It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins
Isn't Good the foundation of morality, rather than happiness? Maybe happiness is linked to Good. If so, how so?It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins
A person cannot be evil. Only their choices are. Likewise a person cannot be good. Only their choices are. — Chet Hawkins
Of course one virtue of the good is forgiveness. The wise forgive everything and as near to perfect in forgiveness as can be chosen. — Chet Hawkins
I do not know how to quote on this forum — Chet Hawkins
To me, it is precisely similar to saying, 'my gravity is different'. — Chet Hawkins
I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins
Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. Part of my aim is to suggest that we as a species need to develop better and better means of measuring not just consequences of choices, but in fact the intents behind them (such that Kant would be proud).The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. — Wayfarer
Disagreements are to be adjudicated in the same way they always have been and must be, by conflict. You can call this conflict war, discussion, or merely change and none of that makes any difference (to me).What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated? — Wayfarer
Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. — Chet Hawkins
Just so, and of course, as follows, all us jolly good chaps would naturally seek that method out. That is what I am trying to help say, do, etc.Ah, you mean it’s a scientific question, but our science just ain’t good enough? — Wayfarer
Well, let's attempt to be realistic in some ways despite the immoral cop-out. My life has finite time in it and stating the entire canon of human philosophy in a single post thread is epically hard.I think this is what Vaskane was getting at - Nietszche’s remark about ‘Englishmen’ being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldn’t be cricket, you know. — Wayfarer
If morality is objective as a law of the universe and the main feedback or consequence we have to scientifically judge it is level of happiness, then no forum, no topic, is divorced from this topic. It is germane to all topics. I do believe that. — Chet Hawkins
Maybe you don't understand the question, and doesn't know the difference between happiness and good in morality. It was not a joke, but just a plain philosophical question.So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you. — Chet Hawkins
Happiness is a psychological term, and is a subjective mental state. If you say, happiness is the foundation of morality, and some theft are moral, then that view is an extreme moral subjectivist. What makes you happy can make the others unhappy. There is no such thing as universal happiness. Moral good emerges from the good conducts of an agent, and have little to do with personal happiness.I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins
Will do. I had kind of resisted the temptation to tack on after 17 pages of ... engagement. I wanted to imply in no way that I had read it all. What do you think? Is it a sin (ha ha)?Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. — Wayfarer
It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. — Chet Hawkins
Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins
morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins
My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness — Chet Hawkins
My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues. — Chet Hawkins
My 6th contention — Chet Hawkins
Eh? Absolute?It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality.
— Chet Hawkins
How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute. — AmadeusD
I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. Yikes!Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins
morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins
This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down). — AmadeusD
My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness
— Chet Hawkins
This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'. — AmadeusD
Sure you can.My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues.
— Chet Hawkins
I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. — AmadeusD
If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition. — AmadeusD
And you didnt include it in the text, slacker! Now I have to go look it up to respond 2nd order to my own post! Arg! Your meat is fine. Your desert sucks!My 6th contention
— Chet Hawkins
I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat: — AmadeusD
If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer. — Chet Hawkins
I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. — Chet Hawkins
Morality is objective. — Chet Hawkins
Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant. — Chet Hawkins
And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! ..... You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it! — Chet Hawkins
But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all. — Chet Hawkins
So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all. — Chet Hawkins
So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem. — Chet Hawkins
How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game! — Chet Hawkins
Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk:Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...). — Chet Hawkins
EQ? What is EI? — Chet Hawkins
But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering. — Chet Hawkins
You missed it. — Chet Hawkins
objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD. — Chet Hawkins
Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to. — Chet Hawkins
I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply. — Chet Hawkins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.