Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of.If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer.
— Chet Hawkins
I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case. — AmadeusD
You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal.So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :) — AmadeusD
Again, in isolation I'd have to keep referring back. For the purposes of this post, I really am not sure what you are responding to here.I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman.
— Chet Hawkins
Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above). — AmadeusD
I have offered reasons as to why this is so, but, I believe my original post mentioned that I assume it as a part of this sub-theory. To argue in good faith here it is required to assume that as well.Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins
No it isn't. *shrug*. — AmadeusD
Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not).Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant.
— Chet Hawkins
It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange. — AmadeusD
I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality.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
I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me. — AmadeusD
Again, we cannot be objective. We can only try to be objective.But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all.
— Chet Hawkins
Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts. — AmadeusD
That is correct.So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all.
— Chet Hawkins
If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify! — AmadeusD
Right back at you.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
This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. — AmadeusD
All academia partakes of order-apology, fear oriented dependence only on a single path of happiness, that of fear. Fear seeks certainty and safety which are effectively delusional. They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels.Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations. — AmadeusD
A free standing denial is nothing really. No reason is given or explained.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
Its utterly impossible, in fact. — AmadeusD
Yes, well, egg-breaking, omelet. You are saying nothing. I have no idea how to respond.Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...).
— 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: — AmadeusD
EQ is the emotional analog to IQ.EQ? What is EI?
— Chet Hawkins
Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol). — AmadeusD
You do not say why it is incoherent. That helps no one.\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
This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there. — AmadeusD
Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious. Humor is acceptable. Even anger. But just saying 'no you're wrong' is not helpful in any way.You missed it.
— Chet Hawkins
I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here... — AmadeusD
As mentioned that was assumed here.objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD.
— Chet Hawkins
But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it. — AmadeusD
But you do not say why it is bizarre and unsupportable. So, who cares? I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it.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 would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P — AmadeusD
Read the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread.I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:
How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view. — AmadeusD
Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of. — Chet Hawkins
I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same. — Chet Hawkins
You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal. — Chet Hawkins
explained mine. You did not. — Chet Hawkins
I'd have to keep referring back. — Chet Hawkins
I have offered reasons as to why this is so — Chet Hawkins
Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not). — Chet Hawkins
I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality — Chet Hawkins
his thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself. — Chet Hawkins
Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. — Chet Hawkins
objectivity is needed to obtain anything, — Chet Hawkins
They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels. — Chet Hawkins
You do not say why it is incoherent — Chet Hawkins
That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that? — Chet Hawkins
Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious — Chet Hawkins
It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread. — Chet Hawkins
I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it. — Chet Hawkins
ead the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread — Chet Hawkins
I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply.
— Chet Hawkins
Can you give some examples? — RogueAI
Ok let's examine that.To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense. — LuckyR
So far so GOOD.If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, — LuckyR
Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? — LuckyR
Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.One would have a clear conscience. — LuckyR
The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action
(antichrist 4); it's a phrase that reppears similarly in the gay science 995something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents
owing to happy and reasonable marriages and also to lucky accidents, the acquired and accumulated forces of many generations, instead of being squandered and subdivided, have been assembled together by means of steadfast struggling and willing. And thus, in the end, a man appears... and the wretched intellectual play of aims and intentions and motivations lies only in the foreground
"so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy?"
— LuckyR
Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.
"One would have a clear conscience."
— LuckyR
Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.
No, in fact this is easily demonstrable as not true.Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism. — LuckyR
People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.
I suppose my answer is strange to you. I am not perfect, so the GOOD eludes me. But my intent is as good as I can make it for now. I do not really 'pat myself on the back' for this at all. That is smugness. The smug Gods punish people mightily for smugness. At the poker table I see this all the time.Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.
Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally. — LuckyR
I do not know how I missed this post before. Wonderful!If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral? — Philosophim
Of course I cannot prove it. I would not want to.The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? — Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists? — Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity? — Philosophim
For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept. — Chet Hawkins
Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. — Chet Hawkins
Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that? — Chet Hawkins
If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.
But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong. — Chet Hawkins
The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.
So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.
Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way
one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it — kindred
I agree that things that are right are usually simple, a corollary to what you said here. It is essentially the Occam's Razor argument. But the thing is, it is simple. The only thing complex about it is the interactions of the virtues. And that is actually simple, just a wee bit harder when you combine them.It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its an indicator it does not. But, it DOES mean that there is something to that overall goal that has universal appeal, and we sure do want something about that goal. — Philosophim
I countered those problems. You claiming this means you did not understand. That, or you did not give a counter argument.So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. — Philosophim
No, there is nothing wrong with that. And if you make that claim you should explain why. I did explain the pro.We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. — Philosophim
Yes, that one is super easy. But we are trying to get to the hard one. The mix of virtues as wisdom and the mix of virtues for additive happiness. The third realization is the normal value of happiness being deemed 'ok' by the person regardless of how bad it is.But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal. — Philosophim
So, no. That would only be one virtue or maybe two, achievement and accuracy. So yes, these two would offer their contributions to happiness. But what about beauty, joy, unity, awareness, preparedness, connectedness, challenge, etc? So, the only virtues being fulfilled that I can detect for sure in your example are the two. It is then a tautology that perfection will not be pleased. It will pull you to do more or do what you do better. It will try to involve all virtues equally as that is the balance of truth and nature.So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then? — Philosophim
Indeed. There are virtues that center on each of the primal emotions, part of my model. The basic sin of desire is self-indulgence. The restraint of balancing fear is needed to help counter desire. That fear is fear of damage or 'going too far' with the emotion. What does 'going too far' sound like? If you mapped the strength of the virtues you will see that a person very high on the desire virtues as well as the desire infused virtues has a greater chance of being self-indulgent as a pattern in life. That is because that one virtue is over-expressed. It supports my model entirely. I have found no aspect of reality that does not support my model. I am here to see if there is some, in part.The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others. — Philosophim
Aiming at objective moral truth, from any point (state) will yield the greatest happiness. You can take the circuitous route all of us do, but that yields less happiness and less and less the more distal the aim is from the perfect point of objective moral truth.Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions. — Philosophim
Ultimately, all virtues funnel into the unity principle as might be expected. I mean, ... unity, duh. But the deeper truth is that you can build a compelling connection between any two virtues and that connection will show enough similar ties and strength to explain why all virtues are equal, despite the intuition that they are not. Why is beauty and expression equal to accuracy? Why is unity the equal of connection? But it turns out that each virtue can only be equal or morality and reality could not happen.For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.
— Chet Hawkins
I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others." — Philosophim
Certainty cannot ever be had, so it had better not be needed.Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is.
— Chet Hawkins
Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed. — Philosophim
Nope.Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?
— Chet Hawkins
If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. — Philosophim
And their cowardly need for certainty will remain a foolish cross to bear. It will eke them out of life itself. They should choose not to live in fear. That means over-expressed fear, like the need for certainty over courage and will.Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced. — Philosophim
Well then, yes, chase maturity (wisdom).If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.
But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more. — Philosophim
Ha ha! Thank you. I appreciate the testing ground for my model and my ideas.Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion. — Philosophim
The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.
So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.
Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way
↪Chet Hawkins
Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).
Right but experiments are within reality. Reality perforce includes the inability to attain perfection. So an experiment in which the word perfect is used is often a red flag, if you follow. That was what I was objecting to, and I explained that.
— LuckyR
It does, actually.Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease. — LuckyR
I feel like I should be insulted.As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings". — LuckyR
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.