In the same way that these are non sequitors
"I have the goal of eating"
"I (morally) should eat"/ "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral"

Neither of these follow. If you had meant should in the same sense that you use should in "You should turn on the stove to cook the stake" then it makes sense (I (instruction)should achieve stability because I want it) but then you're not making a normative claim — khaled

It seems like you do not understand subjective normative statements.

I have a goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat.

There is nothing weird about that and it is a normative statement. It is not a non sequitur. Any objective moral imperative can also be expressed like this.

There is an objective moral goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat.

What makes it sound weird is the word "moral" since we because of the history of that word associate it with something other than eating. But this is irrelevant because even you acknowledged that any system that makes normative statements is a moral system no matter how unintuitive they sound.

It seems like you do not understand subjective normative statements. — Qmeri

maybe but I don't think so

It is not a non sequitur. — Qmeri

It is. There is nothing "moral" about eating. Tell me what formal logical law is employed in going from "I have the goal to eat" to "I should eat"

I have a goal to eat
I am hungry

Or something similarly mundane is about all you can get in terms of a syllogism that starts with that statement

even you acknowledged that any system that makes normative statements is a moral system no matter how unintuitive they sound. — Qmeri

Yes. And I think that you are either not making normative statements or if you are they are non sequitors

Also if this was logically consistent:

I have a goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat. — Qmeri

Then that would be enough to answer Hume's law. Why wouldn't you just say that if that was your goal?

I think we should focus on this:

I have a goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat. — Qmeri

If this follows then "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" would also have to follow (since you say that normative statements automatically define a moral law). Do you really think "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" should follow from "I have a goal of eating"?

If this follows then "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" would also have to follow (since you say that normative statements automatically define a moral law). Do you really think "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" should follow from "I have a goal of eating"? — khaled

Okay, it seems like we understand the word "moral" differently. To me it just represents the systems we have created to evaluate our actions and choices as "desirable" or "undesirable", since we truly have a need for that kind of system in order to make any choices about anything.

It became quickly clear for us in history that judging actions simply by whether they helped ones personal goals made all choices and judgements arbitrary. Therefore we invented the idea of objective goals aka "morals". Then Hume realized that such goals can't be philosophically justified and we got the great problem of ethics aka Hume's guillotine.

My system tries to solve this by showing that there is a logically necessary personal goal for everyone that is not arbitrary and therefore judging actions as "desirable" or "undesirable" according to this goal gives us an unarbitrary system that functionally does the thing we created objective morality for - evaluating choices. Whether one calls it "moral" is irrelevant to me, although again, I do think following it creates intuitively moral choices most of the time.

Oh, and by the way I don't think not eating is somehow immoral just because you have a goal of eating. For me it's all about justifying goals and the goal of eating isn't necessarily justified objectively. The stability goal solves the problem of justifying your choice of goals, since it does not need to be justified since it's a logical necessity and therefore not a choice.

To me it just represents the systems we have created to evaluate our actions and choices as "desirable" or "undesirable" — Qmeri

Ok I'll go with that.

since it does not need to be justified since it's a logical necessity and therefore not a choice. — Qmeri

One can argue that the desire to eat is also (while not logical) a necessity. I also showed how "going to stability" isn't a logical necessity either. "Unstable things try to change their state" =/= "Unstable things try to be stable"

Yes 0 is neutrality. This is our optimal state. This is our rest state. The state of balance.
However all life hangs in a balance.

I also showed how "going to stability" isn't a logical necessity either. "Unstable things try to change their state" =/= "Unstable things try to be stable" — khaled

Yes yes, and I'll get back to that after a good night sleep and some thinking.

"Unstable things try to be stable"

Without Instability nothing would exist.

It is true true that no logical necessity can ever give us any information about our world since they are true in every possible world. They are all trivialities. But since our intuition doesn't seem to understand all the logically necessary trivialities, they can still teach us new things we didn't realize before. (Like: I think, therefore I am.) Therefore proving things as logical necessities accomplishes useful things. In this case it demonstrates a trivial yet unintuitive goal that everyone in every possible world has. At least I didn't know that before I came up with this theory. A logically necessary triviality gave me new understanding, therefore logically necessary trivialities can give new understanding. — Qmeri

You are right that we can learn by means of logical arguments implications of which we were not aware, even though they were always "contained" in the premises. However, you are not making a logical argument here. The only reason the triviality of what you are saying is not immediately apparent isn't because of the structural complexity of the argument but because you couch your pronouncements in obscure metaphorical language - which is precisely the opposite of a logical argument, in which strict, unambiguous formal language is used, with every term having a precise definition.

You say that the goal of every person is to achieve stability. But when we unpack this sentence, it turns out that by "stability" you mean nothing other than fulfillment of a goal. So once the obscure language is peeled away, it turns out that what you said was a simple tautology: your goal is your goal is your goal. Great! Thanks for making that clear.

Logic without experience has no value. Experience without logic has no value. We should aim for the experiential logic.

You can replace logic with hypothesis and and experience with empiricism.

You say that the goal of every person is to achieve stability. But when we unpack this sentence, it turns out that by "stability" you mean nothing other than fulfillment of a goal. So once the obscure language is peeled away, it turns out that what you said was a simple tautology: your goal is your goal is your goal. Great! Thanks for making that clear. — SophistiCat

Stability was defined precisely, although I do agree that the text has other things in it that are interpretable. Stable state is simply a state of a system that doesn't try to change aka doesn't change without outside influence. Instability is the opposite of that. And by those precise definitions an unstable system is trying to achieve change of its current state by logical necessity, which is a goal by most definitions and therefore a logically necessary one. Not just your goal is your goal.

At least for most people "your goal is your goal" does not give the same ideas as "trying to achieve a change in an unstable state is a logically necessary goal that isn't a choice". "Your goal is your goal" does not demonstrate any logically necessary goals for anyone, which is the main point of this theory.

Stable state is simply a state of a system that doesn't try to change — Qmeri

Is stability alone a bit of an oversimplification though? Piaget coined the term "equilibration" which is a combination of stabilization and progressive development.

I also showed how "going to stability" isn't a logical necessity either. "Unstable things try to change their state" =/= "Unstable things try to be stable" — khaled

Okay, let's acknowledge that at any given time, the only logically necessary goal an unstable system has is the goal of achieving a change in it's current state. But because our intelligence allows us to extrapolate and create the optimal solution to this problem that in any unstable state we have not achieved our goals, we can show that the achievement of stability is the optimal solution to this problem, although not a logically necessary goal itself.

But since this is a moral system whose purpose is to show that there is a logically necessary goal (unstable systems are trying to achieve a change in their state) and that the optimal way of solving that problem of not having achieved ones logically necessary goals in any unstable state is achieving stability, all the conclusions stay the same. Although, I do agree that there is a nuance difference.

Although, we probably should define what a goal is. (I think we pretty much have defined everything else pretty precisely.)

We seem to agree that a system, which tries to achieve something has a goal. "Trying to achieving something" can be divided into two categories: "trying to achieve change" and "trying to achieve no change". To me trying to achieve change is not having achieved your goal and trying to achieve no change is having achieved ones goal. At least with that definition, stability, which is the state you have achieved when you try to achieve no change, is the the only possible state, where one has achieved his goal.

Do you have a good definition for a goal? The traditional way of defining it as something "desirable" is insanely vague.

Do you have a good definition for a goal? — Qmeri

A goal is whatever makes you behave with intent.

So, a being that has achieved everything it tried to achieve and therefore does not have anything that makes it behave with intent since everything is already the way it desires, doesn't have goals? That would mean achieving a goal is losing a goal. Well, I guess it's no longer a goal if it has already been achieved.

So, a being that has achieved everything it tried to achieve and therefore does not have anything that makes it behave with intent since everything is already the way it desires, doesn't have goals? That would mean achieving a goal is losing a goal. — Qmeri

Absolutely correct.

Eckhart Tolle > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“... there are two ways of being unhappy. Not getting what you want is one. Getting what you want is the other.”

A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose

Well, that is not exactly what I meant. To me achieving everything you want and being in a state you don't try to change is still happiness. Human psychology seems to very bad at this though, since it usually just comes up with new goals when the old ones have been achieved. I guess evolution makes systems that never stop trying because those kinds of systems usually win even if they are not the most happy.

To me achieving everything you want and being in a state you don't try to change is still happiness. — Qmeri

For me achieving everything I want and being in state I don't want to change has meant boredom not happiness. Happiness requires change.

For me achieving everything I want and being in state I don't want to change has meant boredom not happiness. Happiness requires change. — ovdtogt

Boredom is a goal evolution created for us (probably) so that we don't stop trying to do things and therefore wasting our resources. You are not in a stable state if you are bored. You have internal conflict in you. And usually boredom eventually wins and makes you behave with intent.

We are physically and mentally programmed to react to internal and external signals: hunger, pain, thirst, cold, fear, desire (internal)and light, sound, taste.. 5 senses (external).
These signals are stimuli. If we receive too little stimuli we get bored.
People in solitary confinement can go crazy through the lack of stimuli.
People can go crazy in super quiet rooms.
People go crazy if they don't get enough human contact. All these stimuli are necessary to stay sane.

And being in a state you don't want to change doesn't mean that you are just lying in your bed doing nothing. When having sex many people are in a state they don't want to change. Even if their body is doing something, their mind is not trying to change what the body is doing and is just happy with what is happening.

And being in a state you don't want to change doesn't mean that you are just lying in your bed doing nothing. — Qmeri

To be honest I find it very difficult to get out of bed in the morning. If it were up to me I would stay in bed for the rest of my life. Unfortunately it becomes so uncomfortable after a while (back pain, sore butt etc) I am forced to get out. Spend about 12 hours in bed.

When having sex many people are in a state they don't want to change. — Qmeri

I don't recognize that (must be getting old). After a while I just want to 'come' and get it over with.

We are physically and mentally programmed to react to internal and external signals: hunger, pain, thirst, cold, fear, desire (internal)and light, sound, taste.. 5 senses (external).
These signals are stimuli. If we receive too little stimuli we get bored.
People in solitary confinement can go crazy through the lack of stimuli.
People can go crazy in super quiet rooms.
People go crazy if they don't get enough human contact. All these stimuli are necessary to stay sane. — ovdtogt

I agree... human mind is programmed to work in a very specific environment. Lack of stimuli would be such a huge change of that environment that it would be weird if we didn't go crazy.

When having sex many people are in a state they don't want to change. — Qmeri

I must be getting old, but after a short period I just want to 'come' and get it over with. BTW screwing the same woman gets a bit boring after 25 years.

But since this is a moral system whose purpose is to show that there is a logically necessary goal (unstable systems are trying to achieve a change in their state) and that the optimal way of solving that problem of not having achieved ones logically necessary goals in any unstable state is achieving stability, all the conclusions stay the same. Although, I do agree that there is a nuance difference. — Qmeri

The conclusions don't change but I never agreed with the conclusion in the first place
Your argument as I understand it is:

1- People seek change until they achieve stability
2- Therefore people should seek change until they achieve stability (I think is a non sequitur)
3- Therefore we have a system of morality that bypasses Hume's law

You can't reach 3 if 2 is a non sequitur

The conclusions don't change but I never agreed with the conclusion in the first place
Your argument as I understand it is:

1- People seek change until they achieve stability
2- Therefore people should seek change until they achieve stability (I think is a non sequitur)
3- Therefore we have a system of morality that bypasses Hume's law

You can't reach 3 if 2 is a non sequitur — khaled

So it still seems that we disagree on the nature of the word "should". To me your "moral should" is the same as "according to this objective goal so and so should". And the should in my system is "according to this subjective goal so and so should". Therefore my argument is:

1- People try to achieve change until they achieve stability by logical necessity
2- Therefore according to this goal people should achieve change until they achieve stability
3- Therefore we have a system of morality that bypasses Hume's law

But even if we give you that there is some kind of "moral should" that is not just the same as an objective goal, this system still makes "moral should systems" functionally unnecessary since it gives an unarbitrary way to make all possible choices with just subjective normative statements.

At least to me, the only problem philosophically in just going with your personal goals was that you couldn't philosophically justify any goal better than another and that made your choice of goals arbitrary. With this system one subjective normative statement becomes not a choice and therefore not arbitrary and all other subjective normative statements can be derived from that one.

Objective morality was a nice idea that solved a functional need to evaluate choices. Hume realized that it couldn't be justified and now it doesn't need to be justified since with this system there is not even any functional need for it.

To me your "moral should" is the same as "according to this objective goal so and so should". — Qmeri

Ok so does the use of should in these two sentences sound EXACTLY the same to you?
1- You should not steal
2- In order to cook a steak you should turn on the stove

I think your entire system is based on the should in sentence #2 which I'm not even sure counts as normative. A normative statement says something about whether the situation is desirable or undesirable (google) or in other words (mine) talks about how things should be/ how we want them to be. In #2 this should isn't talking about how things should be or how deirable or undesirable turning on the stove is, it is simply describing HOW to cook a steak. A normative statement doesn't describe how to do something but WHETHER on should or shouldn't do something. Sentence 2 is not an instruction, it simply describing a state of affairs (that in order to cook a steak one would need to turn on the stove)

You can't create a system of morality based on the should in #2. In order to cook a steak one should light a stove, so what? Does that say one should light the stove? No. Does it say one should cook a steak? No. So similarly

1- People seek stability
2.i- People should try to obtain stability (and covnersely, people who don't try are immoral)
2.ii- People need to try to obtain stability (by necessity)

I think you need 2.i to make a moral system but I think 2.ii is what is equivalent to 1 and that 2.i is not quite the same statement. Another example

1- I am hungry
2.i- I should eat
2.ii- In order to eat I would need a steak

2.ii makes sense as a statement and is unrelated to 1 and is true. 2.i DOESN'T follow from 1 if by should you mean "Morally obliged to" not "Need to".

In order to distinguish these, I suggest we use "should" to mean morally and "need to" or "will" to mean instructionally.

Stability was defined precisely, although I do agree that the text has other things in it that are interpretable. Stable state is simply a state of a system that doesn't try to change aka doesn't change without outside influence. Instability is the opposite of that. And by those precise definitions an unstable system is trying to achieve change of its current state by logical necessity, which is a goal by most definitions and therefore a logically necessary one. Not just your goal is your goal.

At least for most people "your goal is your goal" does not give the same ideas as "trying to achieve a change in an unstable state is a logically necessary goal that isn't a choice". "Your goal is your goal" does not demonstrate any logically necessary goals for anyone, which is the main point of this theory. — Qmeri

You are just playing with words here. No one would describe a ball rolling downhill as trying to get to a more stable state, except metaphorically. No, a goal, by most definitions, is something that only sentient beings can have. It involves desires, intentions, planning, active pursuit - something that you won't find in non-sentient systems. Most importantly in this context, normativity does not apply to non-sentient systems (and arguably to non-humans). The movement of a ball cannot be inherently right or wrong. Only our goals can have that normative dimension. If you think otherwise, you'll have to argue for that - you cannot just play fast and loose with words and think that sufficient for an argument.

You are right in that you don't just stop at a simple tautology in your original argument. You do worse than that. By your reasoning, our willful actions can never be wrong. If you do something in fulfillment of your desires, that moves you closer to a state in which you will no longer have those desires and thus no motive to perform any further action - a stable state. So the argument goes. Of course, as someone has pointed out, living systems are only quasi-stable; they have to constantly work to maintain homeostasis, an unstable equilibrium with their environment. In conscious beings, such as humans, desires are a part of that equation. We never seize to have desires; perfect stability is death. But this isn't the biggest problem with your ethical theory. Your theory pretty much abolishes right and wrong. And since we know right and wrong, we know that your theory has to be wrong just for that reason alone.