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

I'm saying the default, objective, impartial, and empirical definition, call this definition 2, that I defend based upon what I can derive from human history. This what I am arguing in favor of.

As I previously said, the dictionary definition, definition 1, is riddled with dependence upon subjective and opinionated arguments, and this is why I deem that definition to be invalid.

I am arguing in favor of definition two, and arguing against definition 1. Definition two is the definition I am able to derive from analyzing and trying to deduce and impartial, objective, and empirical definition of morality.

Your "it" in your statement refers to a statement I made about definition 2, yet you are trying to argue this statement reflects my arguments about definition 1. The statement you made is false, just on simple logic alone.

I say Definition 3 of Turtle is "a bag of 7 rocks", then I say, "a turtle (definition 3), contains 7 rocks". You then argue "That's false, a turtle is an animal." According to the contextual definition, this turtle is a bag of rocks, despite the fact that the most commonly accepted definition of the word turtle is an animal. I'm not talking about the animal, I'm talking about the bag of rocks.

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

Really? You're arguing that a rock is a conscious entity?

con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: consciousness

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience
"she failed to regain consciousness"
antonyms: unconsciousness


2. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of
"her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"


3. the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Which definition of consciousness does a rock have? I don't understand. Is there some philosophical definition of this word I am missing? Is a rock self aware now?

This has devolved into animism. Somehow animism is "fact" as opposed to a purely religious and spiritual claim?

Everything is made of consciousness
— Marzipanmaddox

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

It's also bonkers.

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. — S

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. That is a fact of human nature. From that fact it follows that whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community flourishing (in the sense of general emotional well-being) are moral and whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community languishing (in the sense of general emotional dissatisfaction and suffering) are immoral. This is also indicated by the relationship between the terms 'moral' and 'morale'.

As an example, gambling is immoral on account of the suffering and social problems it causes. Murder, rape, theft, assault etc. are obviously immoral for the same reason.

I'm saying the default, objective, impartial, and empirical definition... — Marzipanmaddox

This is getting boring. Just because you can string those adjectives together, that doesn't mean they actually apply.

It seems kind of mad or childish, like declaring that my left foot is the strongest, most pretty, slim, muscular, outstanding, beautiful, and mesmerising.

I say Definition 3 of Turtle is "a bag of 7 rocks", then I say, "a turtle (definition 3), contains 7 rocks". You then argue "That's false, a turtle is an animal." According to the contextual definition, this turtle is a bag of rocks, despite the fact that the most commonly accepted definition of the word turtle is an animal. I'm not talking about the animal, I'm talking about the bag of rocks. — Marzipanmaddox

Alright, well have fun talking about a bag of rocks with other people, but I think it's stupid to define "turtle" that way.

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. That is a fact of human nature. — Janus

It is beyond human nature. It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively. The nature of life is just to flourish as much as possible. Every organism has this instinct, regardless of whether they are conscious or not, all life seeks to do is flourish to the greatest extent that it possibly can.

Life is essentially fire. It is the equivalent of biological fire, and it has the exact same principles that guide itself. Burn until it is impossible to burn anymore. Life spreads and consumes fuel in the exact same manner that fire does. Life exists for the exact same reason that fires come into existence, because there was potential fuel, and the flash point was reached. Once life had been ignited, it never stopped burning because it never ran out of fuel.

Even though life appears to be a closed system life still invariably reduces the potential energy of the system, in the exact same sense that fire does. It may burn at a slower rate, it may reduce potential energy within the system at a slower rate, but it is far more durable and far more capable of surviving than fire. Life exists purely because there was this potential energy that could be reduced, and it exists solely to reduce this potential energy, in the same sense that fire exists with the sole purpose of reducing combustible chemicals with high volatility into less volatile molecules with lower potential energy.

It is beyond human nature. It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively. — Marzipanmaddox

I agree with you that it goes beyond human nature, but I would say that the definition of life is to flourish cooperatively, not competitively. That's the basis of ecology. If a predator over-consumes resources, they may appear to flourish for a short while, but they will quickly die out when resources are over-utilized. So that would not be real flourishing at all. Same goes for the plutocrats.

You can't seem to follow my argument, that is why you are bored. That is unfortunate, but if you have no interest in rereading my argument thoroughly in an attempt to understand it, this is entirely your prerogative.

Clearly the relevance of the allegory has missed you completely. You did not understand that the statement was mean to represent your logic. You are essentially the one who is arguing that the turtle is a bag of rocks here, you are the one using the inapplicable definition as evidence to justify your argument.

Somehow you can't understand the adjectives to the point that they clearly apply and relate to my argument, but this is again entirely up to your own discretion. Whether or not you are willing to consider my point, or whether or not you simply want to antagonize me.

If you had read my argument, understood my argument, you would see that those adjectives very much so apply to the argument that I have consistently been making in this thread.

You argue that I am not "on topic", when in reality, even that statement about turtles and rocks was entirely on topic, as it was relevant to a rebuttal that was made.

Your ability to understand the topic, to put the pieces together, is completely independent from whether or not I am on topic. I would offer to explain whatever aspect of my argument that you, for whatever reason, did not understand, or did not see as relevant, but I figure you have little interest in arguing with me.

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. That is a fact of human nature. From that fact it follows that whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community flourishing (in the sense of general emotional well-being) is moral and whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community languishing (in the sense of general emotional dissatisfaction and suffering) is immoral. — Janus

No, even if your premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow, as a simple matter of logic.

As an example, gambling is immoral on account of the suffering and social problems it causes. Murder, rape, theft, assault etc. are obviously immoral for the same reason. — Janus

An example of a moral judgement.

I agree with you that it goes beyond human nature, but I would say that the definition of life is to flourish cooperatively, not competitively.

It may appear that way, but truly it is not cooperative at all. It is still just flourishing competitively, the reason it seems cooperative is because in order to flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time, you must manage your resources.

Similar to a business. Sure, a business could liquidate all of its assets in December and post a record high amount of revenue for that year, but that business is not truly competing at that point. Businesses may seem cooperative, but they truly are only interested in their own success, and if this means cooperating, they are more than willing to do this. Cooperation here is a means to an end, a means to flourish at the most competitive rate possible. Cooperation is no more relevant than its capacity to enable the cooperator to flourish competitively over an indefinite period of time.

It is beyond human nature. It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively.
— Marzipanmaddox

I agree with you that it goes beyond human nature, but I would say that the definition of life is to flourish cooperatively, not competitively. That's the basis of ecology. If a predator over-consumes resources, they may appear to flourish for a short while, but they will quickly die out when resources are over-utilized. So that would not be real flourishing at all. Same goes for the plutocrats. — Janus

What's funny is that you're both just wishful thinking. Apparently the definition of life is whatever you want it to be!

What nonsense, and Janus, you should know better. I don't know why you lose the good sense I know you're capable of when it comes to this topic.

Janus is pretty much correct on this topic. His definition reflects the actual reason as to why morality is respected any more than snake oil. It is the real results that validate morality, not any opinionated or idealistic interpretation of morality.

Belittling his argument or his personhood amounts to nothing. Justify your point, defend your stance, rebut his argument with more than a simple attack on his character.

In that sense of "competition" I agree. It's not that animals are, or humans should be, out to compete. "Competition" in this sense just refers to the difference between winners and losers in the flourishing game.

Apparently the definition of life is whatever you want it to be! — S

The definition of life I provide reflects the reality in which all life exists, beyond that, the universe in which all physical matter exists. The definition of life I provide is in accordance with entropy, which itself defines and explains the universe we live in, everything that occurs within this universe occurs for the reason that it is in accordance with entropy.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ce5620cfea144bfff9fe2daefad12835

You can't seem to follow my argument, that is why you are bored. — Marzipanmaddox

No, I'm bored because you're getting repetitive, and because it seems like we're reaching a dead end with regards to how you're choosing to define your key terms.

You are essentially the one who is arguing that the turtle is a bag of rocks here, you are the one using the inapplicable definition as evidence to justify your argument. — Marzipanmaddox

Well that's clearly not the case, though. A turtle is an animal and morality is what's right and wrong. I'm not saying anything controversial in that regard. You are. You're presenting an obviously biased definition as impartial, and you seem to think that just calling it that is enough to make it so. Although, to be fair, you did attempt a rambling explanation, but that wouldn't fall under ethics, like I said. It would fall under something else, like social science. There was nothing there to make it about ethics.

I would defend your point that winners and losers are not the relevant aspect of the competition of life. The sole purpose is to flourish to the maximum extent, this has been the entire purpose, the entire reason for the physical existence of all life that has eventually given rise to our own species.

I see life as one large fire, multiple fires for every instance that life has been sparked elsewhere in the universe. The only purpose of life is to maximize the extent to which life reduces the potential energy of the universe over the lifespan of the universe, with no particular favoring of any species or individual.

The natural action would be to pursue this end and only this end, to ensure our own indefinite and perpetual survival to perform exactly the process that life naturally and spontaneously arose to do.

I even go so far as to argue that the more we stray from this natural definition of life, the less and less the human race can truly consider themselves life. When we stop pursing this natural goal, this maximization of the reduction of potential energy induced by life within the universe over the lifetime of the universe, we stop being life all together, we simply become death, we are no longer the righteous fire that was birthed from fuel, but smoldering ashes that failed to sustain the blaze.

The only reason i repeat things is because you fail to acknowledge my point. You fail to understand my point, so I attempt to explain it again.

As for my points not qualifying as philosophy, this is debatable. My points are about an opinionated interpretation of morality, which is so opinionated that you go so far as to call it biased. This is by definition philosophy, regardless of the fact that I defend my argument using empirical and objective reasoning. Surely, within philosophy, empirical reasoning is equally as valid in philosophy as subjective, empathetic, or ethereal reasoning.

The standard for philosophy is so low that it is nearly impossible for an argument about any related subject to fail to qualify as philosophy. The standard of philosophy is basically "What do you think about X?", and these are my thoughts, with relation to X. X in this case being morality.

Janus is pretty much correct on this topic. — Marzipanmaddox

It comes as no surprise that you would say that. You two seem almost like sock puppets.

Justify your point, defend your stance, rebut his argument with more than a simple attack on his character. — Marzipanmaddox

I have, and not for the first time. It usually follows a pattern of Janus making an unsubstantiated claim as though it were fact, and then I respond by pointing this out, and then he makes another such claim, and so on and so forth. And it's no different this time around.

Oh yeah, well my definition of life is the best, most perfect definition of life imaginable, and it reflects the ideal, objective, scientific, utopian vision of a blah blah blah.

The only reason I repeat things is because you fail to acknowledge my point. — Marzipanmaddox

Why would you expect me to grant a point I clearly disagree with, and why would you think that repeating it with more or less the same wording would help? That's not rational thinking.

You fail to understand my point, so I attempt to explain it again. — Marzipanmaddox

No, I just disagree with it. Repeating an explanation I've already criticised and rejected won't achieve anything except cause me some annoyance and make me lose interest.

As for my points not qualifying as philosophy, this is debatable. My points are about an opinionated interpretation of morality, which is so opinionated that you go so far as to call it biased. This is by definition philosophy, regardless of the fact that I defend my argument using empirical and objective reasoning. Surely, within philosophy, empirical reasoning is equally as valid in philosophy as subjective, empathetic, or ethereal reasoning. — Marzipanmaddox

I didn't say that your points don't qualify as philosophy, I said that what you were describing in one of those points doesn't fall under the remit of ethics, as understood conventionally.

The standard for philosophy is so low that it is nearly impossible for an argument about any related subject to fail to qualify as philosophy. The standard of philosophy is basically "What do you think about X?", and these are my thoughts, with relation to X. X in this case being morality. — Marzipanmaddox

You're right about there being a relatively low standard for what qualifies as philosophy, and this discussion of yours would be a good example. I would categorise it as a semantic discussion where you are offering your own idiosyncratic definition which consists of your own normative ethical views about the merits of collectivism, which you misleadingly call impartial and objective, apparently in a superficial attempt to bolster your position.

Oh, it's philosophy alright, but not good philosophy.

From that fact it follows that whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community flourishing (in the sense of general emotional well-being) are moral and whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community languishing (in the sense of general emotional dissatisfaction and suffering) are immoral. — Janus

How does it follow? I'm struggling to even think of any definition of 'moral' which would cause this to follow, let alone a conventional one.

Why does an individual desire for flourishing have any normative impact on the requirement to cause the entire community to flourish? Unless you're defining 'moral' as something like "ensuring everyone has whatever you have", but that would be an extremely idiosyncratic definition to say the least. Where would it stop for a start? If I desire a horse is it then morally incumbent on me to provide the rest of the community a horse?

I don't think we'd even be arguing with the likes of Janus and the discussion creator if they just came out and admitted that their definitions are not universally applicable or objective, but in fact based on their own personal moral evaluations, and are reflective of that alone. But they seem intent on maintaining the pretence.

Yeah, this is something that I really can't understand about their tactics. We argue for positions which are personal moral evaluations all the time. It's a completely normal thing human activity. I just don't get why they seem to have this need to attach the label of objectivity to their positions. It's not like it actually works to lend it any authority. If overnight the definition of 'moral' were somehow fixed once and for all to mean "promoting community flourishing" all it would mean is that sometimes I'm immoral. It wouldn't change my behaviour.

A definition doesn't make me behave any differently, a convincing argument might.

It's also bonkers. — S

Yeah, on that we agree.

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. — Janus

Aside from knowing this isn't the case--I've known some very odd people, not everyone considers the same thing flourishing.

Everything within this universe, everything within the planet earth, is inherently numerical... — Marzipanmaddox

Sorry, I stopped reading after that. Not out of disinterest, but because I need you to clarify this before I can continue understanding what you wrote. I can't see how everything - absolutely everything - is "inherently numerical". It's not that I doubt what you wrote, it's that I don't understand what you wrote. Can you explain, for the benefit of this senile and baffled philosopher? :chin:

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

Perhaps the intention is to suggest that there are things that we can experience, but not describe? In this case we wouldn't be implying that there is something that cannot be approached or understood, but only that this thing cannot be described. Does that make sense? :chin:

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. — Marzipanmaddox

If the sun carries on rising every day, the snake oil is working, isn't it? :wink: And if everybody takes the snake oil, every day, no-one will be able to deduce it's doing nothing, will they? :wink:

And another thing. What if morality is not a policy considered and adopted by societies, but is an emergent property of societies that just appears? The way you put it, you expect evolution to get rid of it if it does nothing. But there are many attributes that have no critical survival value, so they are not selected for or against. Maybe morality is such a thing? :chin:

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. — Marzipanmaddox

So, to paraphrase, philosophy is crap because it isn't science, and only science can be not-crap? Is that about it?

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. — Marzipanmaddox

You're really serious about his, aren't you? You do realise this is sciencism? Possibly eXtreme Sciencism? [XS] Objective correctness gone mad? Joking aside, let's be clear: you're arguing that science is the One and Only Tool acceptable for use in the examination of Life, the Universe and Everything? And that philosophy has been wholly superseded by science?

Really? You're arguing that a rock is a conscious entity? — Marzipanmaddox

You're not understanding the comment or the idea that the comment is about.

I'm not arguing that "Everything is made of consciousness" is true. I'm saying that it's not an opinion, it's a factual claim. "Factual claim" doesn't mean that the claim is necessarily a fact or that it's true. It refers to a claim made about a fact. A claim made about a fact can (turn out to) be incorrect.

For example, "Eels don't reproduce. They spontaneously generate from the mud." That's a claim about a fact. It's asserting something about what the world is like, how the world works. It's wrong, of course, but that's irrelevant. It's a claim about facts.

You might be misreading "factual claim" as "a claim that is a fact; a claim that is true."

"Factual claim" instead refers to "a claim about a fact; a claim that posits what the world is like; how the world works." Many, maybe most (and maybe the vast majority of) factual claims are false.