How are you defining naturalistic fallacy? — apokrisis

It's some form of the is-ought problem.. If this is what "nature" does, it must be good, because nature does it.. This is a circular argument. It even applies to goals- because person A has goal B, means that he can achieve it with C, so C must be good because it causes him to achieve it. Of course, the goal is not justified, simply how to attain it is identified. In your case, this problem applies because continued survival is not justified simply because it is a preference or because nature tends to produce creatures that continue to survive.

Humans have self-reflection (ability to reflect on our existential situation with conceptual thought) and deliberation (ability to choose out of a variety of choices). Though humans were caused by natural forces, and are a part of nature, we are different from other parts of nature in the abilities to self-reflect and deliberate. Do you dispute that we have these abilities? If we both agree, humans are part of nature, but different than other parts in at least these abilities, it can be argued that humans can reflect on their existential situation, evaluate it its positive or negative value (or nature), and deliberate on what action to take on this evaluation.

You claim that

If you ask me what is the good, I would have to say look to nature and see what it is doing. It seems to like entropification but also negenentropic stucture (as you can't have one without the other in fact). It seems to like homeostatic enduring balances (as what else could exist?). — apokrisis

This right here is an example of the is-ought.. "Looks to nature see what it is doing". Before I go further, first, I must say you don't connect your scientific-laden jargon with the context of evaluation of life, which is the question we are debating- "Is human life (along with its institutions) worth maintaining/continuing"? You talk of "entropification/negentropic structure" and and "homeostatic enduring balances". You leave too much to the reader to misinterpret your intention here. I can try myself, but if you come back and say that I have misinterpreted it, then you have failed to convey your meaning to your audience.. and would rather name-call than actually write concisely and clearly (possibly hiding a weakness in your claim).

Entropy- Thermodynamics.
(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
(in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S.
2.
(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3.
(in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death) — dictionary.com

In a biological context, the negentropy (also negative entropy, syntropy, extropy, ectropy or entaxy[1]) of a living system is the entropy that it exports to keep its own entropy low; it lies at the intersection of entropy and life. In other words Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos. — Negentropy in Wikipedia

So by this definition, I can only extrapolate that what you mean is that humans, having the ability for negentropy, are trying to maintain this negentropy among a backdrop of the general tendency towards entropification. If I was to take this interpretation as true I see the following flaw:

1) This lacks much efficacy for ethics. This in no way entails a justification of ethics simply because biological systems tend to be negentropic.

1a) To extrapolate an ethical meaning from this would be committing the is-ought error, as your claim takes an observable physical fact of systems, and raise it to the level of ethical heuristic for human guidance. In a very roundabout way, it's like saying "The Eagle flies swift to catch its prey..so I must fly swift to catch my prey" or some such thing.

1b) The concept of negentropy does not entail a Taoist-like ethics that you promulgate. You are conflating human psychology and behavior with a concept of physics making a category error. The burden of proof is on you to explain how human behavior MUST achieve this or that goal. The problem here is that you are equating human concepts, goals, preferences, and motivations with some sort of natural principle of negentropy. Just because the outcome of what we do is negentropic does not mean our goals, preferences, and motivations HAVE to somehow "help this outcome along" or "not help this outcome along" (whatever direction you theory wants to say). This again, is unjustified, a category error, and is committing the is-ought problem.

Now, what I propose would have little to do with your negentropy/entropy based ethics altogether- as it is a non-sequitor in the realm of human ethical/aesthetic/value judgements in terms of what one MUST do. It really does not fit and is shoehorned into the equation. Rather, what is the case is that humans are self-reflective and deliberative beings. We can evaluate our very own existence, and judge it accordingly.

If we look at human life- we see that there are necessary harms entailed in being self-reflective. We can feel an emptiness at the end of pursuits, a disappointment, a world-weariness. If you have never felt this way, I cannot dispute it, but I know others have. It goes away with yet other pursuits and goals and pleasures to evade and distract, but it is the feeling when none of this is stimulating the body/mind. It is the feeling that we are pursuing to pursue, maintaining to maintain, doing to do. This is the structural harm of instrumentality. Our minds are complex and need more entertainments and novelties, but it cannot simply BE. Being itself is not enough and thus we pursue all these "intra-worldly" pursuits but the problem of Being itself- the never being satisfied is still there. This is compounded by contingent harms. These are harms produced by the intra-worldly things. It can be internal (pathology) or it could be external (harmful experiences and situations). These contingent harms ride on top of the already harmful nature of the dissatisfaction we have as complex self-reflecting animals. We are dissatisfied and harmed, yet we maintain it and continue it. We maintain to maintain.

We can feel an emptiness at the end of pursuits, a disappointment, a world-weariness. — schopenhauer1

Sure. And we can feel the opposite. So from which "is" should we derive the "ought" here?

You are saying because you, in the end, experience "nothing but harms", then that ought to be the outcome of everyone's "self reflection". If it isn't, you get angry and tell them that they are fooling themselves and not being honest with you.

But if it is natural to feel mixed feelings upon reflection, and we can see a pattern to what feels better, what feels worse, then why shouldn't that be the real deal? Why can't we use our self-awareness to make sense of our world in that fashion?

You want to argue from an is to an ought, and that's fine. But it is just the wrong "is". The way people feel is at least mixed.

Then likewise you employ an outdated mechanical characterisation of nature. You talk in reductionist terms about a nature without purpose or order. So your is-ought argument there becomes nature has no meaning, therefore our personal existence can have no natural meaning.

So your argument is rife with naturalistic reasoning. You simply have an overly simplistic model of nature. Just as you have an overly simplistic account of what it is to experience being alive.

By rejecting an organicist metaphysics which sees nature as reasonable and the only possible source of telos, you do the Romantic thing of making meaning and purpose transcendent. That used to mean God moving in His mysterious ways. Since God died, the standing outside of nature is now left to your own good self - Schop who must judge his existence and finds it wanting.

But again, I say that comes down to a particular cultural way of looking at things. You didn't actually figure out anything new. You just read some books and decided nature is mechanical and so any "submission" to nature is bogus. Life has been thrust upon you without giving you a choice. Feelings of harm have been thrust upon you without any choice.

You see the appeal to transcendence that soaks your argument through and through? There is this "me" that is forever retreating from the advances of the world. Hey world, you force life on me, you force feelings on me. But in the end, what is this "me" doing all the complaining?

Clearly it claims to stand outside nature. Yet I would say - from a naturalist point of view - that it is just a cultural habit making its particular noise. It's a meme. A trope. An example of brain washing. We just don't get to stand outside nature or reality in this way.

This meme that has invaded your head of course fears greatly for its own preservation. That is why it flinches every time the words "positive psychology" is mentioned. The pessimist's meme has a horror of being re-written and goes on the attack.

It's nature at work as usual. Pessimism works to ensure its survival by resisting its annihalation. Do you ever wonder why you feel forced to keep saying and thinking the things you do?

Sure. And we can feel the opposite. So from which "is" should we derive the "ought" here? — apokrisis

So you defend yourself by attacking my argument? I don't think I should defend my arguments until you actually come to grips with the critiques I laid out in the previous post. That seems only fair in this debate. Then, maybe I can address some points here. Why even put time into the previous post if we are going to do a switch based on the affirmative claim that I made and ignore the critiques of your claims?

I've shown how you are making an is-ought argument, but based on a false mechanical view of nature and false pessimistic representation of phenomenology (in a normal undepresed person at any rate).