It seems to me that people are always working towards improving the world and creating fantasies of how they would like things to be and indulging in fantasies to make life more bearable.

So for example someone might find pleasure from reading romantic fiction where the story has an idyllic outcome and they might also aspire to be in such a scenario but their reality may never be that.

I did this kind of thing as a child where I was kept positive by hope until reality became too much to be combated by hope

But I feel it is probably best to confront how life is actually is as accurately as possible in order to improve it. (That is not to say that we might be wrong in some of our negative appraisals.)

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

I'm not clear what this means. If everything was as it ought to be, there would be no gap between ought and is, and thus no use for moral talk. But you seem to want to say that nothing is as it ought to be, and further that nothing ought to be at all. Odd.

I think you can have a world or a life that is good or quite good but with room for improvement. Anyway isn't that ultimate goal of morality for people to be moral.

We want to eradicate murder but keep the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."

So you could have a near perfect society and still have moral rules about unacceptable behavior even if these rules were rarely broken.

I am looking for a justification for claiming life or reality is a good.I want to be wrong in my conclusion
that it is immoral/amoral

You seem to be questioning the morality of human existence, rather than life itself. And haven't you already stated that human existence isn't fundamentally immoral by stating the following:

I feel that any moral system or ethical research methodology will reveal that life is generally immoral. — Andrew4Handel

Considering you said generally I'm assuming there's room for morality in human existence, meaning it cannot be fundamentally immoral, even if the immoral outweighs the moral.

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

We are social animals and we depend on each other to succeed. Division of labour etc... So we have an inbuilt interest in caring for each other. I believe humans are fundamentally good because good is the most logical position to adopt. There is some simple math behind good and evil (which is covered here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1) and good is mathematically better.

If only we could extend the care for one another attitude to the animals; as the dominant species on the planet we are running a prison camp where the prisoners (animals) are killed and eaton. Not cool. If anyone else finds out about what we are doing here on earth we could be in trouble.

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

I wonder why you want to judge the world, instead of living in it? So, in answer to your question, a non-judgemental perspective is what you're after, by the sound of it.

If I just had some extremely loyal and hard working pathologically altruistic volunteers to upkeep my property and take care of all my domestic affairs with no need for recompense, the world would be a better place.

f only we could extend the care for one another attitude to the animals; as the dominant species on the planet we are running a prison camp where the prisoners (animals) are killed and eaten. Not cool — Devans99

How do you explain humans history of of war, and slavery and genocide?

How can death be a positive.

All organisms die.

Animals in the wild die of things like being eaten, starvation, the weather, malnutrition and injury.

For example the most common cause of death for deer in North America is starvation

I wonder why you want to judge the world, instead of living in it? So, in answer to your question, a non-judgmental perspective is what you're after, by the sound of it. — Pattern-chaser

It is not mutually exclusive that you either live in the world or assess its value.

I think at the very least we should try and improve life as much as possible (or that is my personal preference.)

I am a supporter of truth and authenticity and what concerns me is whether life is being represented truthfully and authentically or not.

How do you explain humans history of of war, and slavery and genocide? — Andrew4Handel

I think we are very immature as a race. Historically though things are heading in the right direction. We have not had another world war. Human rights have improved. Slavery is mostly gone. We are evolving towards perfection.

I did not say death was positive; it's just a requirement for evolution to function (as I believe God intended) and it may not be the end of the world. Death is the start of life in the Eternal Return belief.

Animals in the wild die of things like being eaten, starvation, the weather, malnutrition and injury — Andrew4Handel

I view us as shepherd's of the planet. First we need to help ourselves (the human race) but then we need to help others (the animals). At the moment, we are the worst carnivores on the planet. We should all switch to a vegetarian diet. Once there is sufficient food for the human race, we can turn our minds to providing for the animals.

As for carnivorous animals; I think we should cull them all. Any overpopulation problems can be dealt with via chemical neutering of the offending species.

As for carnivorous animals; I think we should cull them all. Any overpopulation problems can be dealt with via chemical neutering of the offending species — Devans99

Wouldn't it be better to feed them ourselves rather than make them extinct. Scientists have successfully grown meat in a lab.

I don't think you can manufacture a Disneyland Nature that is what I said earlier about fantasy. Fantasy allows us to inhabit what is not really the case.

Also herbivores can cause death as well. Herbivores can be very aggressive. Not all aggression involves eating meat. Herbivores also compete with each other and will damage their environment.

I don't think you can have a morality that is based on Good versus evil with no shades of grey.

Slavery is far from gone. The official slave trade has been replaced by large numbers of exploited workers. A significant amount of people work for no pay. People are trapped in war zones coerced into work or will sell their labor for next to nothing unfortunately.

I think Hope is a good thing but not false hope.

I don't think you can manufacture a Disneyland Nature that is what I said earlier about fantasy. Fantasy allows us to inhabit what is not really the case. — Andrew4Handel

It's a long term project, but I believe with the help of technology, we can build an optimal world for both humans and animals. Optimal, not perfect (we have to be realistic). Synthetic meat you mentioned. Some sort of genetically engineered 'burger plant' is where we should be aiming. IE 'beef burgers' that grow naturally. On second thoughts it's better to neuter rather than kill existing carnivores.

Herbivores can be very aggressive — Andrew4Handel

The aggression is due to the presence of carnivores (humans mainly). I feel if the human race treated animals better, animals would be less aggressive. We prey on them. It's just conditioning. But I think technology can help hear too. If grass was genetically engineered to include say THC, any remaining aggression should be countered.

You’re talking nonsense. Slavery has all but disappeared (being paid, owning things and being able to vote are not something “slaves” can do.)

To be “moral” means YOU decide what is best. You’ll stumble and fall often yet the “moral” part of you will drive you on no matter what. Rolling over and dying, complaining about the tragedy of human existence is hardly going to gain much sympathy for very long (at least with myself.)

Death means renewal and conflict means exploration of limits. Tread carefully and boldly into the unknown - that is my basic principle of life.

There's nothing that stopped man from being at harmony with nature 2000 years ago, and there's nothing that's stopping man today, except man itself. The number #1 cause for all the imbalance we cause is technology, specifically the industries required to produce it. Yet there's nothing that modern technology produces that isn't redundant. In this regard mankind has degenerated from being a generally destructive force that had little effect on its environment, to a generally destructive force that has a massive effect on its environment.

It's all choice, though. Not necessity. So I'd argue we're not moving towards perfection, but rather away from it.

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

How about metempsychosis (reincarnation), cause and effect (also reflected in the idea of heaven and hell), evolution, atman (the divine self), etc, are just a few points of view that come to mind and which seem to justify morality.

So I'd argue we're not moving towards perfection, but rather away from it — Tzeentch

I think the most important metrics for human progress are quality and length of human life, both of which have been improved greatly by technological progress. We certainly cannot just go back to living the way we did 2000 years ago. Life was short and hard for most. The whole point of evolution is we are meant to achieve an optimal civilisation through the use of technology.

As a race we seem to take two steps forward and one step back. I agree the environment is currently retrograde. I hope it does not take some sort of catastrophe before we address the environment seriously. Environmentally friendly technology is the way to go. Nuclear fusion and nice clean energy would help a great deal.

I'd imagine the future as a mix between high tech and low tech; think glistening sky scrapers set in a natural forest landscapes; technology and nature in symbiosis is key for the type of planet I want to live on.

Through biotech and genetic engineering we can improve nature just like we improve technology. Most of nature's plants do not produce eatable food. Genetic engineering can change that. For example, grass which is completely useless to humans, could be reengineered to be tasty and nutritious. Or for example we can use biotech to neuter the spiders; I hate them and a spider-free world would be a big step forward for me and other arachnophobes.

There is no point to evolution.

There is no point to evolution — A Seagull

God decided it was too hard to design life from scratch so he decided to evolve it instead. That's what I'd do if I was in God's shoes.

As for carnivorous animals; I think we should cull them all — Devans99

Including humans? :chin:

Including humans? — Pattern-chaser

No I think we should all become vegan. Bio technology probably needs to improve first before this becomes feasible or palatable. It's a long term goal to have a planet free of killing.

I think the most important metrics for human progress are quality and length of human life, both of which have been improved greatly by technological progress. — Devans99

Quality and length of human life should not go above all else. Presently, there exists a negative correlation between our quality and length of life and the life of everything else on the planet. Not only that which exists, but we are also potentially compromising the quality and length of human life of our offspring. And with every year we live longer, we consume more. Why should we impose harsh suffering on everything else just so we can live a little longer and a little more comfortably? And a better question; when is it enough?

Secondly, I think you're grossly overstating the role of technology in improving the quality of life. There's very little to indicate people are happier now than they were a hundred years ago. There have been several key discoveries, most notably when it comes to childbirth and combating diseases, which have drastically decreased infant mortality, maternal death and death by common illnesses. These were very valuable, but they hardly represent technology or even science as a whole. Most of the rest is dead weight.

You have to ask yourself: almost three-hundred years since the industrial revolution, and what have we to show for it? A population which is marginally happier than it was before, if even that. Perhaps a dozen or so extra years to live on average? (Infant mortality tends to horribly skew these numbers. The ancient Greeks used to live into their 70's) And for what, I ask you. Cars? A fancier dwelling? Fancier entertainment?

Humanity can start moving into the direction of perfection by getting rid of all the useless crap it doesn't need. But instead it prefers to watch the world burn while it indulges just a little longer.

There's something terribly wrong with the way humanity handles technology, and this needs to be addressed before we can even start thinking about moving "towards perfection" if there is such a thing.

And a better question; when is it enough? — Tzeentch

I agree, longevity is nothing without quality of life. Humans should maybe be engineered as in Brave New World. 60 healthy years was the cut off in that novel. People were conditioned from birth to deal with death so it was not a problem. How that worked I'm not sure I remember from the book. Maybe they had a half decent religion to belief in that would help.

Secondly, I think you're grossly overstating the role of technology in improving the quality of life — Tzeentch

How about anaesthetics? It was a bundle of laughs before that I'm sure. In fact modern medicine in general makes our lives much better. The Internet is improving my life quality as I type this; I'm rather isolated so it great to have people to discuss this stuff with. For entertainment, modernity spoils us with a choice of books, TV, Film, play, music, computer games. For safety, the atom bomb has keep the lid on war for the last 75 years. I think you underestimate the role of technology in human progress.

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

Morality is how one feels about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than mere etiquette. And specifically, it's feelings about whether behavior is "good" or "bad" or in a more fine-tuned analysis, whether it's permissible, obligatory, recommended, etc.

So whether anything is moral or immoral, just how acceptable versus not acceptable it is, etc., is up to each individual to decide.

The same thing goes for something like a utilitarian calculus. That can only work on an individual "rating" things much in the manner that one would rate movies, albums, etc. You rate whether you feel positive or negative towards it (a la interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette), and just how strongly you feel positive or negative about it, with different individuals weighting things different ways.

So you could have a near perfect society — Andrew4Handel

The problem with trying to achieve that is that we don't all have the same views about just what should be permissible, recommendable, etc. behavior.

I have some very unusual views about that stuff, for example. So what's perfect to you may not at all be perfect to me.

Given that that is going to be the case. The game becomes figuring out how to let each person do their own thing as much as possible--how to maximize freedom/choices for each individual. (Well, or at least that becomes the game if you want to best avoid the individuals who aren't being satisfied organizing to take control of the whole game via force.)

You’re talking nonsense. Slavery has all but disappeared — I like sushi

"Contemporary slavery, also known as modern slavery or neo-slavery, refers to institutional slavery that continues to exist in present day society. Estimates of the number of slaves today range from around 21 million[1] to 70 million, depending on method used to estimate and the definition of slavery being used"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

We are social animals and we depend on each other to succeed. Division of labour etc... So we have an inbuilt interest in caring for each other. I believe humans are fundamentally good because good is the most logical position to adopt. There is some simple math behind good and evil (which is covered here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1) and good is mathematically better. — Devans99

If that discussion got to the point of anyone concluding that good is mathematically better, it really went off the rails--comically so.

Estimates of the number of slaves today range from around 21 million[1] to 70 million, depending on method used to estimate and the definition of slavery being used — Andrew4Handel

I'd say that depending on the definition being used, the estimates would be more like 0 to 7.7 billion people.

Morality is how one feels about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than mere etiquette. — Terrapin Station

I disagree with this. Morality can mean lots of things. How does this view of morality describe events like genocide?

The same thing goes for something like a utilitarian calculus. That can only work on an individual "rating" things much in the manner that one would rate movies, albums, etc. You rate whether you feel positive or negative towards it — Terrapin Station

I don't think an individuals opinion on an event like the Holocaust is relevant. A genocide or large war is clearly extremely harmful in a way that would make someones opinion on it or reaction to it inconsequential.

I disagree with this. Morality can mean lots of things. How does this view of morality describe events like genocide? — Andrew4Handel

To me, disagreeing with it is simply disagreeing with facts, not realizing facts, etc. You can disagree with factual info about what the world is like if you want to.

Re it "meaning lots of things," people have many wrong ideas about what morality is, sure. Doesn't change the facts re what it actually is.

And "how does it describe . . ." I'm not talking about something descriptive. It's evaluative. How anything is evaluated is per individual.

I don't think an individuals opinion on an event like the Holocaust is relevant — Andrew4Handel

Again, you can think whatever you like. The fact is that evaluations of anything, including the Holocaust, are made by individuals. They're not made by anything else.