Yes, emotions are *one of* the foundation of our moral principles, but so is logic. — Kinglord1090

Why is it logical to refrain from causing suffering, if we can get away with it?

And logically speaking, it takes much less resources to not kill someone. — Kinglord1090

What if it saved resources by killing someone (for example the disabled that cannot contribute)?

Any why is it logical to preserve resources?

As our emotions are the foundation of our moral principles, there would be no reason to refrain from causing others suffering, provided we can get away with it.

So you think it is mostly a genetic matter? — dimosthenis9

There is debate on whether we are primarily shaped by our genes, or our environment. I am tempted to say genes, but I haven't given it serious thought.

In any event, even our environment can motivate us more than our logic. For example if someone's born and bred in the middle east, their environment has likely led to them being a Muslim, and someone born and bred in India, their environment has likely led to them being Hindu. Not to say these religious beliefs are wrong, just that people's environment has taken precedence over their logic in developing their beliefs.

People are shaped by their genes and environment. Even the smartest people have to fight against their prejudices.

In an infinite duration anything that can happen, probably will.

Either some-thing or no-thing, has existed for an infinite duration. Even things that are ridiculously unlikely to occur in a finite duration are likely to occur in an infinite duration.

How can a good god condemn people to infinite suffering in hell for finite offence/s. Infinite punishment will always exceed just punishment for finite offence/s. — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is not an argument that God doesn't exist. This is an argument that God is not good. — T Clark

Which as @elucid alludes to, is a case against the most popular, including Christianity.

As an agnostic I'm not convinced of any arguments against a deist god.

How can a good god condemn people to infinite suffering in hell for finite offence/s. Infinite punishment will always exceed just punishment for finite offence/s.

I completely understand and agree with your reasoning for morality being subjective. Our disagreement is academic rather than practical, and I appreciate you engaging.

That simply doesn't follow. If the only basis I have for believing in Napoleon is a book I read about Napoleon, that doesn't mean Napoleon is made of paper and ink. — Bartricks

But it would be different if the only basis we can have, the only basis that exist for believing in Napoleon is the book you read about Napoleon. Then he would ipso facto be made only of paper and ink.

That our intuitions are the only basis we can have for moral beliefs, is surely a reason for labelling them subjective? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I was arguing from the grounds that our intuitions are the only basis that exist for moral beliefs. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am thinking of a sinking ship. Although the passengers are not the ship, as the ship is their only basis they too are sinking, and there are no other ships or helicopters (basis) to save the passengers from their fate. Our ship, our intuitions, are subjective, the beliefs they support share the same fate.

Note too, that the conclusion you will have arrived at is that morality is made of our individual or collective subjective states, yes? — Bartricks

Either that or it doesn't exist. There is no evidence of an alternative.

That's obviously false: if I have the intuition that Xing is right, that does not entail that it is right, does it? Yet on your view it would. That's absurd. — Bartricks

Either it's subjectively right, or moral rights and wrongs don't exist.

That's why it is possible that morality doesn't exist. There's no doubt moral beliefs and intuitions exist. But that doesn't by itself entail that morality itself exists - because morality is not made of beliefs and intuitions. — Bartricks

Morality 'is' subjective. — Bartricks

So you believe morality is subjective but it's possible it doesn't exist? Do you see evidence of any alternatives?

I was arguing from the grounds that our intuitions are the only basis that exist for moral beliefs. In which case the moral beliefs are not based on objective facts, but subjective intuitions - and are best labelled subjective as a result.

That our intuitions are the only basis we can have for moral beliefs, is surely a reason for labelling them subjective? — Down The Rabbit Hole

@Deus

Well this is one of the issues. The varying degrees of Atheism so it really is a debate between hard atheism and soft atheism (aka Agnosticism?) — Deus

Yes, I'm a soft atheist, an agnostic. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a hard atheist, believing there is no god.

It's probably about time I re-read his book The God Delusion.

I don’t know ask them…I’m just going by the definition of atheism as to how they rule it out I have no idea but I guess they rule it out due to lack of evidence. — Deus

The definition just says that atheism is, disbelief (non-belief) in God. It doesn't mean the atheist rules out the existence of God.

How does the atheist rule out the existence of God?

When I say "feelings" I am referring to our intuitions. That our intuitions are the only basis we can have for moral beliefs, is surely a reason for labelling them subjective? — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, because the intuitions are 'of' morality and do not compose it. It's to confuse a vehicle of awareness with its object.
So, I can see a chair. The visual impression is in my mind. It doesn't follow that the chair is.
All states of awareness are mental. It doesn't follow that everything we are aware of is in our mind.
Morality is subjective, but that's a fallacious way of arriving at the correct conclusion. — Bartricks

If our intuitions are subjective, it follows that everything stemming from them including our values are too?

In any event, our intuitions are the sole basis for us holding our values, whereas unmoral facts have a basis outside of our individual minds. I think this in itself justifies a difference in labelling.

If there is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat and also there is no reason to believe we are in base reality, it means you know that neither of them is true. If there is no reason to believe that I am a fool, it means I know I am not a fool. So the answer is anyway "Yes, I know". — Alkis Piskas

No. What's the name for someone that sees no reason to believe there is a god and no reason to believe no god exists? An agnostic. And that doesn't mean an agnostic knows that neither option is true.

As no evidence would prove one way or the other whether we are in reality or an illusion, it's reasonable to be agnostic on the question.

As to your fool analogy. Just because you, the potential fool, see no reason to believe you're a fool, it doesn't mean you know you're not a fool.

Although that's a psychological claim rather than a metaethical one and is not equivalent to what I am saying.

I am not saying that morality is subjective because we feel some acts are right and some wrong and feelings are subjective states. That would be to commit the fallacy of confusing a cause of a belief or impression with what it is 'about'.

I am saying that morality is subjective because it is made of prescriptions and values and only subjects - minds - can issue prescriptions and value things.

So, I believe some acts are wrong. I believe Xing is wrong. What, exactly, am I believing when I believe X is wrong? Well, I believe that the act is one we are commanded not to perform. So, what would it take for my belief to be true? Well, there would have to be a command not to perform the act.

Would a command of my own do the trick? Well, no. For in order for my commands to be capable of rendering moral beliefs true, I would need to be responsible for everyone - now and throughout history - getting the impression of moral commands. And I am not responsible for that - i have had no hand in it at all. And so the truth maker of my moral belief that Xing is wrong is not my own commanding activity.

Thus, the truth maker of moral beliefs must be the subjective states of some third party. — Bartricks

When I say "feelings" I am referring to our intuitions. That our intuitions are the only basis we can have for moral beliefs, is surely a reason for labelling them subjective?

I should explain why morality is subjective.
To say that something is objective is to say something about its mode of existence. More specifically, it is to say that it exists outside a mind's mental states. So, the 'objective physical world' denotes a place that exists outside anyone's mind.
By contrast, if something is subjective, then it exists inside a mind or minds- that is, it exists as mental states; states of a subject.
Morality is subjective because morality is made of prescriptions and values. But only minds can issue prescriptions or value anything. Thus morality exists as the prescriptions and values of a mind. And thus it is subjective. — Bartricks

That's a good way of putting it. The only honest answer for why someone holds their moral axioms is because they feel the axioms are right.

I think @TheMadFool is concerned about where this leads us. Why is it wrong to cause suffering? If there's no articulable reason, why should a psychopath refrain from causing it if they can get away with it?

No. There is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat, but there is equally no reason to believe we are in base reality - the experience would feel "real" either way.
— Down The Rabbit Hole
That is, your answer to the question "Do you know whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat ..." is actually Yes. You do know. Right? :) — Alkis Piskas

My answer is No I don't know whether or not I'm a brain in a vat. On the basis that there is no reason to believe either way.

Q. Why does this first cause exist?

A. There is no reason for its existence.

Q. Why is there no reason for its existence?

A. Because nothing caused it.

Q. ....

It doesn't make sense to ask "why did nothing cause it"!

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion. — baker

I've witnessed fish being caught at the sea-side with crowds of dozens of people forming. I do think some of the people would have said something if they saw @IanBlain stamping on bees instead.

Ahh "I don't know" doesn't end the regress. Luckily my interrogator let me off the hook there.

If we regressed back to a first thing that has always existed and gave rise to everything else - as it has no cause, no reason for being, we should get to a definitive answer?

It's a trick children discover early, they can keep asking why and get a new response. What criteria should terminate Why? or Why not? Is it possible to create universal criteria that answers the question why?. — Cheshire

Yep, I've been subject to a child's "why treatment" :groan: In each round it didn't take long before I had to admit "I don't know".

I guess it can only end with "I don't know" unless we know absolutely everything?

I did predict that most respondents would vote morality is not objective, but I am surprised the majority of those voted it is relative.

EDIT: Subjective and Relative votes are equal now. I'm still surprised so many voted relative.

I did want to push the respondents to give the best label for morality as a whole.

For example, some people say that although the goal (wellbeing etc) is subjective, morality is best labelled as objective on the basis that our means of achieving the goal are objective. Others believe as I do that if the foundations are subjective, they, and everything stemming from them are best labelled subjective.

"The apple is likely to drop to the ground when unrestricted as it has always dropped to the ground when unrestricted before". You are justified in predicting based upon a pattern you have observed.

This is objectively true, and I don't believe you need further reasoning for the belief.

Whereas

The only ultimate explanation for why "suffering is bad" is that we feel it is. — Down The Rabbit Hole

And the only ultimate explanation for why "observation is reality" is because it looks like it is. In both cases we're appealing to our experiences: experiences of things seeming true or false, or experiences of things seeming good or bad. The only differences is that you accept sense-experience as a valid reason to believe something or not, but you don't accept appetitive experience as a valid reason to intend something or not. What reason do you have to accept one over the other? If someone just refuses to accept that observation has any bearing on reality, what then? NB that I think there is a sound response to that kind of skepticism, but then that response also defeats moral skepticism in the same blow. — Pfhorrest

I am sympathetic to the case you're making. As I said in the brain-in-a-vat thread, there is no reason to believe we are even in reality. Nonetheless I think it is best labelled as objective fact (even if only in an illusory world) that the apple is likely to fall to the ground when unrestricted - with the pattern in the sensory input the basis for the belief.

My views are already wacky enough, don't tempt me towards nihilism :lol:

Yes, if this were a simulation there is no way for us to know the energy available in the real world. It could be unlimited.

Even going off what we see in this world, a video game character such as in Minecraft or Grand Theft Auto would assume they are in the reality, as even the limits of the map are just part of their "reality" as the limits of the universe are ours.

There is no way for us to tell whether or not we are in base reality.

You conclude what you've assumed, it seems to me. If one asks "why", then only a "subjective" answer (re: intentions) will suffice – thus, age old category mistakes like asking e.g. "why does the world exist"– but objectively the "subject" is the rider and not the elephant, so to speak. "Feeling" guides but does not ground, or explain, objective morality; only human suffering and eusociality factually ground moral agency ... just as our bodies systemically enable-constrain our "feelings" (affective cognition). — 180 Proof

I think we still have the same problem if we remove the "why". If one asserts "suffering is a bad thing" they still have to have a basis for this belief.

You say "human suffering and eusociality" factually grounds moral agency. Is there a way to articulate this position to support your belief (I presume you hold) that "suffering is a bad thing"?

No. There is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat, but there is equally no reason to believe we are in base reality - the experience would feel "real" either way.

"The apple is likely to drop to the ground when unrestricted as it has always dropped to the ground when unrestricted before". You are justified in predicting based upon a pattern you have observed.

This is objectively true, and I don't believe you need further reasoning for the belief.

Whereas

The only ultimate explanation for why "suffering is bad" is that we feel it is.

How is that any different from the infinite regress that comes with “is” questions? At some point you just say “it just looks like it’s that way!” Observation is subjective too. — Pfhorrest

I think there is objective foundation for non-moral beliefs. For example "X usually happens when I do Y, therefore now I am doing Y, X is likely to happen". That's an objective fact.

Sounds nice to me. Losing the ego?

The regress of asking why things are bad eventually has to end with the honest answer "because I feel it is". For example: Q. why is undue violence a bad thing?, A. because it causes suffering, Q. why is suffering a bad thing, A. ??? - Even if that's not where the regress stops for you, it will eventually have to stop at "because I feel it is" (subjective)?

The problem in this world is indoctrination from a young age. Many grow up and have to actively question everything they've been taught in order to dismiss those irrational beliefs. Since most people are biased and don't fundamentally think with reason and logic, very few wake up from that indoctrination. It is their fundamental worldview, their Plato cave. — Christoffer

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education." - Bertrand Russell

I like the idea of using it to increase well-being, but this could be outweighed by the reverse.

You would still be applying logic to arrive at your position of non-belief right? It is logical to withhold belief in the absence of evidence.
I don’t see why logic wouldn't be applicable. — DingoJones

I don't think everyone gets there through logic.

A new born baby is a non-believer, and ostensibly does not get there through logic. I'm sure it's the same for many adults: they don't get to non-belief by thinking about the evidence or lack thereof - it's just default.

Is X correct that relying on causal relationships and casual inferences is not justified and should not be held more reliable than 11 witnesses? — AndreasJ

To believe something, my evidential threshold is higher than "more likely than not". However a civil court's is not.

One thing that goes to credibility of witnesses, is their motivation to lie. If the 11 witnesses were testifying at a criminal trial that someone was involved in a shooting, they have no real reason to conspire to lie about it and are more credible, than if a conspiracy would be worth a share of 5 million dollars.

There's so many variables it's hard if not impossible to say.

When I think of the people in my life, particularly the women, shopping brings them so much happiness - and advertising encourages this behaviour that brings happiness.

Even people that have no interest in material things, would be unhappier upon losing free sites such as Youtube and porn sites. Some people that are depressed etc, having nothing else to live for.

Or the subconscious may have its own logic as Jack says. You can always try telling it to look into it and see what it comes up with. — Apollodorus

You mean by encouraging lucid dreaming?

Some people don't seem to remember their dreams as much as others and I don't think that there are any clear explanations why. I know that there are times when I don't really remember them and other times when I remember so many that I feel tired just from thinking about them.

It is unclear whether it means one has been asleep but not in REM sleep. I don't think that you should really worry if you don't have dreams to recall, and this may change.I know people who don't think that they dream and it changes. The subconscious may have its own logic. — Jack Cummins

I'm going to have to do some research. I can only remember the subject of two dreams since childhood - one of which I remember none of the sequence of events, the other I can only remember seconds of. It's a shame, because I think they were nice dreams too.

Beyond having enough money to operate a secure but frugal lifestyle (up to $75,0000 what do you think the mechanism is of money's contribution to one's number of friends, happiness, frequency of satisfying orgasms, happiness, et al?

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking.

And what happens after $75,000? Does too much wealth begin to sour? I ask because I've never come close to $75,000, so I know not what it would do for me. — Bitter Crank

That study suggesting happiness peaks at $75,000 was done by Angus Deaton, the 2015 Nobel laureate in economics, but a new study from the University of Pennsylvania suggest happiness rises well above $75,000. Source: https://www.verywellmind.com/happiness-doesn-t-top-out-at-usd75-000-study-says-5097098

I suppose the poor still have enough sex and relationships to bring them happiness. I haven't had time to have a good look at the data, but increases may be marginal.

I think Deaton's study showed a levelling off of happiness as opposed to a drop after the 75k. I think you eventually max out the amount of friends, romantic relationships, and even sex you can fit into your life.

More studies would need to be done, but a happiness cap would strengthen the case for redistribution of wealth. The right would obviously argue such studies are lefty propaganda, which will damage ambition and thus the economy :roll:

Inability to dream can be a sign of lack of certain vitamins or minerals in your system or some other medical condition. In Ancient Greece and other cultures certain plants were used as an aid to stimulate dreams. Wreaths of rosemary or oregano were worn on the head or twigs placed under the pillow. Apparently, basil has the same effect. The plants can also be eaten or essential oils from them inhaled. — Apollodorus

All I've eaten for the last few years is plants :lol: And even before this I always had a relatively healthy diet, nothing like the "Standard American Diet".

Maybe my Crohn's/Colitis is causing lack of absorption or something.