Consequences are real; judgements of right or wrong are not.

I actually agree with you. But apparently, it's just the two of us who believe that. So I personally believe that even if the universe is infinite, you will get only a set of things. — Eugen

Well some people prefer fantasy to reality, or perhaps they just can't tell the difference.

Just because something is infinite it does not mean that it contains all possibilities. You can have an infinity of integers without one fractional number in it anywhere.

"so  if ignoring the coronavirus and the need to wear a mask and practice distancing makes us feel good that is what we should do?"

Only if we have no concept of the future nor whether we might feel good then.

If we assume there is nothing objective, the should we be wrong about that (we did merely assume it after all), we will never find out what it is that is actually objective, or even get approximate that. — Pfhorrest

This is a logical non-sequitor. One can still investigate what might exist even without assuming objective existence. And even if one does assume that something objective does exist this doesn't mean one can also determine unequivocally what it is that does exist.

Something or another is the correct thing to believe (there is an objective reality) — Pfhorrest

This is an entirely subjective belief.

Something or another is the correct thing to intend (there is an objective morality) — Pfhorrest

Another entirely subjective belief.

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Then the 'philosophy' you are referring to is not actually philosophy.

If at the end of a decision you feel good, you have made the right decision for you. Doing what society views as the right thing might make you feel good, it might not. — Maya

One can take it further and say that people who promote morals and morality do so because it makes them feel good.

What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions. — A Seagull
The original question was which comes first, meaning where to start. I don't recall asking which branch is the most important. — 83nt0n

It is in the heading : Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy

Besides, when the trunk dies the whole tree dies. That not true of any particular leaf branch or root. — 180 Proof

But if all the leaves die or all the roots die....

Why do we keep coming back to the tree analogy? — 83nt0n

Because it is appropriate.

If philosophy has to be holistic, then shouldn't it include a metaphilosophical theory that shows us where to start? — 83nt0n

What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions.

Does a tree have a 'most important' branch? — A SeagullIt's trunk. — 180 Proof

Why?

The trunk cannot exist without the roots and leaves
The roots cannot exist without the trunk and leaves
The leaves cannot exist without the roots and trunk.

Philosophy has to be holistic or it is nothing.

Maybe not, but it needs roots. Let's not take the tree analogy too far though. — 83nt0n

It needs leaves too.

Where does that leave us when it comes to the truth about the truth? — Judaka

It is subjective... as someone has already pointed out there are many theories of truth.. take your pick... or create your own.

Does a tree have a 'most important' branch?

Picturing an entire galaxy in your mind is impossible. — 83nt0n

Not with practice.

When you gotta go, you gotta go. If there is choice around that, then that is your choice.

People are beautiful, life is wonderful. What is your problem? Presumably it is all in your head.

Question to you: Imagine I or person like me does something horrible to you or someone like you, and yours or those like yours. I say I'm right - or have a right - to do these things. You supposedly will say I don't. But at the same time you represent these as mere matters of opinion. It seems to me that if there is a notion of right, we both cannot be right, else a thing both be and not be. That is, if you're correct, there is no such thing as a right. Please reconcile. — tim wood

I'm not very much into hypotheticals, but I will try to answer your question.

I would not say that you 'don't have a right'.

If the horrible thing a person has done is against the law of the land, and I lived in a non-corrupt democracy then I might report the incident to the appropriate authorities.

If it is not against the law of the land then I have some options:

!. I could ignore it in a stoic way.
2. Retaliate in a way that would make the 'horrible action' a net loss for the person.
3. Try to persuade the person that such horrible actions were not in their best interest.

I would not consider that arguing about somewhat abstract rights and wrongs would be a productive course of action.

It seems to me than many users here are lacking in their knowledge of different philosophical schools and concepts — Wheatley

You seem to think that the study and the gaining of knowledge about philosophy requires knowledge of different philosophical 'schools'; are you able to justify this?

I don't follow links.

However, it is believed that dark matter makes up about 80% of the universe’s mass — christian2017

You are confusing dark matter with dark energy.

I came across this quote recently, despite being written some 250 years ago it is still relevant today and to this thread.:

'Opinion rules the world, but in the long run it is the philosophers who shape this opinion' - Rousseau.

Happiness" is a stupid word anyway and should never be used in any context requiring thought. . — Baden

Just because you don't understand the meaning of the word, it doesn't mean that no one does.

Why not? Is the opinion that slavery is OK not wrong? — Banno

Not necessarily. Not if the opinion is genuinely held. The merits or otherwise of slavery depend to a large degree on the social, economic and technological situation of time and place.

Your judgement that slavery is 'wrong' is your opinion.

The open question remains:

Might public opinion be morally wrong?

Hence, what is good is not the same as what is public opinion. — Banno

An opinion cannot be 'morally wrong'.

'Good' cannot be equivalent to 'public opinion'.

Sure morality is subjective but your argument is circular, the ability to influence public opinion is power and you say public opinion is influenced by power. — Judaka

Maybe its not a circular argument, but instead an indication of a feedback loop.

Public opinion creates power which in turn creates public opinion which creates more power..... like a whirlpool, it sucks people in.

I desire some heroin. Who'd have thunk it was so easy. Happiness here I come. :party: — Baden

And what about tomorrow?

You can map some questions to statements which have binary (maybe trinary , etc...) truth values:

Is the cat black?

Maps to:

The cat is black (with a truth value of true or false). — Devans99

That is an over simplification. truth values only have logical meaning in abstract systems.

There are many varieties of 'black' in the real world.

In short unless your a millionaire or one of the lucky few happy with your life, you'd be much happier as a squirrel or elephant. — Gitonga

Or possibly as a hunter gatherer in the snowy north or the amazon jungle?

What's necessary for a question to exist? — Daniel

A question mark?

Then it's all opinion, but then where's the right? Or are you just indirectly claiming there is no right? — tim wood

Yes it is all opinion. You claim to like definitions... so what is your definition of 'right'?

You're shifting the burden of proof. If you want to argue that morality isn't objective then you need to set out the premises that lead to this conclusion. It isn't enough just to say that I can't prove that morality is objective. — Michael

Not necessarily. When discussing deep philosophy one has to start from a position of ignorance not that of popular opinion.

Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James — 3017amen

Philosophy is communicated in words, that is all.

NICE. What causes consciousness? Was it you, or Hume that figured that one out !?

Put in a quarter and try again! Lol — 3017amen

What has that got to do with it? Do you actually want to know what causes consciousness or was that just a rhetorical question?

No matter how you think of it, causation, by definition, is metaphysical, is it not? — 3017amen

What is called 'causation' is just an association of events - as cogently pointed out by Hume.

Time has a start. So there is a state of existence without time. This state must of somehow 'caused' the start of time. I fail to see what problem you have with regards to this deduction? It seems quite reasonable to me. — Devans99

It seems to me that you are just playing with words.

Do you have knowledge of what exists outside the universe? — 3017amen

No one does. Although some might pretend to do so.

I'll just come out and say it. You don't necessarily own your body at least until you are dead. — unenlightened

Ownership comes down to what you can defend or control, whether it be your body, possessions or land. Sometimes you can defend it on your own and sometimes it requires assistance from others through community or law. And if you can't defend it, you cannot claim ownership.

Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness.... — A Seagull
Not sure I'm following you there. — 3017amen

My point is simply that there is a lot of data for what occurs within our universe but none for what may lie outside of it, And when one is referring to the origin of the universe one is presumably referring to things outside our universe (unless one claims that our universe is self created), for which there is no data.