if you measured morality with nothing but numbers, what numbers would correlate with actions seen as traditionally "moral", what is this quantifiable, measurable, and objecitve benefit that is gained from actions that are traditionally viewed as moral or good. — Marzipanmaddox

There is none. The notion of an objective benefit is a category error.

By my ken, morality is simple. It is a collective of people mutually sacrificing their natural freedoms in order to empower the collective. — Marzipanmaddox

No, that's not morality. That's a description of something which you judge to be moral. If you want to know what morality is, then consult a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.

Your point is good, but the issue I have with it is somehow arguing that morality is somehow related to happiness. The happiness of the people is part of the subjective experience, and this becomes irrelevant in real and practical matters.

Morality here is the force that allows societies to operate cohesively, and use this cohesiveness to consolidate the people and function as a collective that has power that correlates to the size and cohesion of that society.

I see morality as the driving force of civilization, in that morality is the "top gun" of human society, morality is that which wins wars and ensures the indefinite and perpetual survival of society.

Say there is an unhappy and angry society that still has a higher degree of social cohesion and more thus power as a collective than a happy society. They are happy but fragmented and individualistic. When these two things collide, when they fight, the unhappy society wins because they are more powerful. This would indicate that despite the unhappiness, the unhappy society is the more so moral of the two, because the objective results of their conflict resulted in victory for the unhappy society.

Morality is the force that causes societies to band together, empowers them, and ensures their survival. By my understanding, there is no real relationship between morality and happiness. If happiness arises due to morality, likely due to increased success and functionality within that society, this is just a coincidence, a side-effect, and not an indicator of functional morality. E.g. you can make people happy by destroying the economy, liquidating the entire economy and turning it into pure hedonism. These people are incredibly happy (for a short period of time), but clearly making them happy is by no means the moral decision here.

The reason why I argue in favor of accepting indefinite Net Yield as the indicator of the morality of an action is due to the fact that this doesn't need to be studied. We cna just calculate it given the data we already have. One can easily argue that increased net yield, as a society, correlates with increased social stability, cohesion, and power. As these are the relevant products of morality, this is why I draw that connection.

I think that the facticity of Ontology is somewhat absurd. Ontology speculates upon what Being is like. You can only ever glean certain things. You don't really ever arrive at any truths concerning Being.

I think that the facticity of Ontology is somewhat absurd. Ontology speculates upon what Being is like. You can only ever glean certain things. You don't really ever arrive at any truths concerning Being. — thewonder

So what's an example of something that you think isn't making a factual claim?

Immorality, in this sense, is the individual doing something that is contrary to this qualification. — Marzipanmaddox

That's just immorality as defined by collectivism. The title of this discussion seems misleading. Is it a normative ethical discussion where you argue in favour of collectivism against individualism, or a meta-ethical discussion about objective morality vs. subjective morality?

I'm not sure that's possible. Because I'm not sure that moral arguments have components that are capable of being reduced to numbers and/or raw measurements. Moral arguments comprise complex, interconnected, abstract concepts; these do not easily reduce in the way you suggest.

This is the issue I have with morality. Humanity exists within an entirely finite universe, at least so far as we are concerned and can understand. Everything within this universe, everything within the planet earth, is inherently numerical, thus measurable, thus subject to formualtion and applied calculations.

Look at the progression of the planet. From unconcious rocks and other elements, to single-celled organisms, to complex life, to monkeys, to human life. Human life here is made entirely of those original, unconcious rocks and elements, all of these have been thoroughly proven to be entirely defined by quantifiable science such as chemistry and physics.

At what point during this progression did reality somehow escape the confines that it resides in? At what point did human life go beyond physical law? I argue never.

This is akin to lego bricks. You start out with individual lego bricks, all of which are easily measured and quantified. Regardless of what you create out of those lego bricks, this product will always be equally as quantifiable, measurable, and finite as the original lego bricks themselves. Even though human life is complicated, it is by no means an abberation from the laws of the natural world that define the existince we live in.

Philosophy has always operated without these laws, largely because originally they had no access to them. However, with the information we know have, the incredible and thorough study of the entire world around us, it seems irrational to argue that human life and human conciousness is somehow "Beyond science", that somehow there is a single aspect of human behavior, of human society, of human conciousness that cannot be explicitly and accurately quantified, studied, and explained via calculable equations in the same sense that every other aspect of this phsycial reality can be.

I'm not saying this is easy, but I am saying it is certainly possible, and there is no reason to avoid doing this, attempting to quantify morality, as well as any other relevant aspect of philosophy, in the same manner that every other aspect of this physical unverse has been defined, quantified, and expressed via formulic reasoning in accordance with the scientific method.

The only possible objective basis for morality, as far as we could ever determine, is the flourishing or languishing of the community. — Janus

What counts as the flourishing or languishing of a community is far from objective, nor the only possible basis for objective morality. That's but one of many suggested. And there's nothing set in stone to say that the flourishing of a community is good and the languishing of it is bad, by the way.

It's fine if you personally want to advocate a community focussed ethics, but don't try to make out that it's something that it's not.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to give an example of ontology that isn't making a factual claim (re objective facts) in your opinion.

I had to look this word up, but I will explain with my limited understanding of this. Ontology, by my understanding, is separating things into groups and organizing them.

While this may be attributed to philosophy, while this may have roots in philosophy, this is not philosophy. It is just a system of organizing things. While you can have opinionated debates about ontology, this is truly just arguing in favor of which system of organization is most accurate and optimized.

Can an opinion about organization truly be wrong or inaccurate? No, but if you were to measure and compare these arguments about organization, then some would be calculably more so organized and ordered than the others.

Sorting things mathematically has been studied in detail. I would argue that mathematical sorting is just the evolution of ontology, it is ontology after the scientific method has applied, translated this once subjective and opinionated argument into a far more legitimate form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(mathematics)

For a simple example, think of order of operations. Is the order of operations truly subject to philosophical debates? It is just an agreed upon method of organizing and expressing something in a manner that attempts to be the most functional, applicable, and efficient.

This, ontology, is a good example, from my understanding of the topic, as something from philosophy that actually had the scientific method applied, that was actually formalized in a non-subjective manner, and is now used on a much more accurate and efficient manner than traditional ontology.

I did get distracted when I saw that post, and I sort of glanced over it, thinking I would come back to it, as it required some work with regards to semantics, truly apologize.

To state that a particular shade of red can never be adequately described is still making a factual claim, but the point of presenting such an argument is not to address what can be considered to be "fact". The intention is to suggest that there is an unintelligable infinite variance of color which can never be adequately described. An Ontological project may be primarily concerned with factual claims, but Ontology itself is not necessarily.

I had to look this word up, but I will explain with my limited understanding of this. Ontology, by my understanding, is separating things into groups and organizing them.

While this may be attributed to philosophy, while this may have roots in philosophy, this is not philosophy. It is just a system of organizing things. While you can have opinionated debates about ontology, this is truly just arguing in favor of which system of organization is most accurate and optimized. — Marzipanmaddox

Wait, you're claiming that ontology isn't philosophy?

The intention is to suggest that there is an unintelligable infinite variance of color which can never be adequately described. — thewonder

Just want to clarify if you're giving this of an example of something that's not a factual claim.

There is none. The notion of an objective benefit is a category error.

If there was no objective benefit to morality, than moral societies would not exist. They would be no more capable or powerful than amoral societies, and due to the excess effort it takes to maintain a moral society, morality would have fallen out of favor.

It would be seen as needless and pointless explicitly because morality produced no objective benefit, because a moral society was no better off than an amoral one. It would be like drinking snake oil every day, and reasonable people would quickly realize that drinking the snake oil does nothing and then subsequently stop doing that.

The benefit here, meaning an increase in some statistic, some aspect of society that functions at a measurably higher degree in a moral society than in an amoral society. Something like life expectancy, a higher life-expectanty would lead to higher yields, so long as people don't stay alive too long after they cease functioning. I would argue that a higher life expectancy is something that would be far more prevalent in highly moral societies than completely amoral societies.

If there was no objective benefit to morality, than moral societies would not exist. They would be no more capable or powerful than amoral societies, — Marzipanmaddox

First, whether any society is moral or amoral, assuming one thinks the idea of that even really makes sense, is a subjective judgment.

Wait, you're claiming that ontology isn't philosophy?

I'm saying that ontology is no more of a philosophy than math. It is the archaic method of attempting to create mathematical order when human society lacked the capacity to do so with hard and explicit evidence to justify their claims.

How much so is this plant related to this other plant? Let's argue about it, because we truly have no ability to prove ourselves one way or another due to our lack of knowledge within this area.

Is Taxonomy philosophy? I would argue no. My understanding of Ontology is that it is the ancient, pre-science form of taxonomy. Correct me if I'm wrong.


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

I stated that it was a factual claim. My point was that Ontology is not necessarily concerned with factual claims even though it can be.

I'm saying that ontology is no more of a philosophy than math. — Marzipanmaddox

You understand that it's noncontroversially considered one of the main branches of philosophy, though?

My point was that Ontology is not necessarily concerned with factual claims even though it can be. — thewonder

Offhand I can't think of an ontological claim that wouldn't be a factual claim. Can you think of one?

No, that's not morality. That's a description of something which you judge to be moral. If you want to know what morality is, then consult a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.

The issue is that the common definition of morality relies explicitly upon entirely subjective and opinionated arguments. That has proven to be unacceptable in every other legitimate field that has ushered in this era of profound technological advancement.

My definition there, is what I would say that morality would be defined as if it were not convoluted with any arguments that are in any way dependent upon the subjective human experience and relied only on impartial, non-opinionated metrics to create that definition.

I would say the difference between "philosophical morality", and "scientific morality". Morality, if it were subject to the scientific method and defined by impartial and objective terms, rather than subjective, human-experience biased, and opinionated terms.

You understand that it's noncontroversially considered one of the main branches of philosophy, though?

I'm arguing that the entire concept of philosophy is flawed and fallacious. If philosophy were legitimate it would be a science, you would be able to veritably and unquestionably prove your philosophical assertions via the scientific method.

Until you can actually prove these arguments, in the same sense as any other science, the legitimacy of philosophy is comparable to the legitimacy of divine beings, it is nothing more than human self-worship and egotism, arguing that the human consciousness is somehow a superior indicator of universal truth than the universe itself. That is nonsense and that is pure narcissistic delusion.

See the translation from ontology, sorting of things, into the far more legitimate, impartial, objective, and scientific field of Taxonomy.

Not really, but why does it matter?

The issue is that the common definition of morality relies explicitly upon entirely subjective and opinionated arguments. — Marzipanmaddox

No it doesn't. The broadest and most readily understood definition of morality is that it's what's right and wrong. That has no implications whatsoever of either objectivity or subjectivity, which would be a matter open to debate.

My definition there, is what I would say that morality would be defined as if it were not convoluted with any arguments that are in any way dependent upon the subjective human experience and relied only on impartial, non-opinionated metrics to create that definition. — Marzipanmaddox

Well don't kid yourself. There's nothing impartial or objective about your definition.

Well, because it might be wrong to say it's not making factual claims. The very idea of that might not even make sense.

So intentionally post on a board dedicated to illegitimate human self-worship and egotism? That sounds like a plan.

That's just immorality as defined by collectivism. The title of this discussion seems misleading. Is it a normative ethical discussion where you argue in favour of collectivism against individualism, or a meta-ethical discussion about objective morality vs. subjective morality?

I'm arguing that collectivism, by default, is the definition of morality. Morality allows multiple humans to function as a collective, this collective is more powerful than the individual. This is why moral societies were able to overpower any individual who sought to contest them.

Objective here, meaning, impartial, subject to nothing but the data, nothing but the correlation between the data, having no influence of human opinion or human sentiment. That's what I mean by objective.

To bring up ethics seems out of place, ethics, in this sense, is defined by the same manner as morality. The objective benefit of an ethical society, the measurable and quantifiable result that is produced by an ethical society, is once again this increased production, increased power, increased survival, and increased yield from said society.

I'm just looking at the quantifiable results from quantifiable actions. I'm arguing that these things like morality, and now ethics, can be quantified in a manner that explains them in a way that is entirely free from the subjective human experience such as feelings, ideals, opinions, sentiments, and sensations.

I argue that ethical and moral arguments should not be in any way dependent upon any sort of opinionation. The trajectory of a rock that you throw into the air is not subject to opinionation. Hopefully we can agree upon that.

A human being, essentially a meat rock that throws itself, made of the same chemicals as any rock, as any breeze, as any river. How is it that this combination of elements is somehow now "beyond science", this is like reorganizing a large set of finite numbers, yet somehow arriving to the conclusion that the result of this organization is infinite, beyond quantification, beyond science.

When the original set of numbers you have, the raw chemicals that comprise the human body, are all known to be explicitly and invariably quantifiable and finite, how is it that you can rearrange these chemicals, doing nothing more than simple addition, yet argue the result is somehow infinite? The commutative property and the associative property of addition clearly disprove this argument.

Okay, so it does make factual claims, but that they are factual need not necessarily be the focus of Ontology. I have a vaguely agnostic attitude towards the factual nature of claims made while practicing Ontology.

You do decide what you consider to be closest to the truth, but what is true can never be fully uncovered.

I'm arguing that collectivism, by default, is the definition of morality. — Marzipanmaddox

But it isn't. The default is what you can find in a dictionary, not your favoured normative stance in ethics.

Morality allows multiple humans to function as a collective, this collective is more powerful than the individual. This is why moral societies were able to overpower any individual who sought to contest them.

Objective here, meaning, impartial, subject to nothing but the data, nothing but the correlation between the data, having no influence of human opinion or human sentiment. That's what I mean by objective.

To bring up ethics seems out of place, ethics, in this sense, is defined by the same manner as morality. The objective benefit of an ethical society, the measurable and quantifiable result that is produced by an ethical society, is once again this increased production, increased power, increased survival, and increased yield from said society.

I'm just looking at the quantifiable results from quantifiable actions. I'm arguing that these things like morality, and now ethics, can be quantified in a manner that explains them in a way that is entirely free from the subjective human experience such as feelings, ideals, opinions, sentiments, and sensations.

I argue that ethical and moral arguments should not be in any way dependent upon any sort of opinionation. The trajectory of a rock that you throw into the air is not subject to opinionation. Hopefully we can agree upon that. — Marzipanmaddox

That's not objective morality, or even morality at all. That's just social science.

The moment that you begin to make any moral judgement, say, that the ideal society would be a productive society, and that that should therefore be a top priority, is the moment that you have entered the realm of ethics and of subjectivity.

A human being, essentially a meat rock that throws itself, made of the same chemicals as any rock, as any breeze, as any river. How is it that this combination of elements is somehow now "beyond science", this is like reorganizing a large set of finite numbers, yet somehow arriving to the conclusion that the result of this organization is infinite, beyond quantification, beyond science.

When the original set of numbers you have, the raw chemicals that comprise the human body, are all known to be explicitly and invariably quantifiable and finite, how is it that you can rearrange these chemicals, doing nothing more than simple addition, yet argue the result is somehow infinite? The commutative property and the associative property of addition clearly disprove this argument. — Marzipanmaddox

What the...? What are you talking about and how is any of that relevant?

I think you write way too much. Write less and stick to point.

Offhand I can't think of an ontological claim that wouldn't be a factual claim. Can you think of one?

https://philosophyterms.com/ontology/

Everything is made of atoms and energy (fair point, fairly accurate as far as we know)
Everything is made of consciousness (opinion)
You have a soul (opinion)
You have a mind (possible opinionated definition of mind. Does a rat have a mind? If not, then no, again opinion)

I looked these up. This is as far as my understanding of this field goes.

I'm saying that yes, while philosophy has made valid points, the legitimacy of philosophy is incredibly exaggerated. I am just arguing that philosophy is inferior to science with regards to actually having an argument. Meaning a philosophical point would always lose to a scientific point. I'm saying that worshiping philosophy, arguing that philosophy is somehow above, or even equal to science is delusion. Clearly it is not, if it were, then it would be proven by the scientific method, and thus become science, and at that point it would no longer be philosophy.

Philosophy is the seed of that which could be great science, but philosophers are incredibly reluctant to actually apply the scientific method to their own arguments, despite the fact that in many areas, such as morality, intensive, objective, empirical study would easily produce very meaningful results.

Everything is made of consciousness — Marzipanmaddox

That's not an opinion, it's a factual claim.