I appreciate your elaboration!

Although you didn’t cite it, it appears as though you are quoting the Genealogy of Morals. Firstly, I will just briefly comment that I think Nietzsche does a good job at outlining the historical facts about the development of [human] morality, but I don’t think his conclusion that “there is no objective morality” (to paraphrase) is correct. For example, I see absolutely no incoherence with me accepting Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals, and accepting that morals are stance-independent (albeit obviously not what he was going for). The common problem with Nietzsche’s moral anti-realism is that the evidence and support for it is entirely lacking in his works, because, quite frankly, he takes as granted the Dostoevskian idea that ~”without God, everything is permitted”. He makes absolutely no positive case for moral anti-realism in any of his works, and just primarily asserts it as an implication from the premise that God doesn’t exist.

Anyways, let me address specifically your use of his work here.

Unfortunately Goodness stemming from the term God (hence coming from perfection) is post the origins of the concept of "Good."

This is correct and perfectly well with my theory (although I am sure you seeing it as in opposition to my view in the OP): people have associated what is good with what is God (e.g., classical theism) for a LONG time; and it has only been recently in human history that we have found God to be irrelevant to what is good (or at least this is increasingly popular view amongst moral realists nowadays).

When I say that historically people have used notions of goodness that refer to either hypothetical or actual perfection (in the sense that I outlined it in the OP), I mean theism as an example of it. It is not a coincidence that the historical progression even within theism about God’s omnibenevolent nature has evolved such that we have slowly understood it to be universal harmony and unity.

We can see, that historically, the origins of goodness were deeply entwined with social status, power dynamics, and subjective perceptions of the aristocracy, rather than with any abstract or objective standards of perfection.

The historical analysis that you quoted here is all fine and correct, but you conclusion from it is not.
In short, the farther back one goes into human history, the closer a person’s notion of (moral) goodness is to the most egoistic context of self-harmony and self-unity; and the farther forward goes into human history, the closer a person’s notion of (moral) goodness is the most universal context of self-harmony and self-unity. All Nietzsche is doing in the Genealogy of Morals is providing most of the justification for this (without meaning to). He just sees this evoluation as a shift in tastes towards universal harmony and unity as opposed to an actual objective (moral) progression towards it.

So, yes, there are periods of history, a while ago, where it was common to define ‘good’ terms relative to the elite’s tastes or values; but, to my point, they still by-at-large recognized, implicitly at least in their notions of goodness, that what is good, in its most abstract form, is self-harmony and self-unity; which is self-apparent, in the case of an aristocracy, when one asks an elite noble what is good for them. People recognize almost innately the form of The Good when it comes to themselves: that’s why I think the most fundamental, primitive, and easily-understood context of moral goodness is egoism—it is incredibly obvious to almost anyone that what is best for them is to be in harmony and unity with themselves even if they cannot abstract out this form and apply it universally.

Regardless this is more than enough to show your binary approach is ham-fisted and cherry-picked at best.

I don’t see how your quote about aristocracies demonstrated my dualism (with respect to goodness) is a false dilemma or, as you put it, a reduction. I think, to be charitable, that you think that the fact that people have used terms like ‘good’ in very egoistic ways is somehow not completely reflected in my binary analysis—and I am here to say it does (;

There is of course a general usefulness to reduce something to binary opposites, especially in use for discussion, but it most certainly is an inaccurate representation of the many vary degrees and gradations of reality.

I understand the general approach you are taking, but you still have not given an example of a form of goodness that cannot be fit into my dualism; nor have you demonstrated, in the abstract, that it is, in the case of goodness, a false dilemma.

Aesthetic goodness is the same as your ‘beautiful goodness’, as far as I can tell, and I have already addressed how that is subsumable under my category of pragmatic goodness because, as mentioned before, it is the analysis of a thing’s perfection for being beautiful. Aesthetic goodness, then, is not something that is being reduced away with my dualism.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob

hypothetical and actual) perfection is (are) identical to goodness (as a property); and so I would respond with, yes, something is 100% good only when it is 100% perfect (whether that be qua utility or qua perfection). — Bob Ross

I understand that you think that good is always perfect, but what I was wondering was do you think that perfection can ONLY be good?

It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem). — Bob Ross

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness.

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel

That is precisely where I was going. You took the words right out of my mouth ;)

That is precisely where I was going. You took the words right out of my mouth ;) — Beverley

Yes, I kind of figured. It was only a matter of time.

Yes, I kind of figured. It was only a matter of time. — Pantagruel

Haha, I was biding my time, but not getting an answer, so you were probably right to forge ahead.

Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is perfection for (i.e., utility towards) some purpose...the latter is perfection in-itself — Bob Ross

Our ability to analyze "goodness" has limits. In this I believe we agree. I approach the task more simply combining "hypothetical" and "actual" starting with Arestolte's Doctrine of the Mean(1), then combining harmonic application(2). Lastly, accepting this process, this ubiquitous human struggle is a constant and fundamental: 'self Vs. self-in-society'(3).

[Apologies for the giant-sized image!]
(1)

(2)"Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.”
--C.S. Lewis, 1952

(3)"Our whole life is startlingly moral. There is never an instant's truce between virtue and vice”
--Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem).
— Bob Ross

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel

The problem is that there will always be holes in philosophical ideas, some more than others. But even the best philosophers have holes in their theories. Whenever I post a reply to something, I am already aware of the holes in my viewpoint, but I'm not going to point them out lol. If someone sees them, great. It would be so boring if we all just took everything said as being 'perfectly' correct. (I'm not sure I believe that anything is perfect btw. It seems unlikely) Sometimes though, to address a hole, we need to change tack. It's all just a part of life's rich tapestry. Haha philosophy overdose! *she explodes*

The problem is that there will always be holes in philosophical ideas, some more than others. — Beverley

I think some people feel they can avoid such pitfalls if their logic is stringent enough (without being aware that extreme-logicism can itself constitute one of the "holes" of which you speak).

Perfection (for a purpose or as it is in-itself) is always (pragmatically or morally) good all else being equal. All else not being equal, the context matters.

For example, it may be that a clock is good for telling the time but that, for a particular person, they want a clock that also looks beautiful and, so, a particular clock that, all else being equal, is pragmatically good [for telling the time] is not "good" for this particular person (because it is, let's say, very ugly).

For example, it may be that a nerve-agent poison is good because it is actual perfection all else being equal (because it is in self-harmony and self-unity) but that it not something which is "good" in the greater context of societal or universal self-harmony and self-unity.

Hopefully that helps.
Bob

Good question! @Beverley this is another example that I think fits in with your questions.

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness.

A nuclear weapon is hypothetically perfect if it suits a particular purpose well (e.g., if my goal is to cause mass destruction, then this is perfect for that); and it is actually perfect if its parts are in harmony and unity. However, I think what you are trying to convey is that it is painfully obvious that nuclear weapons are not better for the greater good--so what's going on here?

The problem with your implication here is that my brief elaboration of hypothetical and actual perfection are within the context of all else being equal. The further context, which breaks that stipulation, is required for your implication here to hold water.

All else not being equal, a nuclear weapon is not something that would be in the best of possible worlds because it is anti-thetical to universal harmony and unity (i.e., self-unity and self-harmony where the self-reference is a universal context).

Likewise, it is entirely possible, with all that being said, that the use of a nuclear weapon may be "good" insofar as it is good for working towards universal harmony and unity (e.g., maybe bombing the Nazis pans out as a good action, overall).

In practical life, we use pragmatic goodness as a stepping stone towards moral goodness.

Bob

:up:

All else not being equal, a nuclear weapon is not something that would be in the best of possible worlds because it is anti-thetical to universal harmony — Bob Ross

As I put it, however, it is not clear that this is anti-thetical to universal harmony. The human race is arguably more anti-thetical to universal harmony than would be its elimination.

This is really the point, your position is absolutely rife with assumptions, which are value-laden. Which is the larger point. So even from a pragmatic standpoint, we require guidelines to conduct that are thought to be valid, hence moral normativity.

Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is perfection for (i.e., utility towards) some purpose (e.g., a good clock is a clock that can tell the time, a good car can transport things, a good calculator can perform mathematical calculations, etc.); and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). The former is pragmatic goodness; and the latter moral goodness. — Bob Ross

I find this division to be problematic. I agree that perfection of a single purpose (really not a thing per say to me) can be understood at least. I call that functional worthiness.

When you say actual perfection or moral perfection, I can agree with the term moral perfection but the relationship to me seems improperly defined. Moral perfection or simply actual perfection and its relationship to the other kind of perfection mentioned is that moral perfection is functional perfection for all purposes. Do you see how that way of stating the relationship adds clarity?

For those who cannot fathom perfection as it is in-itself, simply imagine a wild jungle in complete disarray, everything trying to impede on everything else, and now imagine a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity: the former is in a state of absolute (actual) imperfection, and the latter in a state of absolute (actual) perfection—it is not perfection relative to some goal or purpose endowed unto it by a subject, nay, it is perfect qua perfection (viz., perfection in terms of solely what it is in-itself). — Bob Ross

And I would surmise that this example of a harmonious perfection is incorrect. That is to say, there is no lapse in perfection within any state of reality. We already have the potential for perfection, moral or absolute perfection, now. It is a tautology that this perfection is all that there is, really.

In our foolishness we deny that this potential is as meaningful as it is. We get confused by the temporary states we see or think we see of imperfection. We then incorrectly theorize some delusional desire as perfection, instead of understanding that we live amid a whole that is already perfection.

I state this all the time and here I will again: Peace is delusional. War or conflict or change, choose your word, is non-delusional. The accompanying delusion of time is also no help to us, occluding the truth of extant perfection from our limited senses. It is perhaps easier to understand that perfection is true if we suppose to eliminate the delusion of time.

So, it is the denigration of war, an immoral act, that causes this goofy desire, this delusion of peace as possible. I do indeed propose that this denigration of change/conflict/war is in fact immoral and the often giddy and foolish wish for peace is likewise immoral. That means that many of our ideas of what perfection really is are wrong (and will continue to be so, hopefully in lesser ways as we earn wisdom).

Each of the two types of goodness has within them higher and lower goodness, each according to their contextual size (viz., a good which is about a smaller context is lower than one which is about a larger context). The lowest pragmatic good is particular utility (i.e., what is perfect for this purpose) and the highest is universal utility (i.e., what is perfect for every purpose); the lowest moral good is particular harmony and unity (i.e., that this is perfect) and the highest is universal harmony and unity (i.e., that everything is perfect). — Bob Ross

I disagree entirely.

The problem is that amid perfection and unity, any is all. The fact that you state the above paragraph the way you do means you do not realize or believe this, or you are again going off on some academic exercise and not stating beliefs which as mentioned in a previous thread is confusing and somewhat disingenuous (even if specifically stated as such).

If any is all then there is no 'level' to goodness. And in fact that makes sense because if morality is objective (and I believe it is) then any aspect of good is only precisely equal to any other aspect of good. Their is no hierarchy. That would be order-apology or believing that order was superior to chaos, an immoral position. Likewise chaos-apology or believing that chaos was superior to order, is an immoral position. Order is often thus immorally conflated with the good, and chaos is often immorally conflated with evil.

You seem to me to confuse or conflate order and lower level good or pragmatism. And then you confuse or conflate chaos and higher level good or idealism. Neither can be correct! Both conflations are wrong.

Moral goodness is higher than pragmatic goodness because it deals with actual (as opposed to hypothetical) perfection; — Bob Ross

This is incorrect to me. Hypothetical is actual to me. Imagination is real. State changes are actually almost impossible to imagine if they are impossible really. Therefore they are not impossible, just improbable. Pragmatism properly expressed is the limit as intent approaches idealism. This has the proper ascetic as asymptotes extend into infinity showing the relative difficulty of perfection.

What is missing here then for clarity is a better way of saying 'every way' in which perfection can be had. That missing element is the list of virtues that are all equal as mentioned in other threads. These discrete virtues each have pragmatic orderly limits within their approach to their specific virtue perfections. The sum total of all of these infinite limits is the elusive total or moral perfection. But see how instead the 'lesser' and 'higher' goodnesses by your description do not fit properly the real world. Instead both pragmatism (fear) order and idealism (desire) chaos both (along with wisdom (anger) balance) must be mixed at all 'levels' of goodness, reaching to perfection.

and the highest moral good is universal harmony and unity (and this is why altruism morally better than egoism). — Bob Ross

This is a false equivalence. Egoism for the good is or can be perfectly good. So say ego alone is not immoral. This is a truism with goodness that is confusing to many. Biased for the good is good. Bias for anything no good is 'evil'. This truth makes things as tricky as they really are because so many incorrect interpretations of what is good and evil abound.

Likewise altruism can be perverted and be for 'evil' causes and often is. The road to hell is indeed often paved with (fake) good intentions. That is to say if the intentions were GOOD then they would not lead to hell. So if intentions lead to hell then they were never perfectly GOOD in the first place. Most of the old aphorisms are horribly immoral and not wisdom at all.

Morality, then, in its most commonly used sense, is simply an attempt at sorting out how one should behave in correspondence to how one can best align themselves with universal harmony and unity; and pragmatism, then, in its most commonly used sense, is an attempt at understanding the best ways to achieve purposes (even if they purposes are only granted for the sake of deriving those best means) so that one has readily at their disposal the best means of achieving any purpose. — Bob Ross

As you probably know, I do not like the term morality used this way. If morality is objective, and I believe it is, then one must learn to speak in terms of morality and what we do. We do not do morality. People do not have morals at all. They have immoral beliefs only. That is true. The question is not if the belief is immoral because it is. No one and no one belief is perfect. It is in the true nature of perfection to remain elusive and unreachable. So discussing belief (and fact also since facts are only a subset of beliefs) is discussing immorality. Notice how a discussion that starts out properly discussing moral agents immorality only, not their morality, is always more correct. I highly recommend we change to that way of speaking and writing about it to avoid other obvious errors.

Neither studies [of pragmatism nor morality] are, when understood as described hereon, non-objective: the best means of achieving a purpose (or purposes) and the best means of achieving (actual) perfection are both stance-independent. — Bob Ross

We agree that the destination of perfection is state independent. Yes. But that is not helpful when you suggest we can be objective. We cannot be objective. We are not perfect. So all assertions, all beliefs, all facts, are immoral as stated and always slightly wrong. It is again better to speak or write in this way, than it is to suggest a comforting lie to people, that they can get to objectivity or perfection. No, that is hubris and makes us all prone to more error.

These studies are as objective as they come, and are both essential to practical life: morality being essential to living a good life, and pragmatism being essential to achieving that good life. — Bob Ross

I disagree. These studies may try to be objective but we must admit that they will fail. Pragmatism is the fear-based cowardice that demands a short-cut to the effort required for moral choice. This is the efficient demand of fear and it is foolish. You say it is essential. It is not.

Courage allows us to stand to the unknown and anger pushes fear aside and into balance, the calmed state. The unknown is tautological because we are not perfect. Anger is required to face the unknown and this is not without fear, but instead in balance with fear. And amid that balance another balance must also be struck. That is the powerful pull of perfection (desire) must also be balanced so that we do not rush over eager into immorality (self-indulgence). That is the tendency of desire. Again anger must balance this and with desire keep us in conflicted balance all the way throughout experience. This conflicted balance is effectively ongoing and eternal war.

Politically, a society centered on pragmatic goodness will tend towards anarchism (i.e., each man is given, ideally, the knowledge of and power to achieve his own ends) and a society centered on moral goodness will tend towards democracy (i.e., each man is given, ideally, equal representation and liberties, but also duties to their fellow man to uphold a harmonious and united state). — Bob Ross

These are heinous Pragmatic lies (of course only in my opinion).

Pragmatism is fear only and an order centric view of moral goodness. You are conflating order and the good and that is immoral.

Idealism is every single bit as needed amid intent as is Pragmatism. Idealism in this sense is the desire side pull of perfection to every ideal. It is chaos because it beckons in all ways at the same time causing people to take rather random seeming paths through intent space towards perfection.

Democracy is an immoral sham based improperly on the intrinsic worthiness of all. The trouble is that is another foolish conflation. In conflating intrinsic worthiness with functional worthiness an unwise person believes that since we are all intrinsically worthy, we are all functionally worthy. In the case of Democracy the presumption is that the functional worthiness to vote wisely is included with intrinsic worthiness and nothing could be further from the truth. Socrates himself warned us against Democracy 2500 years ago and we are still not to that level of wisdom in daily affairs.

Sophocracy, a rule of the wise at least attempts to measure wisdom, allow voting only from the wise, and since there must be some elite, it makes sure that the elites are at least formed using the least corruptible trait in the trait index by definition, wisdom. After you test for and locate the wise, then you can have your nod to Democracy. Let qualified brain surgeons only operate on brains. Let qualified wise voters only vote. Until we all face that truth, human governments are all immoral shams.

Goodness is not normative: it is the property of having hypothetical or actual perfection. Normativity arises out of the nature of subjects: cognition and conation supply something new to reality—the assessment of or desire for how things should be (as opposed to how they are). Moral goodness, for example, is just the state of being in self-harmony and self-unity: it does not indicate itself whether something should be in that state. It is up to subjects to choose what should be, and a (morally) good man simply chooses that things should be (morally) good. — Bob Ross

This is not true either.

Goodness is normative. But one can be excused within reason for saying something as foolish as that goodness is not normative. That is because a moral action or intent is the single hardest thing a moral agent can do or choose. Effort increases as moral caliber increases. In other words it gets harder and harder to make more and more GOOD choices. This is the disguise of non-normative goodness that you missed seeing. I see that disguise.

It is no wonder that people are confused. Perfection is elusive and unattainable. Pragmatism is a tempting cop-out just the same that wishful thinking idealism is a tempting cop-out. But balance and anger are well aware of the struggle and the need to suffer to earn real wisdom.

The 'shoulds' are natural moral laws of the universe, objective and unchanging. Genuine happiness is the consequence of any choice aligning with perfection alone, an intent towards perfection. And lesser degrees of happiness are granted to aims and intents less in alignment or resonance with what is objectively good. Thus unhappiness is the consequence of all imperfect intents which means all intents but the key is that unhappiness increases by the degree of misalignment with an objectively perfect intent (the hardest thing in the universe).

Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything.

However, as you noted correctly, it is an ideal and may not be every actualizable down to the T; and we are far from it and we have limited resources; so it is perfectly reasonable to prioritize life over non-life, humans over other animals, etc. to try to progress towards it as best we can. — Bob Ross

But how can we progress towards something that MAY be possible, but that we can see no real example of in the world in which we live? In this case, it could be completely fictitious. Or how is this any different from such skeptics’ suggestions of, for example, the world being controlled by pink and yellow spotted beings, which are controlling our minds from brains stored in vats? This could be just as true as the idea of something being perfect due to existing in harmony with itself. In fact, the pink and yellow spotted beings seem to hold more weight because with them, at least we can give more details about the situation. Then, if one day, we all wake up and see pink and yellow spotted beings around us, we would know the ‘pink and yellow spotted being’ theory was true; we would be able to spot it (haha couldn’t resist the pun ;)).

But if we all woke up one day and everything was working in perfect harmony, would we all just automatically, magically know? Or, would we all be perfectly working in harmony too and therefore we would perfectly know and not even have to think about it? But if we were all perfect, why would we even have to know anything? There would be no point in knowing. What would be the point for anything if everything was totally perfect? So, from my point of view at least, that is not good. Bring me back varying levels of imperfection, and with it the joy of working bloody hard against all odds and seeing improvements and feeling a sense of real achievement. That to my imperfect mind is good. Bring back the people who, although not superheroes, fight for others who need help, despite achieving no obvious gain for themselves— the person who jumps in front of a gunman to save a life just purely on instinct. Not a perfect thing to do, but… *she takes a breath* am I making any sense at all? Does anybody think I’m making any sense? (In my head I am, but my head may be a very odd thing.)

Anyway, I think I got sidetracked somewhat, but what I was originally responding to was the notion of ‘progressing’ towards the idea of this ‘perfect’ good.

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm

I am pretty sure the answer to that was 'no'.

I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm

Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)

Natural systems are in a constant process of evolution and change, so there is never any criterion for preferring one configuration over another, let alone a perspective from which to apply it. — Pantagruel

Pretty much impossible to say if or how it may achieve perfect harmony... unless one is perfect themselves of course.

You cannot just say there is moral goodness which is perfect and morally good, and no one really knows what the goodness is without the considerations. — Corvus

Yes, it makes me wonder, what is the point?

It seems to me as if we can only really understand what this type of perfection is exactly (not vaguely, as in imagining...

a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity — Bob Ross

...but being able to list all the things exactly and say how they interact, and how they are in unity, if we are perfect ourselves. But since we are not, how can we achieve something that we cannot even describe or precisely imagine? How can we even attempt to proceed in that direction when we don’t even know which direction that is? (And this is all assuming that this thing is achievable and not simply a made-up thing) But furthermore, if this thing is not present in the world in which we now live, then how much use can imagining or discussing anything about it be? It seems as if we may as well discuss the pink and yellow spotted beings.

:up:

As I put it, however, it is not clear that this is anti-thetical to universal harmony. The human race is arguably more anti-thetical to universal harmony than would be its elimination.

Ah, I think I see what you are asking about: essentially, is a world with harmony and unity without any subjects equal to, greater than, or less than in moral worth to one with subjects?

My answer is that, all else being equal, they are equal in moral worth because they are equally (actually) perfect (in terms of their state). However, not all else being equal, the world with subjects (which are properly aligned with moral goodness) has a better length of preservation of that state (of actual, universal perfection) and, consequently, is going to be a better possible world.

Now, a couple things to address with that being said:

1. The human race, being capable of the greatest capacities of rational behavior, are not more anti-thetical to universal harmony; in fact, they are essential to upholding and enacting such a world.

2. The more intelligent a being is, the more useful it is towards reaching and upholding actual, universal perfection; and so it is going to be pragmatically more valuable for morality than less intelligent beings as well as non-life.

Because of this, it is pragmatically better for morality to train and modify the views and behaviors of humans to be aligned with reaching and upholding universal harmony rather than eliminating them. So, with that in mind, it is anti-thetical to reaching and preserving universal harmony to eliminate humans (in the grand scheme of things).

In other words, in a nutshell, if we are just considering the state of universal harmony (and unity), then both worlds (mentioned at the onset of this response) are equal in moral worth; BUT, if we are also considering the length of preservation of that state [of universal harmony], then the best possible world is one with the maximum amount of intelligent beings with the maximal amount of intelligence whereof all of them are perfectly aligned with upholding universal harmony.

Hopefully that helps.
Bob

But how can we progress towards something that MAY be possible, but that we can see no real example of in the world in which we live?

The world is full of examples of this form of moral goodness. Have you not seen something that is in an optimal degree of self-harmony and self-unity such that its parts produce a task incredibly efficiently? Have you not experienced a state of peace between things, as opposed to conflict and violence?

Or how is this any different from such skeptics’ suggestions of, for example, the world being controlled by pink and yellow spotted beings, which are controlling our minds from brains stored in vats?

The difference is that these hypotheses you have mentioned are unparsimonious and unfalsifiable. The form of moral goodness is parismonious and falsifiable. Not to mention, some of them are just nonsense with no real evidence for them (such a the pink and yellow spotted beings); which is clearly not the case with my analysis of moral goodness.

But if we all woke up one day and everything was working in perfect harmony, would we all just automatically, magically know?

You would know it just as much or as little as when you wake up to there being yellow and pink spotted beings. Most people, I think, are able to comprehend what a state of harmony and unity is, just as much as what a spots of yellow and pink are.

But if we were all perfect, why would we even have to know anything?

One needs knowledge to act. In a world full of subjects with universal harmony and unity, actions still exist. Subjects are still doing things.

Bring me back varying levels of imperfection, and with it the joy of working bloody hard against all odds and seeing improvements and feeling a sense of real achievement.

I am not claiming that everyone will value moral goodness; I am merely outlining what it is.

Moreover, yes, it could be less satisfactory for humans, as we are now in our evolutionary process, to be in a perfect world; but this doesn’t mean we should strive for imperfection but, rather, that we have evolved in a way to feel that way.

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm

I am pretty sure the answer to that was 'no'.
I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm
Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)

I suggest that you read the entirety of me and Tom Storm’s interaction, because I gave several.

Bob

I suggest that you read the entirety of me and Tom Storm’s interaction, because I gave several. — Bob Ross

I did see you giving an example of a calculator and a jungle, but i couldn't find an example where you explained how each part of it was in harmony. I don't think this would be possible, and that is the problem.

Have you not seen something that is in an optimal degree of self-harmony and self-unity such that its parts produce a task incredibly efficiently? — Bob Ross

But there is nothing that is PERFECTLY efficient and harmonious, and this is what your definition stipulated.

Have you not experienced a state of peace between things, as opposed to conflict and violence? — Bob Ross

Yes, but not PERFECT peace. Again, you stipulated perfection. There is no example of perfection due to something being in total harmony. This is why it is impossible to describe this kind of total harmony, because we only have a vague idea of what it would be, as we have never experienced it in real life.

Not to mention, some of them are just nonsense with no real evidence for them (such a the pink and yellow spotted beings); which is clearly not the case with my analysis of moral goodness. — Bob Ross

But unless you can see an example of this in real life, it is possible that it does not exist, or it is as likely to exist as the pink and yellow spotted beings. You are going into the realm of all things that MAY be possible, which could be anything, including pink and yellow spotted beings. This idea of something being in perfect harmony could simply be something you made up in your head.

Most people, I think, are able to comprehend what a state of harmony and unity is, just as much as what a spots of yellow and pink are. — Bob Ross

Sure, we may know what harmony and unity is, but not PERFECT harmony and unity. There is a massive difference. In real life, there is always something opposing perfect harmony.

One needs knowledge to act. In a world full of subjects with universal harmony and unity, actions still exist. Subjects are still doing things. — Bob Ross

What would we need to do if everything was perfect?

but this doesn’t mean we should strive for imperfection — Bob Ross

I agree with this because we need to strive for something, otherwise we lose the motivation to live. But i seriously doubt we will ever reach perfection, if it is even something that exists, or could exist.

The human race, being capable of the greatest capacities of rational behavior, are not more anti-thetical to universal harmony; in fact, they are essential to upholding and enacting such a world. — Bob Ross

So you are assuming that rationality has a universal value. Ok. What about aesthetics? What about sentimentality? What about the inherent value of free-will? Perhaps the inherent value of free-will is the culmination of "harmonious value" - qua the material product of the evolutionary process. In which case, the most harmonious universe is actually the one filled with the greatest degree freedom.

maybe bombing the Nazis pans out as a good action — Bob Ross

Considering the destruction of the Middle East and Southeast Asia by Yankees for decades and the political destabilisation of several American countries, bombing the twin towers and the Pentagon pans out as a good action too, insofar as it hit the financial and logistical center of those operations, thus working towards a universal harmony?

I did see you giving an example of a calculator and a jungle, but i couldn't find an example where you explained how each part of it was in harmony. I don't think this would be possible, and that is the problem.
…
But there is nothing that is PERFECTLY efficient and harmonious, and this is what your definition stipulated.

Firstly, the examples I gave are examples of actual perfection; but they do not exemplify necessarily anything in the actual world.

Secondly, you are absolutely correct in questioning the actual possibility of actual perfection, in the sense of something being at 100% perfection, because it is foreseeable that everything in reality is subjected to change by external pressures/things which, in turn, will hinder its ability to be 100% in harmony and unity. This is a perfectly reasonable worry to expound. My response to this is to note that this is an ideal and, as such, does not need to be 100% actualizable to be impactful in ethics. Every major ethical theory, and any worth any salt, are driven, at their core, by ideals and not the limitations of the foreseeable, actual world.

This is why it is impossible to describe this kind of total harmony, because we only have a vague idea of what it would be, as we have never experienced it in real life.

Total harmony is easily describable: it is when everything in question is resonating in a peaceful manner with each thing. One can know things that they have never directly experienced (e.g., 1 + 1 = 2, a → b, law of noncontradiction, law of excluded middle, etc.). Likewise, we use ideals all the time, which by definition have never been experienced at 100%; for example, that “no innocent person should go to prison” is a commonly accepted principle BUT it is not clear that it is actualizable, 100%, in society: there’s always someone that gets convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and put in prison. Math is another great example, our mathematical models of reality are estimations and not exact, precise descriptions. Logic is another great example. Etc.

But unless you can see an example of this in real life, it is possible that it does not exist, or it is as likely to exist as the pink and yellow spotted beings. You are going into the realm of all things that MAY be possible, which could be anything, including pink and yellow spotted beings. This idea of something being in perfect harmony could simply be something you made up in your head.

If we are to take this critique seriously, then we would have to reject all knowledge that isn’t knowledge derived from experience; which is going to a heck of a lot more than you think. You will need to reject math, logic, the principle of sufficient reason, all known laws of nature, all ideals, pretty much all of ethics, etc.

I am perfectly happy admitting that one can have valid knowledge that goes beyond the possibility of all experience. No problem.

Sure, we may know what harmony and unity is, but not PERFECT harmony and unity.

100% harmony and unity is (actual) perfection, and 100% self-harmony and self-unity (i.e., 100% perfection) is, of course, plausibly impossible. That’s fine.

What would we need to do if everything was perfect?

Live our lives, in peace.

But i seriously doubt we will ever reach perfection, if it is even something that exists, or could exist.

The point of an ideal is not that one can ever reach it: it is that, even if one can’t reach it, they strive towards it.

For example, human society generally strives towards world peace and equal rights of humans; but this isn’t foreseeably realizable either. Right now we do not know if it is even possible to setup a society or societies on earth such that there is 100% equality. Does this mean we give up on it or claim it is an invalid pursuit? Of course not!

Bob

So you are assuming that rationality has a universal value

I don’t know what you mean by this, so I am going to default to answering “no”.

I was saying that rationality has pragmatic worth/value for moral progression. If that’s what you mean here, then “yes”.

What about aesthetics? What about sentimentality? What about the inherent value of free-will? Perhaps the inherent value of free-will is the culmination of "harmonious value" - qua the material product of the evolutionary process.

For aesthetics, I would say it has no analogous worth for moral progression and preservation; other than perhaps some consequences for helping motivate people.

For sentimentality, ditto ^.

For free will, this is prerequisite to rationality; the degree of rational capacities is proportional to the degree of free will a thing has. So, yes, this also has proportional (to rationality) pragmatic worth/value for moral progression and preservation.

In which case, the most harmonious universe is actually the one filled with the greatest degree freedom.

So we need to be careful here: I am not saying that the most harmonious possible world is the one with the most rationality. All else being equal, it is entirely possible for there to be a 100% rational world with 0% harmony. I was pointing out, rather, that the best possible world which has achieved a state of universal harmony will have 100% rationality geared towards the preservation of that state. Same goes for free will, being a prerequisite of rationality.

Bob

That's going to depend on politics, especially how good/bad one thinks the US is. I am a supporter of the US (by-at-large) and I am not convinced that what you described was a progression towards universal harmony and unity, so I would say no.

More abstractly, the point is that the goal is to try to work towards universal harmony and unity; and to do so in a manner that ensures its preservation. If you believe that bombing the twin towers does this, then, in principle, yes it would be morally good. I just don't believe that is the case.

More abstractly — Bob Ross

Strange that to make an abstract point you had to use the industrial mass murder of Europeans as an example, instead of something like euthanising serial killers or castrating rapists.

I am a supporter of the US (by-at-large) — Bob Ross

I wonder why. Perhaps the same reason why such a moral perversion as the hypothetical and historical nuking of civilians is relativised. I said strange but I was not shocked at all; the longer I live the better I see what Evola meant with racial soul.

Also.

That's going to depend — Bob Ross

Isn't it your position that morality is objective? So how does it depend? If morality refers to a verifiable fact outside of the mind (meaning of objective), surely it does not depend on opinion, ¿no?
It seems sufficiently transparent to me that either both nuking Germans and running a plane into the twin towers is moral (under this hypothetical), or neither are moral, or morality is not objective.

Firstly, the examples I gave are examples of actual perfection; but they do not exemplify necessarily anything in the actual world. — Bob Ross

yes, I see that.

My response to this is to note that this is an ideal and, as such, does not need to be 100% actualizable to be impactful in ethics. Every major ethical theory, and any worth any salt, are driven, at their core, by ideals and not the limitations of the foreseeable, actual world. — Bob Ross

Okay, that is fine if you accept that. But it still stands that, since there are no concrete examples of these, they are no more provable than beings with pink and yellow spots. Just because YOU BELIEVE them to be true, it doesnt mean that they are. As your belief, that is fine, and i totally respect that, but if you want to state this as a fact, you need to back it up with proof. And there is no concrete proof from real life, as we know it.

Hey look, I think it is a wonderful idea. How amazing would it be if we had no pain, or strife or war and conflict. If we all lived in harmony with each other, and if we all realized that we are all pretty much the same and hence, we all cared for each other because we could all see from each other's point of view.

But unfortunately, this never happens. It is sad, but what actually happens is this: there is a majority of people in this world who just want to be happy and have the basic things, such as food, water, shelter and companionship and respect from others. Then there are a very slight minority who are power greedy and think, if I can con enough people, then I can feel better and be better than all those other people. The only thing is that, they are kidding themselves, and not only are they kidding themselves, but they are hurting others at the same time.

I do not see you as a power crazy person who doesn't care about others at all. I could be wrong I suppose, but I think not. I just do not see any examples of perfection in real life, and this makes me think that they do not exist, which I don't think is unreasonable. Now of course, I could be wrong. But so could you. Which person would i prefer to be wrong? Of course, i would prefer me to be wrong, and for there to be the possibility of a perfectly good world with everyone living in harmony with each other. How amazing would that be?

I just do not see any examples of perfection in real life, and this makes me think that they do not exist, which I don't think is unreasonable. Now of course, I could be wrong. But so could you. Which person would i prefer to be wrong? — Beverley

And also, this whole notion that there is some kind of behaviour-transcending "perfection" can be utilized to justify any action that the believer believes is consonant with it. ie. it is a rationality which is conducive to the abuses of extremism. Very dangerous.

Strange that to make an abstract point you had to use the industrial mass murder of Europeans as an example, instead of something like euthanising serial killers or castrating rapists.

It was one example that illustrated the point: you are splitting hairs here.

I wonder why. Perhaps the same reason why such a moral perversion as the hypothetical and historical nuking of civilians is relativised. I said strange but I was not shocked at all; the longer I live the better I see what Evola meant with racial soul.

I am not interested in derailing the conversation into politics. It has absolutely no relevance to the OP. If you would like to discuss, then please create a new thread, and I will respond in there.

Isn't it your position that morality is objective? So how does it depend? If morality refers to a verifiable fact outside of the mind (meaning of objective), surely it does not depend on opinion, ¿no?
It seems sufficiently transparent to me that either both nuking Germans and running a plane into the twin towers is moral (under this hypothetical), or neither are moral, or morality is not objective.

You are just cherry-picking information and reading quotes out of context. I never said that what is morally good is stance-dependent. Never once. What you quoted is me saying that whether or not you believe the US is by-at-large good (or better for the world than if it didn’t exist) is going to depend on politics (of which I am not interested in derailing into). Whether or not they are by-at-large good is stance-independent, but not your belief. For the sake of the OP, all that is worth mentioning on this point is:

More abstractly, the point is that the goal is to try to work towards universal harmony and unity; and to do so in a manner that ensures its preservation. If you believe that bombing the twin towers does this, then, in principle, yes it would be morally good. I just don't believe that is the case.

One of our beliefs is factual or neither are factual; and I believe that the US has by-at-large helped progress the west into a morally better (set of) societies. That’s not to say the US is a saint.