still have the drive to ensure that they flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time, then i would argue that those robots are still life. Not organic life, but life none the less.

The dictionary definitions of life are going to be broad, they're going to cover a lot of ground. If we took all of the intricacy, all of the localized meaning of life, and we boiled it down to the key traits of life, what would be left?

"the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." is listed as the basic traits of life. I would argue that "to flourish competitively" is a fair comprehensive description of these things.

As for applying the scientific method.

Step 1: Make observations. Observations can be qualitative or quantitative. ...
Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis. ...
Step 3: Design and perform experiments. ...
Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis. ...
Step 5: Development into a law and/or theory.

I would argue that there is enough information about the general tendencies of life to support my points. Qualitatively, life competes and life flourishes, one could quantify this and I'm sure many people have, such a the wolves and rabbits simulator. This is basically the key unifying feature of life which I just happen to emphasize. All life is unified in this pursuit. I am just arguing my theory right here.

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/RabbitsAndWolves/

That's a quantification that displays 3 things, grass/rabbits/wolves all competing in order to flourish competitively.

What a great question (s) and debate! I hate to ask this somewhat rhetorical question but after reading some of your analysis; what is the human phenomena called Love? Is it subjective, objective, or a little of both (?). And if you believe it's both, in the spirit of ethics and/or morality, how should we exclusively parse that in your mind?

I apologize again in advance for that question however I'm just trying to understand your argument in favor of objective exclusivity... . — 3017amen

Love is just sustained passion within the human mind, passion here being the equivalent of instinct. It is something that encourages people to act in a certain way. Something like psychochemical cocaine, it feels good, you crave it, you chase after it, and by my standard this love would produce results. You love your wife, you create children. You love your children, you create higher quality children.

This is the basic instinctive level, it is a strong chemical force within the brain to compel us to do certain actions. Naturally these actions would be largely rooted in reproductive and familial success. A family that loves each other will be more prone to mutual success and survival than one who doesn't. When a trait increases the survival rate of a species, this trait gets passed down and concentrated due to increased survival/reproduction of the carriers when compared to individuals that lack these traits.



This instinct is actually a very beneficial one that usually provides good results in society, even if love can often lead people astray, it can also lead people down incredible paths of discovery that lead to the advancment of the human race. Say a person loves science, or math, they can use this love and passion for these subjects to actually produce high value products, in the same sense that human romantic love produces the high value product of human children.

Love, I would argue, is an instinctive response that can be measured and understood objectively, but love itself as humans experience it is the subjective interpretation of this entirely objective process. Something like cocaine. The chemical cocaine is entirely objective in nature, but the human experience when insuflating cocaine is a largely subjective one.

While it is true that if we had an infinite amount of computational and analytical power, we could likely map and analyze the the brain and human body to the point where we could predict each and every person's subjective experience when doing cocaine with 100% accuracy. We are not at that point, but even still, that would just be an objective representation of the subjective experience. Even if the data can predict how you will feel, the data truly cannot feel high, it cannot feel the pleasure of cocaine, and that experience of feeling is what I would call subjective.

What about ideas that do not possess electrochemical properties?
What about ideas: not felt, not imagined, not pondered, not spoken, not heard; lone, floating somewhere, somehow? — Shamshir

I would say you are justified in this sense. There are an infinite number of numbers that exist, regardless of the fact that no conscious entity will ever be able to comprehend and process this information, the numbers all still exist regardless of being acknowledged or thought about. Ideas here exist in the same right as numbers, there are an infinite number of ideas, as these can all be conceptually represented akin to numbers, using something like a computer programming language. regardless of whether or not anything has ever had or thought of these ideas, they still exist, just as a possible combination of numbers/code/etc.

based on the idea of benefit vs harm, i.e. flourishing vs languishing. — Janus


I wouldn't say that "benefit" is the same thing as "flourishing."

A benefit of x is anything that S (some subject) desires that's provided by or that's an upshot of x.

Flourishing has a connotation of a sustained desired state.

Things that S considers a benefit might not actually be things that would lead to a sustained desired stste for S. S might even desire things that would be harmful in S's view if sustained. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this. The point here is about maximizing the extent that a society will flourish indefinitely. Giving people a personal benefit is often contrary to this. Think of people personally benefiting from high wages or corrupt courts.

I would go so far as to argue that flourishing is even independent from any subjective experience associated with that.

Say that a rabbit suffers for its entire life, it feels pain every day, it has no desire to be alive. Subjectively, perpetuating the species provides no benefit to any member of the species, but in regards to flourishing, perpetuating the species is the correct thing to do. I would argue that flourishing is more important than any subjective or desired benefit, as the sustained flourishing of life has been defined as a baseline characteristic of all life, such as single celled non-conscious life, and thus ensuring that life flourishes is always more of a baseline and justifiable intent than ensuring any sort of desired benefit.

This argument is akin to ensuring that the car runs, rather than ensuring that the car is comfortable. Even if the car is uncomfortable, the purpose of a car is to be a means of locomotion, the comfort is just a secondary aspect of the car. A car that is comfortable but does not drive does not qualify as a car in my eyes.

The difference between being 'X' and being called 'X' is determined by whether or not we are the deciding factor in what counts as 'X'. Elemental constituency.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to the very first report/account of them.

Morality is one of these things.
— creativesoul

My understanding of your statement is that morality is defined entirely by humans. That humans define morality, and without human definition it would not exist or have meaning, something like taste in art, which would not exist without humans to create this standard of taste in the first place.

Either this is your point, or you are agreeing with me, that morality functions independently from human life, and functions independently from any subjective human experience.


I would argue that morality would always function, in the same sense that mathematics always functions, whether or not anything or anyone actually exists. I am arguing that morality functions as a means to optimize a system, essentially it is just rules applied to a naturally chaotic system of equations that optimize the output of that system.

Something like.
3 - X = Y
Y * Z = M

Where M is the output of the system. Naturally you can plug any number, say [-10,10] into any of these variables. Naturally people do that, they are very random, some are more social and beneficial to the world, while some are worse and are not beneficial to the world.

Simple Morality here would be applying constraints to the natural range that can be plugged into the system. Something like X must be less than negative 2. Saying that Z must always be a positive number greater than 0. Already, with these constraints, you produce a much higher yield on average than putting in the entirely random numbers.

Despite having no humans or conscious experience happening within the system, I woud argue that applying those constraints upon the random numbers that are input into the system qualifies as morality, because this is controlling the natural behavior of a system in order to increase the yield of this system.

Looking at morality like this, when you can calculate it in this manner, that means there is a way to compare one action to another, one input to another, and determine which of these two inputs is actually more so moral than the other one. This also means there is a way to calculate the maximum amount of yield, and thus know what actions are the most moral possible actions.

While human society is far more complex than this, I would argue that it is no less explicitly finite and explicitly subject to being measured, analyzed, studied, refined, and optimized in the same manner that this simple system of equations is.

Human society is just the summative result of all actions that occur within it, and these actions all influence the result of subsequent actions, and this is identical to a system of equations in that regard. Knowing this, I would argue that nothing is truly defined by subjective or opinionated arguments, but rather we use these simpler and more accessible forms of arguments as a substitute for hard, measurable equations that we don't have. We create rules of thumb that are generally of reasonable quality, but often times these rules may not be completely accurate due to the profound volatility of the results.

Using this simple equation as an example. Say you have 100 people, and 95 of them operate at a value less than 3, meaning they all produce a positive yield to the net result M. However, you have 5 people who have an X value greater than 3, you have 4,5,6,7,8 for the X value. When these people go through the system they all have a negative influence upon society, provided the value of Z, say, technological ability of society, remains positive.

Though morality, on the whole, says "Murdering people is wrong", this is true 95% of the time according to this example, because 95% of the time those people provide benefit to society, and thus live in accordance with morality. The issue is that 5% of the time where the people harm society, they produce a negative result. Morality would cause people to object to murdering them, but if you used this calculated morality, you could easily justify murdering these people.

The moral action produces a higher M value, so by killing these people, reducing their X value here to 0, then you have effectively increased the total M value produced by society. When "Increasing M value" becomes the sole definition of morality, it clears up many issues where the general rules of thumb utilized by morality fall short, or are not in accordance with this empirical definition of morality, and thus cause major arguments due to this, such as the death penalty for example.

I don't think anyone has considered the basis of morality, which I argue is empathy. If we lacked empathy, there would be no morality. Morality is the intellectualization of empathy, turning it into a calculus.

It is no coincidence that a variety of cultures independently developed the "golden rule". — Relativist

This is a wonderful thing to think about. Yes, every culture developed "the golden rule", and I would argue that this is empirical in the exact same sense that every culture was able to come to same conclusions about basic addition, that 2+2 = 4, wherever you go, everybody could agree upon that.

This widespread independent result from attempting to understand morality suggest that morality is actually something quantifiable, something defined in a very hard, measurable, calculable, and logical way. The fact that people could independently verify the legitimacy of the golden rule just speaks to the extent that morality is not entirely subjective or entirely up to opinion. All of these societies realized that a standard such as the golden rule is incredibly beneficial to society, so they all implement this rule universally and independently.

The fact that common sense among ancient cultures produced the same universal replicability that the scientific method is able to create with regards to science speaks to how there truly is a legititmate and correct version of morality, one that is not subject to opinion. Just like all cultures could agree on basic addition, all cultures could agree on the golden rule. I'm just arguing that morality should be formalized in the same manner that allowed mathematics to grow beyond basic addition and into a profoundly complex science.

"If we lacked empathy, there would be no morality."

I would argue this is false, because I define morality purely in an objective manner, where the subjective psychological experience of the human mind is irrelevant. Regardless of how people feel, moral societies have proven to be more productive and successful than amoral societies, and the more flawed a moral system used to govern a country is, the less prone that country is to success.

I argue that morality is just a method of orchestrating human behavior within a group of people that leads to greater success for that group of people as a whole. Even if people had no feelings, murdering each other randomly would still reduce the success and capabilities of that society when compared to a society that doesn't murder people randomly.

Even without feelings involved, morality still produces a clear and measurable benefit to society. Even if people were completely emotionless, the objective benefit of a moral society such as increased yield, stability, power, and success justifies a society acting in a moral way, despite lacking any sort of emotional stimulus that would cause them to feel a certain way about doing so.

That is why I try to reason with this, by saying that morality should function objectively, free from any sort of influence of the subjective experience. I argue that the objective and measurable benefits of morality are what need to be used as the definition of that word, because regardless of the subjective effect of an action within the human mind, reaping the greatest objective benefit from the manner in which we organize and stabilize society is what the true benefit of morality is.

Subjective/empathetic morality is relying upon human instinct such as empathy to infer what is a moral action and what isn't. The issue with using instinct is that these instincts are not designed to function in a civilized and technologically advanced society. The same instinct that allows dogs to find food in the wild is also what causes them to drink antifreeze and die in a technologically advanced society. Our instincts are valuable, as clearly that dog needs to eat, and it would die if it lacked the instinct telling it to do so, but by no means are these instincts perfect and they should not be relied upon when we have the capable to utilize a far more systematic, objective, and verifiable system such as the scientific method.

By the standard you describe, child sacrifice is moral, so long as the community agrees to this and enforces this law. — Marzipanmaddox


Not at all, because CS is in this culture, not the Moloch. So by the standard he describes child sacrifice is immoral because we think that it is immoral. — Isaac

But in their society, in the Canaanite society, Child Sacrifice was a moral action? That's what I'm trying to get at. Regardless of our own society, within the Canaanite society alone, it would be considered a moral action?

everything is countable — Marzipanmaddox

Quite why he said that, I don't know. — Pattern-chaser

It's because this is a fact. This is why I say these things. You live in an explicitly finite world, there is nothing that exists within it that is not finite. All finite things can be counted. It's simple logic.

I use this term because subjecting every other facet of this explicitly finite world to scrutinous scientific formalization has provided incredible benefit to society. I'm basically just saying "Science has proven itself to be valuable, philosophy should not turn their nose up at the scientific method considering the benefit it has produced in countless other fields."

As for using "theoretically" I use words like this in order to explain that I am not some infallible source of correctness. This is called creating a hypothesis, and then the next step is to actually perform experiments, collect data, and formulate an argument based upon the data that is derived.

Not that I agree with the math fetishism he's espousing, — Terrapin Station

What I am arguing is no more "math fetishism" than any other science. Do you describe physics and chemistry as "math fetishism"?

People don't use math to explain these sciences because of some perverse sexual arousal that comes from math. They use math to explain these things because math has consistently proven to be a far more applicable method of explaining and legitimizing an argument than a non-mathematical argument.

Basically, once you start to count things, you can tell that everything is countable. — Marzipanmaddox


Consider the difference between "less" and "fewer": There are fewer cows in the field, so there is less milk. The concept of countability is this basic. Cows are countable; milk is not. — Pattern-chaser

You can count volume of milk with liters? You can even count/approximate the individual number of atoms in that liter of milk if you really wanted to.

Think of a rock falling from a person's hand towards the ground. This may not seem numerical, but even if it does not naturally appear this way, we can still represent and describe it numerically. — Marzipanmaddox


No we can't. We can develop and assign numbers to something like a falling rock. These numbers might predict the rate at which the rock falls, but that's as far as it goes. There is much more to be included before we can say that our words "represent and describe" it. — Pattern-chaser

The numbers do represent and describe the falling of the rock, you can use numbers to represent any aspect of that situaiton you want, the location, the time, the space, the density. The point is not that I have fully described the falling of that rock, it is that numbers can explictly be used to desrcibe every facet of that rock falling to the ground. These things can all be quantified, that's all that I'm saying. What part of a rock falling can't be quantified?

If it was not selected for or against, then it would not be so prevalent — Marzipanmaddox


That's an assumption, not the conclusion of a logical thought process, or at least not one that you've offered in this discussion. — Pattern-chaser

That's just how evolution works. If you put pressure against a trait, that trait becomes less prevalent. If you put pressure in favor of a trait, that trait becomes more common. This is why all Europeans had light skin, to increase the amount of vitamin D they received from the sun. This is why black people have dark skin, to protect them from being burned by the sun.

If there was no selective pressure here, then those traits would not be as prevalent. Meaning black skin would be just as prevalent in Europe as white skin, meaning white skin would be just as prevalent in Africa. The reason that things become uniform across a population is because selective pressure has pressured any sort of alternatives out, alternatives cannot compete with the most competitive form, and thus the most competitive form of the trait becomes universal within that population.

Empathy/sympathy here was selected in favor of, in many forms of complex life, just like how white skin was selected in favor of in Europe. It was selected in favor of because it increased the liklihood of survival when compared to its absence, just like how dark skin increased the rate of survival in Africa when compared to the absence of dark skin.

I'm saying philosophy is not reliable method of deriving truth because it deviates from the scientific method. — Marzipanmaddox


Ah, so the only reliable method that exists for "deriving truth" is the scientific method? — Pattern-chaser

Yes. Truth here meaning the subject is no longer subject to debate, that the accepted truth is proven to be universal and effectively unquestionable. Think of the difference between the unquestionable validity of physics when compared to philosophy.

It is much, much harder, and easily impossible in many cases, to question and argue against commonly accepted and thoroughly proven arguments made with physics, whereas with philosophy it is incredibly to do this, because there is no need to produce any sort of reproducible empirical result that can be objectively validated by anyone.

It's the difference between "This experiment proves that my argument is correct, with objective, impartial data that justifies my argument." and effectively "I say I am right. I am right because I say I'm right."

I'm not arguing in favor of altruism. I'm not arguing in favor of anyone doing anything to hurt themselves for the sake of others. I'm arguing in favor of morality.

Here is my reasoning. Originally, there were only individuals. Then people formed groups. The groups are always more powerful than the individual, this is why the groups came to dominate.

My definition of morality is "That which holds the groups together, thus enabling them to dominate the individual."

Once an individual is part of a collective, they are no longer an individual, they are a part of that collective, and they cannot exist without the collective so they are not an individual. The collective is the individual, as you cannot divide off the people without destroying the collective.

I am just arguing in favor of success, regardless of what you want to call it. The power of the collective has proven to dominate the world, and this is why i defend it. Unless every society in the history of the world is a "collectivist altruistic society", then this is not altruistic collectivism. Sure, they may be similar, but they are not the same.

By being a part of society, you sacrifice your individuality, you are no longer a person, the only "person" here is society, you cannot exist without society and thus you are not an individual, you cannot be divided from society and retain any legitimacy of your own existence. That is why your own desires are disregarded if they conflict with the well-being of your collective.

As for "words have meanings", look at it like this.

The "meanings" of words are agreed upon, but that does not mean they are accurate. If somebody tells you the definition of a rock is "A hard immobile object created when God created the world 6000 years ago", this is a functional definition of the word, and many people agreed to it over the course of the history of the West, but just because people can agree upon a definition does not make it accurate.

I use logic to produce the definitions of the words I produce. Logically, if my definitions are different than the agreed upon definitions, I would argue that the logically correct definitions are more so valid than ones that are simply agreed upon. People can agree upon false definitions, and logic would argue that these definitions are false.

Your argument that "words already have meanings, you can't make them up", is essentially "The Bible says this is true. If you disagree with the Bible you are wrong."

I try to produce accurate definitions, and I would argue that my own are more so valid and justified by the world at large, simply due to providing actual quantifiable and objective evidence to support my definitions, than any sort of semantic argument based upon popular accord or otherwise subjective and baseless metrics.

Logically? Look, words have definitions, and the word, "life", has a definition, and an acceptable definition can be found in the dictionary. — S

Ok. My definition is in explicit accordance with the definition in the dictionary. Beyond that, when you logically produce a definition of something, when you do this accurately, then said definition is an accurate and legitimate definition of that word.

Why would the definition of something be anything other than the logical definition of that something? Why would something be defined in a manner that cannot be explicitly reproduced using logic?

"

You're delusional. You're also trying to reinvent the wheel, which is a foolish endeavour. — S

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel at all. I'm trying to argue that the scientific method should be applied to process of making wheels. I'm trying to improve upon the process from which wheels are made, using a systematic approach that has been explicitly proven to function.

The wheel has been improved greatly by the scientific method. There is no reason that morality should not be subjected to the same system of improvement.

To say that this is reinventing the wheel is to say "All wheels must be made of wood or stone, this is how wheels have always been made, if a wheel is not made of wood or stone it is not a wheel at all."

If this were the case, then all wheels would still be made of wood and stone, when in reality very few wheels are made of wood or stone today. Philosophy here is this wood/stone wheel. I am arguing that the utilizing the scientific method to define, refine, and improve morality would produce a much higher quality product, a better and far more functional form of morality. It's hard to have a car with wooden wheels, and the same can be said about using traditional/non-scientific morality to govern our society.

My argument is that simple. "Apply the scientific method to morality in order to study, formalize, refine, and improve our understanding and ability to utilize morality."

If you define morality as "maximising personal pleasure at the expense of others" that makes clear what is moral and what is not too. It just means that several community benefit actions I take are now defined as immoral. So what? — Isaac

The "so what?" is exactly what I am trying to get at here.

If we have this system, quantified and calculable, the same "so what?" that would be created by this system can already be seen in science.

Though, yes, everyone can agree that a rock thrown into the air will fall down to earth, so why would we need to define this, empirically, with calculable equaitons, when we can already agree that the rock will fall down, when we don't need equations to come to this conclusion?

The thing is that calculable equations provide extreme degrees of clarity, and beyond that they can be utilized in a manner that provides a great degree of value.

With physics, say, the Chinese knew for thousands of years that you could make fireworks. You could use gunpowder to propel explosives into the air, at which point they explode. The advantage of physics allowed people to turn this general understanding of the world into very explicit and useful knowledge. We can now create missiles that fly into the air and land at the exact location you want them to.

It is this complete mastery and understanding of a topic, to the point where we can calculate and know exactly how things are going to work, this allows us to make much more precise and accurate decisions.

It's the difference between old-fashioned fireworks/rocket launchers, which were used as a weapon, such as the Hwacha, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha

There is a clear ability to gain incredible degrees of success which were previously unimaginable by applying the scientific method to things.

This is the difference we would experience in society. No longer using the equivalent of the Hwatcha as the epitome of morality, but using instead the intercontinental ballistic missiles of morality. Think of the value that morality has brought to society, this is the Hwatcha. Think of the difference between an ICBM and a Hwatcha, this is the difference between traditional non-quantified morality and quantified/objecitve morality.

Morality is a set of codified rules of behaviour. All such rules are subject to the individual(cultural, societal, social, familial, and/or historical) particulars. — creativesoul

Ok. This is an incredibly loose standard of morality. While you can argue that everything that falls under this category is morality, I would disagree.

Look at the Canaanites. These people, as a culture, would sacrifice their children to Moloch. They, as a community, believe that child sacrifice was a good thing, so they did it. By the standard you describe, child sacrifice is moral, so long as the community agrees to this and enforces this law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

I argue that there is a difference between law/standard/culture based behavior and morality. Morality, the way would define it, is something that is always beneficial to the society. The society will always benefit from a moral action, but just because something is agreed upon by a culture, society, or family doesn't mean that this action is in any way a moral action.

It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively. — Marzipanmaddox


That's not even close to the actual definitions of life being proposed by biologists. — Echarmion

1. This is the definition of "life", that I got.

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

The point being, without flourishing competitively, you cannot be any of these things, because you don't exist. Competitively meaning, enough to compete, enough to win. If you don't win, you lose, you are dead, thus you are not life, not alive, but rather death, a dead thing.

The nature of life is just to flourish as much as possible. Every organism has this instinct, regardless of whether they are conscious or not, all life seeks to do is flourish to the greatest extent that it possibly can. — Marzipanmaddox


What is the evidence of that? — Echarmion

2. If an organisim did not have the will to live, if it has no chemical reaction that causes it to perpetuate itself, then it would not exist. Perhaps we have a different understanding of flourishing here.

Even just an amoeba in a petri dish is flourishing. You look at cell growth in a petri dish, this is what I define as floursihing. Things growing until they cannot grow any more. Exactly why a petri dish will become full of cells when you incubate it. Cells are not concious, but they still do this, they just grow and reproduce until they cannot do so anymore. All life is esentially defined by this strategy, this action is the backbone of all life, complex life has just refined it, but even then they do not change much from the original single-celled strategy.

Life spreads and consumes fuel in the exact same manner that fire does. — Marzipanmaddox


Literally in the exact same manner? — Echarmion

Yes. The exact same manner. Think of the petri dish again. Those cells will grow, spread, keep on growing until they cannot, until there is no longer and food for them to consume. When that cell culture runs out of fuel, it dies. This growth is for life is identical to that of a fire. The fire grows until it cannot find any more fuel to burn. Life, in its simplest form, grows like a fire until it cannot find any more fuel to burn.

They look different, but they behave in very, very similar ways. The chemical processes very similar as well.

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O -> This is fire, burning sticks

C6H12O6(sugar)+6O2→6CO2+6H2O -> This is what is happening in your cells, this is cellular respiration, it is what causes you to turn food into energy. This is what keeps you warm, this is the process that keeps cells alive.

Notice they are identical? Cellular life is basically just a very complex fire that uses sugar as fuel.

Life exists purely because there was this potential energy that could be reduced, and it exists solely to reduce this potential energy, in the same sense that fire exists with the sole purpose of reducing combustible chemicals with high volatility into less volatile molecules with lower potential energy. — Marzipanmaddox


Purpose to whom? — Echarmion

Purpose, not to anyone at all. Just the reason as to why it exists, not that there is any real intent or meaning behind that. Meaning, basically "This is what caused life to exist, and while life may do other things, this purpose was the only justification that ushered lie into existence."

It's the same purpose/reason as fire. It just exists because it can, because it is in accordance with entropy. I'm tired, plus ran out of cigarettes. I'm falling off, truly wish I could explain better, press me on this.

The natural action would be to pursue this end and only this end, to ensure our own indefinite and perpetual survival to perform exactly the process that life naturally and spontaneously arose to do. — Marzipanmaddox


What is a "natural action"? How do we establish what is natural? — Echarmion

A natural action meaning that which arises without any intent, without any thought, without any convolution. Everything that is unconscious in the universe is natural action. The actions that cells perform are all natural actions. The cells have no ability to question themselves or influence their actions. The same can be said about most sorts of natural life. One would have to consciously make an effort to stray from the natural processes that have come to define life, in order to be unnatural.

Basically it is any conscious decision that an individual makes, which is difference from the unconscious decision that would have been made if your body had remained entirely unconscious but retained it's ability to survive and reproduce indefinitely, in the same respect that a single-celled organism does.

Even with human life, one would have to take into account the capacity of unconscious intelligence, pursuing survival using opposable thumbs and intelligence, without being conscious of one's own existence. Here, consciousness is not the same as intelligence. Think about, you can be blackout drunk, unaware of your own existence, but still be holding conversations. You would still be able to wield intelligence even if you have no control of your body or awareness of your own existence.

I even go so far as to argue that the more we stray from this natural definition of life, the less and less the human race can truly consider themselves life. When we stop pursing this natural goal, this maximization of the reduction of potential energy induced by life within the universe over the lifetime of the universe, we stop being life all together, we simply become death, we are no longer the righteous fire that was birthed from fuel, but smoldering ashes that failed to sustain the blaze. — Marzipanmaddox


And just why should we care about being life according to your definition of it? — Echarmion

As for my definition. I try to justify my definition with evidence. I think the arguments I provide, see the chemical equations, the natural tendency of the universe, the parallels that are found across all life forms, the parallels between life and fire, are all sound arguments to base a point from. As life and fire are very similar in form and function, if humans are to stray from this path, trailblazed by fire, reinforced by life, then how can we consider ourselves to be life, to be fire, when we stray from the only path that our progenitors had ever tread upon?

I'm going to bed. This was good. The questions were good. Hopefully I can get back to this some more tomorrow. Let me know if this makes sense. =)

"Factual claim" instead refers to "a claim about a fact; a claim that posits what the world is like; how the world works." — Terrapin Station

That's just not the functional definition of that word in the modern world. If somebody makes a "factual statement", they make a statement that is true. Somebody makes a "conjecture or assertion regarding the factuality of a claim", that is something different altogether.

At this point, by your logic, how do opinions exist? Are all opinions factual statements? "Guns are bad", "Guns should be controlled", "Gay marriage is a good thing", or any other political opinion is the referred to as a factual statement?

So, to paraphrase, philosophy is crap because it isn't science, and only science can be not-crap? Is that about it? — Pattern-chaser

No, I'm saying philosophy is not reliable method of deriving truth because it deviates from the scientific method.

Philosophy needs to produce arguments from experiments that can be independently and objectively verified in order to be legitimate.

"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises."

Basically, without this process, you have no quality control. You have nothing that objectively proves or disproves your argument. You cannot be correct beyond popular opinon, beyond a subjective defense, and this is the issue.

Philosophy needs to be true in a manner that when all people perform a philosophical experiment, they all are able to measure the result and derive the exact same conclusion. Like when people do a scientific experiment, anywhere in the world, if they do it correctly, they will all come to the same result, and this universal, replicable, objective, and impartial correctness is something that needs to exist in order for philosophy to be comparably as legitimate as science.

When correctness is a matter of opinion, then it's hardly as valid as correctness which is unquestionable, right?

I'm not meaning to be insulting, it's just I'm a "no bullshit" sort of person, like a machine, just work, just mechanical operation, no flavor, no bullshit.

And another thing. What if morality is not a policy considered and adopted by societies, but is an emergent property of societies that just appears? The way you put it, you expect evolution to get rid of it if it does nothing. But there are many attributes that have no critical survival value, so they are not selected for or against. Maybe morality is such a thing? — Pattern-chaser

As for the sun rising, well, the sun isn't the one drinking the snake oil, is it?

As for this quote though. You might think that morality is not selected for or against, but having an instinctive understanding of morality, having a "moral compass" so to speak, is something nearly all people are born with. If it was not selected for or against, then it would not be so prevalent, found in 99% of the people.

In order for 99% of people to have this trait, this means an instinctive understanding of morality is inherently favored in terms of reproduction in the wild, when compared to a complete lack of morality, such as psychopathy. This could be a more recent development, where instinctive empathy and psychopathy were toe to toe in the wild, but in a civilized world, the people themselves exterminated psychopathic individuals because they were not able to function in society.

By one means or another, instinctive empathy and sympathy, the basis of morality, is found in 99% of all people, and this strongly suggests that it was a highly favorable trait to have, while lacking it caused one to be far less likely to survive. Especially since this instinctive empathy/sympathy is found in much less civilized and intelligent animals like dogs and likely even far simpler animals, this sort of instinct has been present in all animals for millions of years, and over the course of this period of time, the existence of animals, this instinct has proven to be more beneficial than the absence of this instinctive empathy, at least with regards to our species, and this is why it got passed down so thoroughly.

Everything within this universe, everything within the planet earth, is inherently numerical... — Marzipanmaddox

I can't see how everything - absolutely everything - is "inherently numerical". — Pattern-chaser

I'll try explain. Logically, you have one egg, you keep counting eggs. You keep counting eggs forever, do you ever get to a number that is not a countable number? Basically, once you start to count things, you can tell that everything is countable.

If you are counting whole single digits, you will never get to a quantity that is infinite, meaning adding and subtracting a number doesn't change the quantity. When nothing is infinite, everything is then finite, and everything finite is quantifiable, it is a quantity, this can be represented as a number.


The only infinite aspects of the universe are infinitesimal, meaning the amount of numbers between 1 and 2, is infinite, because the differences can be infinitely small.
This lack of infinite quantities means that essentially everything can be measured. When everything can be measured, this means it can be quantified and expressed in regards as numbers.

Think of a rock falling from a person's hand towards the ground. This may not seem numerical, but even if it does not naturally appear this way, we can still represent and describe it numerically.

Things like the law of gravity are closer to representations of what happen, describing things rather than counting them, but in the sense that these numerical descriptions can be created with regards to any finite and measurable occurrence, and since the lack of infinite values in the universe suggests that everything is finite, then this set of conditions means that everything can be quantified, defined and represented in mathematical ways.

Even though we don't have to count the gravity, we can still represent what is happening with numbers, variables, and other forms of mathematics. Our ability to do this, to understand these things in this manner allows us to take advantage of these forces behaving so reliably.

Even the human mind, has a finite number of neurons, approx 100 billion. When you start out with a finite number, and you keep adding or multiplying by other finite numbers, you will never arrive at a number that is infinite, you will always have a finite quantity.

Even if you combine every possible combination of neuron firing, and every other aspect of the human body, as these are all finite numbers, they can all be subejcted to explanation by the same style of measurements and explanation that has given us this working standard of gravity.

While a human being is more complex than a rock, time, the mass of the planet, air resistance, and the other elements that were quantified in order to develop the law of gravitiy, this does not mean that humans are any less defined by this sort of natural law as a rock is. Just as the fall of a rock is determined by the law of gravity, ever aspect of human life is determined by some equivalent and parallel law that defines how humans behave in any sort of situation.

While clearly we don't have these equations, they are not needed to prove this.

The human exists in the same system as rocks and water, rocks and water are all inherently finite, and can be quantified, measured, and represented using equations and entirely mathematical models, free from any influence of subjective force such as opinion or sentiment.

The human is made up entirely of rocks and water (more so, chemical compounds, but this is semantics), even though these rocks and water are mixed in a very specific way that produces a very specific result that is very complicated, the fact that the base parts, Part A and Part B are finite, means there is no possible way you can Add Part A to Part B and get a result that is not finite. Basically there is no way to create an infinite quantity from two finite quantities, and as humans are composed of these two finite quantities, this implies that any combination of these two quantities will be as equally as finite as the two quantities that are being combined.

Logically, as rocks and water are both proven to be defined explicitly and entirely by natural law, then this implies that any combination of rocks and water, any combination of any amount of chemical compounds, will too be defined explicitly and entirely by natural law in the same respect.

The issue here, is that humans are far more complex than rocks or water. This means that the natural laws that define the human race would be proportionally more so complex than the natural laws that define rocks. Similar to how The user manual for a car is much larger than the user manual for a knife.

Even though they are very complex equations if represented perfectly, we can deduce by what we already know to be true about the natural world, that every aspect of human life is as equally definable by natural law in the same respect that every aspect of water or rocks can be defined and explained with natural law.

The key thing to realize is that even having rough approximations of these equations that define our lives is going to be invaluable. We can have a fairly clear estimation of what the answer to these equations is, even if we don't have pinpoint accuracy. The more accurate these equations become, the easier we will be able to exclude and disprove arguments that deviate from quantifiable correctness.

If you are calculating the sqrt(3), square root, you can never have the correct answer, because that is infinitely long, it is infinitesimal, but you can have an answer that is close enough. Based upon rounding.

If you have the answer of 2, then your inaccuracy is ~ 14%
If you have 1.7, now your answer is only about ~2% different from the actual, correct, infinitely long answer
At 1.73, your are 0.1% inaccurate
At 1.732 you are 0.002% inaccurate

Even though it is impossible to be 100% accurate here, you can get the inaccuracy down small enough to the point where it becomes inconsequential. The same thing applies here, where so long as we know we are fairly close to the answer, we can gain quality answers from these equations.

The point about providing a hard, quantifiable definition is that it allows for an actual functional system to emerge, an actual system that provides actual answers to questions.

Think of measuring length. The current standard in philosophy is to use non quantifiable length, saying, you define a length of wood as 'Oh so wide', 'about this wide', 'fairly wide', 'a bit short', rather than using explicit countable measurements.

How can philosophy defend its complete aversion to utilizing quantifiable metrics and statistics to define and defend their arguments, when no other field of study is comparably as reluctant to do so?

What advantage is there to describing a kilogram as a 'fairly heavy amount', rather than describing it as a very quantified amount known as the kilogram?

In my eyes it just makes arguments pointless, because they can never be proven or justified in any manner beyond opinionated and subjective explanation. There's never an argument that just says, the data and statistics that have been measured reflect this conclusion, despite the fact that this empirical explanation is the only form of legitimate explanation in every other field with the exception of pure art, which like philosophy, leaves validity and legitimacy entirely up to the authority of human opinion.

h yeah, well my definition of life is the best, most perfect definition of life imaginable, and it reflects the ideal, objective, scientific, utopian vision of a blah blah blah. — S

Ok. Logically, life has a definition. It is a finite noun, it has an explicit definition. I argue thay my definition is fairly accurate and functionally accurate, that's all I'm doing

I argue that my points are very well founded and the explanations I provide justify the definitions I use. Disagree all you want..

You claim that this is an argument about collectivism, it's not. It's an argument about the definition of civilization and morality, it is pure coincidence that the definition I am able to derived from history is one that is similar to collectivism. The point here is not for me to defend collectivism, the point is for my to defend my reasoning and metrics from which I am able to derive the objective definition of morality.

Perhaps my points seem as empty and meaningless to you as yours do to me, but I never feel that you fully and in detail rebut my argument with actual points. It's a large amount of criticism, but no counter point. You can criticize a point all you like, but if you don't provide a superior and more so legitimate argument, your criticism is pointless.

Meaning you try to condemn the points without fully justifying your condemnation, at least in my eyes. You're calling me a criminal, without providing a thorough explanation of the evidence at hand that proves I'm a criminal. If you don't explain your point fully, it becomes harder to understand what you are trying to say. I believe you think there is some degree of shared thought process here, so you leave out parts of your argument, choosing not to write them out, just because you think "My thoughts are common sense, everyone will have these thoughts, there's no reason for me to explain in detail."

My issue with your argumentative style is that your counterpoints are minuscule when compared to your criticism. The criticism here is not the relevant aspect of having a debate, the only relevant part is the counter points.

The only reason i repeat things is because you fail to acknowledge my point. You fail to understand my point, so I attempt to explain it again.

As for my points not qualifying as philosophy, this is debatable. My points are about an opinionated interpretation of morality, which is so opinionated that you go so far as to call it biased. This is by definition philosophy, regardless of the fact that I defend my argument using empirical and objective reasoning. Surely, within philosophy, empirical reasoning is equally as valid in philosophy as subjective, empathetic, or ethereal reasoning.

The standard for philosophy is so low that it is nearly impossible for an argument about any related subject to fail to qualify as philosophy. The standard of philosophy is basically "What do you think about X?", and these are my thoughts, with relation to X. X in this case being morality.

I would defend your point that winners and losers are not the relevant aspect of the competition of life. The sole purpose is to flourish to the maximum extent, this has been the entire purpose, the entire reason for the physical existence of all life that has eventually given rise to our own species.

I see life as one large fire, multiple fires for every instance that life has been sparked elsewhere in the universe. The only purpose of life is to maximize the extent to which life reduces the potential energy of the universe over the lifespan of the universe, with no particular favoring of any species or individual.

The natural action would be to pursue this end and only this end, to ensure our own indefinite and perpetual survival to perform exactly the process that life naturally and spontaneously arose to do.

I even go so far as to argue that the more we stray from this natural definition of life, the less and less the human race can truly consider themselves life. When we stop pursing this natural goal, this maximization of the reduction of potential energy induced by life within the universe over the lifetime of the universe, we stop being life all together, we simply become death, we are no longer the righteous fire that was birthed from fuel, but smoldering ashes that failed to sustain the blaze.

Apparently the definition of life is whatever you want it to be! — S

The definition of life I provide reflects the reality in which all life exists, beyond that, the universe in which all physical matter exists. The definition of life I provide is in accordance with entropy, which itself defines and explains the universe we live in, everything that occurs within this universe occurs for the reason that it is in accordance with entropy.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ce5620cfea144bfff9fe2daefad12835

Janus is pretty much correct on this topic. His definition reflects the actual reason as to why morality is respected any more than snake oil. It is the real results that validate morality, not any opinionated or idealistic interpretation of morality.

Belittling his argument or his personhood amounts to nothing. Justify your point, defend your stance, rebut his argument with more than a simple attack on his character.

I agree with you that it goes beyond human nature, but I would say that the definition of life is to flourish cooperatively, not competitively.

It may appear that way, but truly it is not cooperative at all. It is still just flourishing competitively, the reason it seems cooperative is because in order to flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time, you must manage your resources.

Similar to a business. Sure, a business could liquidate all of its assets in December and post a record high amount of revenue for that year, but that business is not truly competing at that point. Businesses may seem cooperative, but they truly are only interested in their own success, and if this means cooperating, they are more than willing to do this. Cooperation here is a means to an end, a means to flourish at the most competitive rate possible. Cooperation is no more relevant than its capacity to enable the cooperator to flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time.

You can't seem to follow my argument, that is why you are bored. That is unfortunate, but if you have no interest in rereading my argument thoroughly in an attempt to understand it, this is entirely your prerogative.

Clearly the relevance of the allegory has missed you completely. You did not understand that the statement was mean to represent your logic. You are essentially the one who is arguing that the turtle is a bag of rocks here, you are the one using the inapplicable definition as evidence to justify your argument.

Somehow you can't understand the adjectives to the point that they clearly apply and relate to my argument, but this is again entirely up to your own discretion. Whether or not you are willing to consider my point, or whether or not you simply want to antagonize me.

If you had read my argument, understood my argument, you would see that those adjectives very much so apply to the argument that I have consistently been making in this thread.

You argue that I am not "on topic", when in reality, even that statement about turtles and rocks was entirely on topic, as it was relevant to a rebuttal that was made.

Your ability to understand the topic, to put the pieces together, is completely independent from whether or not I am on topic. I would offer to explain whatever aspect of my argument that you, for whatever reason, did not understand, or did not see as relevant, but I figure you have little interest in arguing with me.

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. That is a fact of human nature. — Janus

It is beyond human nature. It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively. The nature of life is just to flourish as much as possible. Every organism has this instinct, regardless of whether they are conscious or not, all life seeks to do is flourish to the greatest extent that it possibly can.

Life is essentially fire. It is the equivalent of biological fire, and it has the exact same principles that guide itself. Burn until it is impossible to burn anymore. Life spreads and consumes fuel in the exact same manner that fire does. Life exists for the exact same reason that fires come into existence, because there was potential fuel, and the flash point was reached. Once life had been ignited, it never stopped burning because it never ran out of fuel.

Even though life appears to be a closed system life still invariably reduces the potential energy of the system, in the exact same sense that fire does. It may burn at a slower rate, it may reduce potential energy within the system at a slower rate, but it is far more durable and far more capable of surviving than fire. Life exists purely because there was this potential energy that could be reduced, and it exists solely to reduce this potential energy, in the same sense that fire exists with the sole purpose of reducing combustible chemicals with high volatility into less volatile molecules with lower potential energy.

That's not an opinion, it's a factual claim.

Really? You're arguing that a rock is a conscious entity?

con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: consciousness

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience
"she failed to regain consciousness"
antonyms: unconsciousness


2. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of
"her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"


3. the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Which definition of consciousness does a rock have? I don't understand. Is there some philosophical definition of this word I am missing? Is a rock self aware now?

This has devolved into animism. Somehow animism is "fact" as opposed to a purely religious and spiritual claim?

But it isn't. The default is what you can find in a dictionary, not your favoured normative stance in ethics.

I'm saying the default, objective, impartial, and empirical definition, call this definition 2, that I defend based upon what I can derive from human history. This what I am arguing in favor of.

As I previously said, the dictionary definition, definition 1, is riddled with dependence upon subjective and opinionated arguments, and this is why I deem that definition to be invalid.

I am arguing in favor of definition two, and arguing against definition 1. Definition two is the definition I am able to derive from analyzing and trying to deduce and impartial, objective, and empirical definition of morality.

Your "it" in your statement refers to a statement I made about definition 2, yet you are trying to argue this statement reflects my arguments about definition 1. The statement you made is false, just on simple logic alone.

I say Definition 3 of Turtle is "a bag of 7 rocks", then I say, "a turtle (definition 3), contains 7 rocks". You then argue "That's false, a turtle is an animal." According to the contextual definition, this turtle is a bag of rocks, despite the fact that the most commonly accepted definition of the word turtle is an animal. I'm not talking about the animal, I'm talking about the bag of rocks.

I'm saying that yes, while philosophy has made valid points, the legitimacy of philosophy is incredibly exaggerated. I am just arguing that philosophy is inferior to science with regards to actually having an argument. Meaning a philosophical point would always lose to a scientific point. I'm saying that worshiping philosophy, arguing that philosophy is somehow above, or even equal to science is delusion. Clearly it is not, if it were, then it would be proven by the scientific method, and thus become science, and at that point it would no longer be philosophy.

Philosophy is the seed of that which could be great science, but philosophers are incredibly reluctant to actually apply the scientific method to their own arguments, despite the fact that in many areas, such as morality, intensive, objective, empirical study would easily produce very meaningful results.

Offhand I can't think of an ontological claim that wouldn't be a factual claim. Can you think of one?

https://philosophyterms.com/ontology/

Everything is made of atoms and energy (fair point, fairly accurate as far as we know)
Everything is made of consciousness (opinion)
You have a soul (opinion)
You have a mind (possible opinionated definition of mind. Does a rat have a mind? If not, then no, again opinion)

I looked these up. This is as far as my understanding of this field goes.

That's just immorality as defined by collectivism. The title of this discussion seems misleading. Is it a normative ethical discussion where you argue in favour of collectivism against individualism, or a meta-ethical discussion about objective morality vs. subjective morality?

I'm arguing that collectivism, by default, is the definition of morality. Morality allows multiple humans to function as a collective, this collective is more powerful than the individual. This is why moral societies were able to overpower any individual who sought to contest them.

Objective here, meaning, impartial, subject to nothing but the data, nothing but the correlation between the data, having no influence of human opinion or human sentiment. That's what I mean by objective.

To bring up ethics seems out of place, ethics, in this sense, is defined by the same manner as morality. The objective benefit of an ethical society, the measurable and quantifiable result that is produced by an ethical society, is once again this increased production, increased power, increased survival, and increased yield from said society.

I'm just looking at the quantifiable results from quantifiable actions. I'm arguing that these things like morality, and now ethics, can be quantified in a manner that explains them in a way that is entirely free from the subjective human experience such as feelings, ideals, opinions, sentiments, and sensations.

I argue that ethical and moral arguments should not be in any way dependent upon any sort of opinionation. The trajectory of a rock that you throw into the air is not subject to opinionation. Hopefully we can agree upon that.

A human being, essentially a meat rock that throws itself, made of the same chemicals as any rock, as any breeze, as any river. How is it that this combination of elements is somehow now "beyond science", this is like reorganizing a large set of finite numbers, yet somehow arriving to the conclusion that the result of this organization is infinite, beyond quantification, beyond science.

When the original set of numbers you have, the raw chemicals that comprise the human body, are all known to be explicitly and invariably quantifiable and finite, how is it that you can rearrange these chemicals, doing nothing more than simple addition, yet argue the result is somehow infinite? The commutative property and the associative property of addition clearly disprove this argument.