Oh dear… I guess I have a hard time resisting responding to sweeping generalizations like “no scientist abides by it”. Was it really necessary to pull that one out of your ass rather than saying something more measured and careful like ‘I hope not too many scientists abide by it’? — Joshs

No, I don't hope that is the case, I know it is the case that this isn't science. You may have a few scientist stragglers that cling to the concept, just like you do with every other nonsensical group of concepts. But, I know this isn't science and so do you. Nothing measured needed.

I’m reluctant to get into the main topic of the op when this is the way you deal with secondary topics. — Joshs

No, you've been reluctant to get into the main topic this entire time, that's why you haven't addressed the topic and have instead waisted our time on an anti-scientific, metaphysical belief that we both know isn't true. As you have addmitted. As it happens you've also pointed out that it is a metaphysical domain, instead of a scientific one, which was literally my point the entire time. And you've also not answered my queation as to why, if you don't believe this nonsense and can't actually provide any scientists that argue a case for it in any compelling way, you have decided to spend so much time on it.

What do you suppose would be the outcome of a poll of philosophers concerning the ‘absolute quackery’ status of mathematical platonism vs Objectivism? I’ll bet it would be pretty close, so you might try a slightly humbler stance. — Joshs

Why would potential poll results on unrelated topics imply that I should take a more humble approach at anything? Why would I care what poll data suggest in any regard? I don't give a shit about appeals to majority or popularity.

Metaphysics is not the ground and condition of physics, nor physics the ground and condition for metaphysics. — Cornwell1

Logical positivists may take this position, but I agree with the following:

“What has to be the case for genuine science as such to be possible? This is a question from outside science and is, by definition, a philosophical—even a metaphysical—question. Those who say that science can answer all questions are themselves standing outside science to make that claim. That is why naturalism—the modern version of materialism, seeing reality as defined by what is within reach of the sciences—becomes a metaphysical theory when it strays beyond methodology to talk of what can exist. Denying metaphysics and upholding materialism must itself be a move within metaphysics. It involves standing outside the practice of science and talking of its scope. The assertion that science can explain everything can never come from within science. It is always a statement about science.”

I see now, I worded it the wrong way. They are, in fact, each other's ground and condition, and take shape mutually. My fault...

you haven't addressed the topic and have instead waisted our time on an anti-scientific, metaphysical belief that we both know isn't true. As you have addmitted. As it happens you've also pointed out that it is a metaphysical domain, instead of a scientific one, which was literally my point the entire time — Garrett Travers

Let’s see if we can clarify something. Metaphysical beliefs are commitments that guide scientists in their larger understanding of their subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that it directly affects how they interpret empirical
evidence. In fact, most scientists aren’t even aware of the background presuppositions they bring to the doing of science. 10 scientists on a room can all operate implicitly on the basis of slightly different metaphysical assumptions without this affecting in the slightest their ability to agree on the basic facts of their field of study. The fact that these are pre-suppositions doesn’t make them anti-scientific, it makes them conditions of possibility of science. Objectivism’s
view of science is informed by its own set of metaphysical assumptions.

Let’s see if we can clarify something. Metaphysical beliefs are commitments that guide scientists in their larger understanding of their subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that it directly affects how they interpret empirical — Joshs

Doesn't matter. You're still meandering on this topic because you've already wasted enough of our time instead of addressing the topic discussion. I don't care what you think scientists believe, and I don't anymore about Metaphysical Platonism any more than scientists do.

The fact that these are pre-suppositions doesn’t make them anti-scientific, it makes them conditions of possibility of science. — Joshs

If a hypothesis cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, then it isn't science. And for someone who "doesn't believe in it," you sure seem to be quite its cheerleader.

Objectivism’s
view of science is informed by its own set of metaphysical assumptions. — Joshs

Yeah, induction, experimentation, and falsifiability. Objectivism is also an ethical philosophy, I don't know why you're bringing it up as far as its view of science. I don't know why it is you saying anything. You won't address the topic of discussion and you won't say why you've wasted our time on this non-theory.

You won't address the topic of discussion — Garrett Travers

@Joshs

GT - it is reasonable for you, as the original poster, to ask other posters to keep to the subject as laid out in the original post. Moderators will generally back you up if needed.

Especially when all you're doing is repeating a tired and defeated defense of a pseudoscientific concept that you don't even believe in. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's been here is to derail the discussion and nothing more.

Especially when all you're doing is repeating a tired and defeated defense of a pseudoscientific concept that you don't even believe in. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's been here is to derail the discussion and nothing more. — Garrett Travers

I doubt that he's trying to derail the discussion. Philosophers and sort-of-philosophers get tunnel vision. Also - it's your responsibility to keep the discussion moving in the direction indicated in the OP.

I'm only saying all this because you're fairly new and I didn't know if you knew the mighty power of the OP.

I'm only saying all this because you're fairly new and I didn't know if you knew the mighty power of the OP. — T Clark

Actually, I didn't. I was willing to entertain the debate until it came to the point where he confessed he didn't actually believe in this nonsense, and then continued to argue for it. That's not that kind of interaction I know, or to find out how to understand.

Actually, I didn't. I was willing to entertain the debate until it came to the point where he confessed he didn't actually believe in this nonsense, and then continued to argue for it. — Garrett Travers

As long as you were ok with the tangent, that's fine. Given that, I thought @Joshs's argument was a reasonable one. I had made a similar point earlier in the thread. We can leave it at that.

I think you are confused between Epistemology of Ethics, Math, Science and their respective ontological natures! As all these are different areas of inquiry using different methods to gain knowledge and standards according to which validity of their knowledge is judged!

First lets clarify what Ethics even are!

I would like lay down some definitions:

As you know there are 3 areas of ethics:
1. Meta-ethics
2. Normative ethics
3. Applied ethics

It is not clean of which area Ethics you speak of, yet the very distinction matters!

What are Ethics?
Ethics are emergent from people arguing with each other and then they are made into laws... So they exist outside of an individuals and their (moral systems)! As an individual can't poses of Ethics! Yet Ethics are emergent property of individual moral systems contending with each other!

So to Ontology of Ethics: Ethics require perceivers (to exists as a system in minds of perceivers). But everyone has their own subjective biased mind: so by this very definition Ethics are subjective! So their own creation precisely is stemming from subjective agents! I know what you are already going to say, but bear with me...

Ethics in practice are negotiated by group of people based on what they think is right or wrong! Decisions are emotional, not logical: https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making/. I would argue that anyone decides based on the emotion at the end! Emotions are subjective! Emotions are just evolutionary mechanisms for survival!

For instance, if we say Ethics are subjective. One could claim, if we don't know every possible permutation and even then: we can know only what our perception presents us! Therefore we cannot refute idea of absolute ethics! So to claim ultimately ethics are subjective from our very own subjective experiences would be logical fallacy! We would say something like: under assumption of materialism - Ethics are subjective...

But at the same time, even if there were objective Ethics. We only get their subjective perceptions in our minds. Even if there were such a thing and it were discovered eventually: we still would have to agree upon it! Lets say: we find some underlying principle in nature to be ultimate Ethic! Unless people come together or agree on it, it would still mean nothing!!! As no one would abide by that system!

As again Ethics are emergent property of individuals arguing each other (with different moral standards) having top-down causation backwards to these agents!

Science cannot give us answers on when it is right to defend your property, abortion etc. As it is based on objective facts, which themselves are based inevitably on some assumptions!

I wouldn't necessarily say they are disoriented, or at worst misaligned entirely! But we are affected by our own perception and inherent biases for sure! As your own perception is already distorted, by which frame of reference you are considering ethics to be distorted?

E.g. people tend to prefer individuals from their group on trolley problem, or it would perhaps seem that our pre-existing biases lean us towards utilitarianism on a trolley problem, or people which are hungry judge crimes more harsly...

Which begs the question (if it is improper mode of viewing): what would be a proper mode? Can you state what and why is improper on viewing modes of Ethics according to you?

Hope this makes sense (I have low vIQ)!!! BTW I Am also a moral nihilist, relativist and non cognitivist! Even ultimately I can't prove it!

I think you are confused between Epistemology of Ethics, Math, Science and their respective ontological natures! As all these are different areas of inquiry using different methods to gain knowledge and standards according to which validity of their knowledge is judged! — empleat

So, no I'm not confused at all, however I do appreciate the post. Thanks for stopping by. Let's tackle this:

I am not remarking on their ontological nature, I'm actually remarking on how they emerge from humans, the human mind, as devised methodologies for concluding the most optimal approach, in behavioral terms thereafter, within each respective domain. In other words, the cognitive process by which we formulate methods within each domain is the same, and happens to be governed by the same structure of the brain predominantly.

As you know there are 3 areas of ethics:
1. Meta-ethics
2. Normative ethics
3. Applied ethics

It is not clean of which area Ethics you speak of, yet the very distinction matters! — empleat

Normative Ethics. The domain that deals with devising ethical epistemologies that inform behaviors based on perspective of right and wrong action, moral or immoral. But, all of the above listed sub-branches are assessed in the manner I described: rationally, logically, objectively.

Ethics are emergent from people arguing with each other and then they are made into laws... So they exist outside of an individuals and their (moral systems)! As an individual can't poses of Ethics! Yet Ethics are emergent property of individual moral systems contending with each other! — empleat

So, this is way too delimited in scope to encompass ethics. Ethics deals in the non-legal realm first and foremost, and as such the individual realm primarily. They only existd outside of the human as independently observable behavior of said human(s) who embody the morality of a given ethical framework.

For instance, if we say Ethics are subjective. One could claim, if we don't know every possible permutation and even then: we can know only what our perception presents us! Therefore we cannot refute idea of absolute ethics! So to claim ultimately ethics are subjective from our very own subjective experiences would be logical fallacy! We would say something like: under assumption of materialism - Ethics are subjective... — empleat

Yes, that is my point exactly, such questions of objectivity or subjectivity are not applicable to ethics, yet everyone asks the same fallacious questions ad nauseum. Ethics is a theoretical, conceptual framework developed by humans to help them navigate the domain of proper behavior, both publicly and privately. It makes no sense to ask such questions of such a thing.

But at the same time, even if there were objective Ethics. We only get their subjective perceptions in our minds. Even if there were such a thing and it were discovered eventually: we still would have to agree upon it! Lets say: we find some underlying principle in nature to be ultimate Ethic! Unless people come together or agree on it, it would still mean nothing!!! As no one would abide by that system! — empleat

Precisely! God, I'm glad you get it. You're my new friend.

Science cannot give us answers on when it is right to defend your property, abortion etc. As it is based on objective facts, which themselves are based inevitably on some assumptions! — empleat

Right, you need a framework for assessing such dilemmas, hence ethics as a philosophical practice.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are disoriented, or at worst misaligned entirely! But we are affected by our own perception and inherent biases for sure! As your own perception is already distorted, by which frame of reference you are considering ethics to be distorted? — empleat

The distortion isn't ethics. The distortion is the peception of ethics of the individuals asking the fallacious questions that aren't appropriate to ethics, or any other conceptual framework usde for assessing phenomena.

E.g. people tend to prefer individuals from their group on trolley problem, or it would perhaps seem that our pre-existing biases lean us towards utilitarianism on a trolley problem, or people which are hungry judge crimes more harsly... — empleat

Sure, I can accept this. But, this is not clearly a result of rational assessment, but an emotional assessment, which is specifically what the trolley problem was designed to do. Ultimately the trolley problem isn't a problem at all. To explain: it is absurd hypothetical gotcha that leaves out every other detail associated with why those people are bound to train tracks, and separately at that, and in different groups of numbers, without providing ANY context for who is responsible for this and what is being done about it. It is fallacious along multiple dimensions as an argument. Begging the question, cherry-picking, ad hominem, and more.

Which begs the question (if it is improper mode of viewing): what would be a proper mode? Can you state what and why is improper on viewing modes of Ethics according to you? — empleat

A proper mode of viewing ethics is in terms of what it is in function, source, application, reliability, and comparison with similar practices. Which is what I propose.

Hope this makes sense (I have low vIQ)!!! BTW I Am also a moral nihilist, relativist and non cognitivist! Even ultimately I can't prove it! — empleat

Oooo, I haven't actually ever met one. Are you prepared to defend such a position to a trained ethicist that holds that ethics provides numerous objective frameworks by which to assess moral behavior? If so, let's do this, eh?

So, no I'm not confused at all, however I do appreciate the post. Thanks for stopping by. Let's tackle this: — Garrett Travers

Lol finally someone who can talk facts without crying when first disagreement occurs :)

Oh boy, you triggered my OEs, there is like trillions of things to talk about - I Am going crazyyyyyy...

Note: I should add that I Am a layman, so I may have gap in knowledge! I have also chronic pain and like 90IQ now, so it is not best time, but I Am also bored so I answered... I Am open to all possibilities and change my positions if given proof, or my arguments are logically inconsistent etc.

I am not remarking on their ontological nature, I'm actually remarking on how they emerge from humans, — Garrett Travers

That makes sense to go to a source! Which is not even currently possible to study, so that's tough to tackle right now! Maybe when QM advances to explain the brain, but till :(

But still you are assuming that going to a source will actually reveal some hidden principle of emergence of ethics? And perhaps allow us to reveal some hidden ethical principle in nature, or what? I don't understand what you are exactly expect to find there???

the cognitive process by which we formulate methods within each domain is the same, and happens to be governed by the same structure of the brain predominantly. — Garrett Travers

Are you sure about that, because I have no idea!!!

So, this is way too delimited in scope to encompass ethics. Ethics deals in the non-legal realm first and foremost, and as such the individual realm primarily. They only existd outside of the human as independently observable behavior of said human(s) who embody the morality of a given ethical framework. — Garrett Travers

What do you mean by individual realm (I Am very bad in language), that Ethics must exist in each individual?

I meant it more like: Ethics exists outside of me, even if I die, or 1000 people die, they will still exist as an immaterial information i.e. as Ethical system in all other people. So from my perspective Ethics are external to me. I can only have morals, although I Am part of that Ethical system as well. But more people than 1 must exist for Ethics to exist!

Yes, that is my point exactly, such questions of objectivity or subjectivity are not applicable to ethics, yet everyone asks the same fallacious questions ad nauseum. Ethics is a theoretical, conceptual framework developed by humans to help them navigate the domain of proper behavior, both publicly and privately. It makes no sense to ask such questions of such a thing. — Garrett Travers

Why it makes no sense to ask such questions? They guide our whole lives and law etc. I mean if we had nothing right now - civilization as we know it wouldn't be possible! It doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to explore every possibility! I would say: it doesn't make sense to make absolute statements about Ethics!

That would like to trying to persuade that utilitarianism is better than consequentialism to someone lying of the very rails... From perspective of that very person: it doesn't make any sense in 99.9% of cases under any framework: that it would be objectively better to save 5 people, than 1! That 1 person wouldn't care, even if million of other people died... Why would he had to suffer so terribly in that case? He can't feel their pain, only indirectly! Only in case his pain from other 5 people dying would exceed his pain from dying, then that would make sense...

But from perspective of society: we could say 5 people have more value for survival of a society (within a context)! So therefore it is ethical to save 5!

Ethics at least from material point of view: are always dependent on a context therefore - relative! And on people enacting them therefore - subjective!

Nevertheless it has a value to a society asking these questions! Isn't precisely asking, rising and exploring these questions what gave emergence to Ethics? As Ethics are observer dependent, if you don't like current Ethics, but went to find their origin into their brain. Wouldn't they be still subjective distortions? Or do you like expect they could be guided by some underlying principles in nature or what?

E.g. we could find best possible Ethical decision in any given situation to make in terms of survival... Which still doesn't make them objective moral facts! As ethics are always at odds with survival of an individual and why individual should do something, which causes him to lose value? So lets say: claim that you should sacrifice yourself for 5 people wouldn't be still morally objective!

What someone wants to see someone brutally tortured from a revenge, and threats to release a virus which would kill millions? Is it right to let that person to be tortured in order to save lives of millions? How do you decide that? Again Ethics concerns with what is good for masses, but I Am trying to show dichotomy between Ethics concerning how we ought to act against individual vs masses!

If believed to save millions and thereafter you flipped his place, would be believe still the same?!

The distortion isn't ethics. The distortion is the perception of ethics of the individuals asking the fallacious questions that aren't appropriate to ethics, or any other conceptual framework usde for assessing phenomena. — Garrett Travers

But you assume that there is such a thing that objective Ethics independent of subjective mind of an observer?

As these distortions are the very distortions which defined the Ethics :D How are our definitions of Ethics more objective than their conceptual frameworks?! This confuses me greatly!

Sure, I can accept this. But, this is not clearly a result of rational assessment, but an emotional assessment — Garrett Travers

Yeah I know it is a through experiment. I mentioned it as example: that people decide at the end based on their emotions!

A proper mode of viewing ethics is in terms of what it is in function, source, application, reliability, and comparison with similar practices. Which is what I propose. — Garrett Travers

If we can't even agree upon what Ethics are? Except that they are: "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".

I have good one for you: how do you define what is right and wrong in the first place??? From observing a subjective mind? Everyone views some behavior to be right or wrong, that does not mean there is some objective right/wrong! And that there is a way to rationally, logically to determine it!

Well if you want to study origin of Ethics in a brain. How they come to be! Wouldn't you still need eventually to end up with some system of Ethics? So I will ask, what other system would that be? As I doubt you could come up with some objective system with comparison with similar practices!

Consider this China wants to get ahead so they haste industrial revolution, but in US they had different Ethics. It doesn't make sense to compare similar practices in these 2 countries and expect to find some underlying principle! Because they are situational!

Besides: your proposition seems way too generic! And isn't this what Ethics are exactly trying to accomplish - as what you said?!

Oooo, I haven't actually ever met one. Are you prepared to defend such a position to a trained ethicist that holds that ethics provides numerous objective frameworks by which to assess moral behavior? If so, let's do this, eh? — Garrett Travers

Didn't you just say that it is distorted to view Ethics are objective and so on... :D ? I don't understand!

Well my position is this:
While I know you can't prove, or disprove anything ultimately, except maybe - "I think therefore I Am"... I Am not good at talking so there are probably a lots of gaps between what I say and I give different modality to each statement, it would take to long to dissect every word... Also this is with an assumption of materialism being true!

First lets distinguish 2 separate things:
1. reasoning
2. decision making

It hinges on the claim that people decide at the end always based on emotions, this also distorts their reasoning e.g. about ethical claims...

Since people decide at the end always on emotions - I would argue. People with iron rod in their head couldn't make almost any decisions at all! All if not all: decisions are largely emotional, not logical! As people don't decide how one should act, or others based purely on logic. E.g. we don't let sit jury in a court, if they were mugged! Because they could be biased!

You can make rational, logical, objective claims about ethics and morals. However people don't respond to these almost at all! As people rationalize their believes of what they already believe using logic! And talking about moral acts evokes moral emotions, which affects their decision-making: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/

As people form their moral standards by their lived experiences: values passed by parents, religion, their own moral standards (but how people ought to act is determined largely by moral emotions)!!!

Note: emotions are universal expressions, based on information you gather in life. But they are subjective and relative, as everyone gathered different experiences and had different reactions to them!

Whereas people with ASD don't include emotions into their reasoning/moral reasoning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/

If you ask normal people any ethical question, they will give very biased answer based on their: morals, values, culture, religion and so on... And they won't understand logic, rationality behind an argument!

As people decide in the end always on emotions and emotions are just evolutionary mechanisms for survival, which have universal expressions, but are based on past experiences: therefore they are subjective and relative!

I would argue that Ethics are nothing more than extension of emotions - in this case for survival of a whole race! As if Ethics didn't exist and people would do what they want, civilization as we know wouldn't be possible! So as goal of emotions is survival of an individual, goal of Ethics is survival of a race! As Ethics don't benefit always individuals, but primarily a race as a whole!

I think today most logical people lean towards Ethical Relativism, or Moral Nihilism and Non Cognitivism. Because these are only things which makes sense, as sad as it sounds!

Ethical Relativism:

Now, I claim that ethics are:

1. relative:
Because Ethics different per culture! Each culture has different environment and unique set of challenges! And different Ethics per situation allow it to survive the best! It is just what group of individuals enforced: what they think collectively is the best (based on their individual emotions)...

2. subjective:
There is no underlying Ethical principle, Philosophers are heavily split on Ethical positions. And no one discovered yet one upon which all would agree!

Moral Nihilism:

There is no right/wrong in nature: these are human made concepts to survive! We only given labels based on what feels good/bad emotionally to moral statements... As positive emotion is something which is good for you, whereas negative the opposite! What difference it makes, if I save 100 children from fire, or become serial murderer? Difference in eyes of society? Sure! Difference in my survival? Sure! But in terms of universe, what does it actually matter? Everything just is... That is not to say we should all become Moral Nihilist, as you need morals for survival still...

Non Cognitivism:
Because statements about ethical proposition can't be assigned true/false value. They are only mechanism for survival in a given environment, situation... Which are not true, or false per se, they simply are! We merely give these proposition right/wrong values as truth/false, to survive!

To add:

I posit this to you my friends, in the hopes of a peaceful discussion on the subject, that the questions most commonly associated with the topic of ethics, i.e. objectivity, subjectivity, etc., are distractions that keep us from understanding the truth. — Garrett Travers

What is truth? You are asking hardest question ever proposed: https://bigthink.com/thinking/hardest-question-world-what-truth/

Maybe when QM advances to explain the brain, but till :( — empleat

Quantum Mechanics tells us nothing of the nature of macroscopic material interactions, let alone ones that govern a biological entity with complex thinking like humans. From humans thoughts emerge, as well as perceptions, abstractions, and ultimately concepts. Conceptualization comes from the structures of the brain working in unison with the prefrontal cortex which supplies executive function and superior-patter-processing. These cognitive attributes are used to create frameworks that are employed by humans to achieve desired out comes in certain realms, e.g. science for observation and prediction, jazz for music composition, math for mapping values to universal patterns, and ethics for behavior. A couple of resources that might help stimulate where I'm coming from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00431/full

What do you mean by individual realm (I Am very bad in language), that Ethics must exist in each individual? — empleat

Ethics begins as a development within the thought processes of an individual, much like one understands the scientific method in his/her own time because the brain has to process those concepts, and is then employed externally. Meaning, ethics is a subjective methodology devised by the individual human mind, and the objectively embodied in behaviors both privately, as well as publicly. Just like scientific theories are formulated in the mind as a result of observation, and then placed under the scrutiny of falsification.

Ethics exists outside of me, even if I die, or 1000 people die, they will still exist as an immaterial information i.e. as Ethical system in all other people. So from my perspective Ethics are external to me. I can only have morals, although I Am part of that Ethical system as well. But more people than 1 must exist for Ethics to exist! — empleat

Right, which is specifically what I wanted to highlight with this forum, that people are stuck in that idea of thinking ethics externally, or divinely disseminated. It's just not applicable. No, ethics only exist in the world insomuchas they are embodied as behaviors. Those behaviors constitute your morality, or moral code, that is pressuposed, or informed and molded by, your subjective ethical theorization. That's what I'm saying.

Why it makes no sense to ask such questions? They guide our whole lives and law etc. I mean if we had nothing right now - civilization as we know it wouldn't be possible! It doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to explore every possibility! I would say: it doesn't make sense to make absolute statements about Ethics! — empleat

That's right, to make absolute statements about ethics doesn't make sense. Meaning, it follows that asking questions of the same absolute nature also don't make sense, anymore than what they would for science, or jazz. They're all conceptual frameworks, they're non-absolutes.

it doesn't make any sense in 99.9% of cases under any framework: that it would be objectively better to save 5 people, than 1! That 1 person wouldn't care, even if million of other people died... Why would he had to suffer so terribly in that case? He can't feel their pain, only indirectly! Only in case his pain from other 5 people dying would exceed his pain from dying, then that would make sense... — empleat

I actually dismiss the trolley problem as something imaginary and devoid of any details that would ever happen in reality. In reality some passerby wouldn't have be the only one who could fix the such a problem. wouldn't know how to, and isn't obliged to. There are an endless panoply of details missing from such a hypothetical for it to be relevant to any ethical consideration.

we could say 5 people have more value for survival of a society (within a context)! So therefore it is ethical to save 5! — empleat

Unless those five people are mass murderers... Again, missing details, not a real ethical dilemma and would never happen.

Isn't precisely asking, rising and exploring these questions what gave emergence to Ethics? — empleat

Bingo! Ethics is the formalized methodology, or methodologies that we have come to call epistemologies of ethics, that are employed by humans to deduce from observable and logical data the best course of behavior in a given situation, or across situations. Those behaviors that we conclude are universally acceptable in accordance with that logical and observable data driven process, outside of anomaly, are our moral code. Behaviors that that we conclude are universally unacceptable in accordance with that logical and observable data driven process, outside of anomaly, are behaviors we call evil, or wrong.

As Ethics are observer dependent, if you don't like current Ethics, but went to find their origin into their brain. Wouldn't they be still subjective distortions? — empleat

Yes, it is when they are found in behavior that they are objective.

Or do you like expect they could be guided by some underlying principles in nature or what? — empleat

Yes, of nature, logic, observable phenomena like results of given behavior, degree of responsibility your actions will have for humans that are not you, ability to relegate the results of an action to being experienced by only oneself, avoidance of addictive pleasure, rationality over whim, independent verification over faith, fulfillment of contract, committment to truth, and many more standards of which are available to all people and are contained in almost every single ethical epistemology ever written, even if they are written independently of one another, or in different contexts.

claim that you should sacrifice yourself for 5 people wouldn't be still morally objective! — empleat

Sure, but I don't think anybody would argue such a case. I would argue that in such a case, ethics is no longer applicable, as the only thing that could create that scenario is the threat of death for all if not fulfilled, thereby revoking from you your rational mind, which is where conceptualization takes. Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again. There is no moral objectivity, the objectively standardized morals, subjectively assessed for their quality. Just like with all other conceptual frameworks, one can only strive to be AS objective as possible.

are always dependent on a context therefore - relative! And on people enacting them therefore - subjective! — empleat

That is correct. But, then you embody the moral code that your ethical framework produces and voila! Objectivity!

I Am trying to show dichotomy between Ethics concerning how we ought to act against individual vs masses! — empleat

Yes, I understand the difference.

But you assume that there is such a thing that objective Ethics independent of subjective mind of an observer? — empleat

There is, the human who objectively embodies said ethical framework in the form of behavior. Not that they are written in some extramundane space tablet the we all must abide by. Is that how anyone looks at, or questions the scientific method? As being apart from the independent mind without being embodied by scientists? That's what I'm highlighting.

how do you define what is right and wrong in the first place??? — empleat

I listed the standards above, but there are many more. You standardized behaviors and you vet them for the qualities I listed. That's how you choose what is right and wrong. Just as the behaviors of observation in science were vetted for their quality control, in an attempt to produce the optimal results within that domain.

And that there is a way to rationally, logically to determine it! — empleat

That's how we determine everything else we desire the answer to.

Well if you want to study origin of Ethics in a brain. How they come to be! Wouldn't you still need eventually to end up with some system of Ethics? — empleat

Yes, but if you're studying such a history, you'll be looking at a far more primordial view of ethics. Such as behavior predicated on food procurement, procreation, sleep, and tribal harmony, all in the pursuit of continuing life, which happens to be the fundamental code of nature that you can't break, generally speaking.

Consider this China wants to get ahead so they haste industrial revolution, but in US they had different Ethics. It doesn't make sense to compare similar practices in these 2 countries and expect to find some underlying principle! Because they are situational!

Besides: your proposition seems way too generic! And isn't this what Ethics are exactly trying to accomplish - as what you said?! — empleat

I can't quite make out what these two paragraphs are saying, sorry. Maybe clear that up for me?

I think today most logical people lean towards Ethical Relativism, or Moral Nihilism and Non Cognitivism. Because these are only things which makes sense, as sad as it sounds! — empleat

So, this great. Every single one of your premises were spot on, as far as I can tell. I accept them all as fact, as far as science reveals to us thus far. All except one, which was the assumption that ALL humans base their ethics on emotions, or that because most do, that such should inform YOUR ethical deliberations. I would in fact argue such a thing isn't possible, unless one values their emotions above logic, in which case they will base their ethics on emotion. However, a distinction needs to made between types of people, as the emotional processing center is controlled by the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive actions which include individual value placement and logical assessment that is circulated in the emotional processing. This is important because individuals have the capacity to reorganize their ethical deliberations in accordance with said value placement. You might think of people who get "saved" and then change their behavior as a result of said value shift. This happens with logic and rationality, if elevated as a value by an individual, just as it does with Jesus. Meaning, the more resonable position, based on what we know of cognition, is that cognitivism and non-cognitivism are compatible concepts within the context of multiple people. You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality, which the brain is doing on it's own anyway as a part of its nature. More here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405011/

But, again, ethics is relative to the individual ethical theorist, but so is all theorization. That doesn't mean that objective standards for theorization can't be agreed upon, or that those objective standards can't be translated to objective behavior in a physical body. And, furthermore, if the body is a physical, objective entity, then too is the brain objective that governs the body. And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh?

1. relative:
Because Ethics different per culture! Each culture has different environment and unique set of challenges! And different Ethics per situation allow it to survive the best! It is just what group of individuals enforced: what they think collectively is the best (based on their individual emotions)... — empleat

Yep, no problems here, except the emotions bit I expounded on.

2. subjective:
There is no underlying Ethical principle, Philosophers are heavily split on Ethical positions. And no one discovered yet one upon which all would agree! — empleat

That is correct. Just as there is no underlying scientific truth, sounds kind of funny doesn't? Underlying subjective truth? Underlying ethical truth sounds exactly the same way to me for the same reason.

There is no right/wrong in nature: these are human made concepts to survive! We only given labels based on what feels good/bad emotionally to moral statements... As positive emotion is something which is good for you, whereas negative the opposite! What difference it makes, if I save 100 children from fire, or become serial murderer? Difference in eyes of society? Sure! Difference in my survival? Sure! But in terms of universe, what does it actually matter? Everything just is... That is not to say we should all become Moral Nihilist, as you need morals for survival still... — empleat

Yes, that is correct, moral codes must be established through rational, logical, objectively standardized assessment. So for example, to claim moral nihilism as a moral principle by which your ethical code functions is illogical. The absence of ethics cannot be a standard of ethics, if ethics has no objective element. There's a standard.

If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard.

The claim that no right/wrong exists in nature only serves to justify the wrong and dismiss that which could be right, as to claim there is no right/wrong is to make the claim that you are right about the universe having a right/wrong - how can that be if there's no right/wrong?- that's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Behaviors have effects in the natural universe, which is the definition of matter. And if "mattering" is subjective, then who is a moral nihilist to claim such a state of mind is right/wrong? It's not possible for you to conclude, but you have. Self-contradictory.

To claim that nothing matters in the universe is to make a fact value judgement about it that you are going to use to inform your actions, thereby imbuing your objective behavior with meaning, as it is motivated by a perceived fact. Furthermore, to make the claim nothing matters in the universe and no ethics, and then to proceed to a debate about ethics and meaning is to place value IN the concept of no-meaning, thereby self-detonating nihilism with meaning imparted to it from that very same nihilist claiming the universe has no meaning and no ethics. Self-Contradictory.

What is truth? You are asking hardest question ever proposed — empleat

An innate element of reality that can be independently verified, falsified, and related to by other things of its nature, or within its sphere of proximal influence. This definition combines both correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth into one easily digestable definition.

FYI, if we continue this insanely long conversation, I say we move from here to messenger and tackle these one at a time, or we simply tackle them here one at a time henceforth. So, for next post, just pick on thing you want clarity on and I will assess it, and I do the same for you. Sound good?

Quantum Mechanics tells us nothing of the nature of macroscopic material interactions, let alone ones that govern a biological entity with complex thinking like humans. — Garrett Travers

Are you 100% sure about that, what about microtubules? My understanding is that it is not currently clear: whether or not QM plays role in a human brain!

Sorry, I have chronic brutal headaches, I currently can't read things like this (I can read barely 5-15 minutes at once) and even then: not sure if this is something which can be understood without background in neuroscience, unless there are well established facts in scientific circles, which I can draw upon.

Meaning, ethics is a subjective methodology devised by the individual human mind, — Garrett Travers

I would disagree. Morals yes! But Ethics are emergent based on interaction of each individual in a group! I would include multiple of peoples in definition of Ethics!

Right, which is specifically what I wanted to highlight with this forum, that people are stuck in that idea of thinking ethics externally, or divinely disseminated. — Garrett Travers

Yeah I got this part. Even it doesn't look so, I Am confused in use of language mainly!

No, ethics only exist in the world insomuchas they are embodied as behaviors. — Garrett Travers

I meant it that they have to exist in other people as well for Ethics to exist! As individual can posses only of morals! And then they have top-down causation on a society! I can't poses of Ethics alone, yet my moral standards are informed by Ethics which are coming from other people (therefore external to me). And I agree - that Ethics are embodied (in the real world) only as behaviors.

I could be wrong! But I wouldn't say: I myself have Ethics! But as group of people (with their individual moral standards) based how they interact are part of a Ethical system. And then individual moral standards are informed by group Ethics. Yes everyone in a group has part of Ethics, but I would say: it is something that transcends individual and exist external to him mostly in other people! And is constantly changed how each and all parts interact within that group of people

So I would assert: that Ethics alone cannot exist in a individual mind, yet all individual together are part of a Ethical system!

Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again — Garrett Travers

Riiiight! I get confused with words quickly and entangle, I see too many ambivalencies, that I quickly lose track and again I can't stress how low verbal IQ I have + chronic pain. I need exact definitions, anything little ambiguous and I totally lose myself in words!

Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again. — Garrett Travers

I think what I was trying to say, that you won't learn probably much from origin of Ethics in brains! Without taking into context situations etc. Even if that behavior would be objective once studies by a science, I don't think we still could infer objective morals facts!

I gave that as an example: because I don't know what do you expect to find? Because even if we knew how Ethics are formed in the brain, that doesn't make them right, or wrong inherently! Because I would argue, that individuals give labels of things based on how they feel! I think Ethics are just whatever is group enforced within that group and exists just for survival of a race! So goal of Ethics I would say: is to maximize survival of a group against individuals!

But nevertheless it would be interesting to study that!

I listed the standards above, but there are many more. You standardized behaviors and you vet them for the qualities I listed. That's how you choose what is right and wrong. Just as the behaviors of observation in science were vetted for their quality control, in an attempt to produce the optimal results within that domain. — Garrett Travers

As you define right/wrong that is basically moral nihilism! Whatever works for any given goal established by society best is right/wrong... That being survival in general!

Yes, but if you're studying such a history, you'll be looking at a far more primordial view of ethics. Such as behavior predicated on food procurement, procreation, sleep, and tribal harmony, all in the pursuit of continuing life, which happens to be the fundamental code of nature that you can't break, generally speaking. — Garrett Travers

Yeah that is my point - moral nihilism! Ethics are whatever group of people enforced to suit them the best! What is good for one person, doesn't have to be good for anyone. That's why I have problem defining objectively good! It could lead to reverence of some perverse Ethical system, as to be objectively good! At the end right/wrong is whatever we as a society come to terms with!

I would in fact argue such a thing isn't possible, unless one values their emotions above logic, in which case they will base their ethics on emotion. — Garrett Travers

Note: I Am not trying to be a contrarian, nor do I think I know better! “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” - Plato. Just warning, as it could sound like that! I usually get into problems with people, because of that... It is hard to give one answer, as I give different modalities to my statements and to bridge like postulates, hypotheses, theorizes etc. Because if I feel something intuitively very strongly, yet I cannot prove it, it makes me crazy and I have so low verbal intelligence, I can't express it!!!

Yeah but we know for a fact that decisions aren't solely logical! And emotions play large role in a decision making! Which are subjective based on past experiences! Even Elon Musk says neocortex is trying to satisfy limbic system most of them time!

https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making/

This is only correlation but: "They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat.".

True even if you don't feel emotions they are still there. Or possibly parts of brain which facilitates them are disconnected! It would be interesting to see, in a fully disconnected brain from areas which process emotions, what would happen!

If this interest you, you can try this book from bigthink article: https://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X

I wanted to read about emotions more, but didn't have time to do so. I don't know currently how well is this backed up by science! I don't know what I think anymore :( I just think this is something worth exploring! No other scenarios give sense to me logically, I don't know what would change my view at this point about this!

Also from that link about ASD and Alexithymia, people with Alexithymia don't see morally wrong accidental harm! Because they can't feel their emotions! So I would argue moral judgements are based on emotions at least (from large extent)! And cannot fully escape them! And when there is disconnect from our emotions: it affects our moral judgements and standards, because we tend to think about them more logically...

Yes, that is correct, moral codes must be established through rational, logical, objectively standardized assessment. — Garrett Travers

While I agree, I would be perhaps Effective Altruist. But I Am depressed that there is no right/wrong. Everything is neutral!

Yeah see I have big problem with this! This cannot be true! Problem is people don't form their moral positions on based convoluted theories, carefully thought out using logic, rationality! Just watch some online debates on morals/ethics :D :D :D

Just look how split are we about issues like abortion etc. If we were using logic to developing our Ethics, why would we be that split on everything?! Yes everything benefits differently to different people, but still some neutral issues like abortion. Religion is also a problem! But still...

There is no logical, rational way to create moral codes! As right/wrong is purely subjective! Everyone feels differently about what is rational! People don't choose their moral standards on pure logic - trust me!

Yes you can find logically what would be best to do for survival of a race, but still not all people have to feel the same way, even if you logically explain it to them! That's what I Am trying to say! People decide their moral subjectively based on emotions e.g. from that link about ASD, Alexithymia and moral judgements - people with Alexithymia don't see morally wrong accidental harm!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/
Some individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit atypical emotional processing, and moral judgments. This may be because people with ASD, either use only their logical part of brain, or emotional!

I still think people act morally based on their emotions... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/

You might think of people who get "saved" and then change their behavior as a result of said value shift. This happens with logic and rationality, if elevated as a value by an individual, just as it does with Jesus. — Garrett Travers

Jesus? What??? LMAOOOOO :)

Yeah but one doesn't choose value based on logic and rationality. I think this is absolutely not true!!! It is just my opinion, but I seen too much human behavior broadly and I think just never happens!

"Philosophers have debated the role of emotions in moral reasoning; although some argue that morality is a purely rational process, based upon deliberative reasoning (Cudworth, 1996; Kant, 1785/1965), others emphasize the role of emotions (Hume, 1777/1960; Prinz, 2004). It is now generally accepted that both emotional and rational processes contribute to moral decision-making"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/

So I don't think: you can't take out of equation emotions to say the least!

I would also argue that emotions play huge role in forming moral standards:
"Consistent with a role for the identification of one’s own emotion during moral reasoning, increased alexithymia is associated with more utilitarian decision-making (Patil & Silani, 2014b), and increased perceived permissibility of accidentally harming others (Patil & Silani, 2014a).".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/
"Moral emotions represent a key element of our human moral apparatus, influencing the link between moral standards and moral behavior."

You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality — Garrett Travers

Yes that's what I Am exactly talking about! People assimilate their values based how they feel about them, not based on their rational deliberations! Why are there so many racist/extremist people? People don't think rationally, they rationalize their believes! Especially when it comes to morals, people form their morals based on what they believe is good. E.g. instilled values from parents etc. We feel emotions based on gathered information in life. Your background is absolutely gonna affect your moral judgements and forming of moral standards! They are not excerpt from emotions!!!

You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality, which the brain is doing on it's own anyway as a part of its nature. — Garrett Travers

Then didn't you just agree, that it is on emotions whether or not you integrate such values? Based how you feel about them? Or what to think about them?

And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh? — Garrett Travers

Yeah but limbic system has system for evaluating information of its own, it is not entirely logical like neocortex! Emotions are our bodily feedback loops whether physical or psychological, based on information we gather!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

Like:
- you feel disappointment (because limbic system identified based on your previous experiences that something is not worth your time) but it doesn't mean necessarily that it is true.
- or you because you hate someone you don't listen to his arguments

Emotions are rational, they just evolutionary mechanisms for survival! Yes they are themselves objective, but their meaning is subjective! Emotions are absolute terrible when it comes to judging right moral action: wrongly misplaced empathy, love, conformity! They allow us survive!

How would I explain this? How would I explain this? How would I explain this? Aaaaaaaaa...

Let me give you absolutely atrocious example (I don't know why I heard 10k of them, but I can't recall any): you want to maximize well being in a group and you have 100 000$ to distribute. How do you measure to which people to give money. As you can't know the future and what your decision is gonna exactly do!!! What if you give money to person, which would do the most with it in a given environment. But you have no way of measuring that?

How do you decide what is right/wrong in that context? You don't! World is too complex, people don't use primarily and ultimately rationality and logic when judging what is right/wrong!

Even back and forth regulations happen between neocortex and limbic system, still we decide at the end what feels good I hypothesize!

I philosophize: because if you didn't have emotions how would decide anything? If we omit reptilian brain like: pain and instincts. There is absolutely no logical reason to do anything in the world!!! I argue that without emotions you would have no reason to do absolutely anything and you would just stand on a place and die from thirst eventually... Therefore everything is motivated by emotions!!!

If there were no desires, there would be no reason to do anything!!! https://academyofideas.com/2013/12/the-ethics-of-schopenhauer/

"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#cite_ref-28

But, again, ethics is relative to the individual ethical theorist, but so is all theorization. That doesn't mean that objective standards for theorization can't be agreed upon, or that those objective standards can't be translated to objective behavior in a physical body. And, furthermore, if the body is a physical, objective entity, then too is the brain objective that governs the body. And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh? — Garrett Travers

Yeah, I absolutely agree with that! Yes so cool weeeeeeeeeeeeee xDD

If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard. — Garrett Travers

Yeah, but you are assuming already we have all the same standards, or we can agree on them!

as to claim there is no right/wrong is to make the claim that you are right about the universe having a right/wrong - how can that be if there's no right/wrong?- that's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory. — Garrett Travers

Wait what? While hazily think I understand what you are saying and it makes logically sense...

I think ultimately that right/wrong depends on a subject. Be that subject an objective thing, you can call it objective right/wrong. But then is just matter of interpretation! If anyone can have their right/wrong. How can you determine which right/wrong is more righter/wronger :D ? As I doubt there is any contextual objective right, as everyone have different experiences!

Using rationality? Which itself is for purpose of some goal. Even if both parties agree on rational conclusion, they have to accept same Ethical standard anyways! If that goal for someone: is survival does that mean we should maximize our survival as race? Or if that goal is to minimize suffering, despite lowering our chances of survival as a society - should we do that?! See what I mean?

Everything just is, everything is neutral. We only use right for positive emotion and wrong for negative emotion. Which themselves are no more right or wrong than 1 atoms compared to other atom! As positive and negative emotions are already a construct!

If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard. — Garrett Travers

Yeah but what does it matter if I increase overall happiness? You can say for survival of a race. I ask again why? You can say to make myself happen, because I don't want other people to see suffer. But again I may ask why AD Infinitum!

As right/wrong is immaterial information stored in a matter. You would have to define first right/wrong and then prove there is something right/wrong. And it aren't just labels we give to neutral phenomena like physical forces, information...

If you say something because it is right, it is like how does that matter? I will die and everyone, even universe will die and so on... That's why I think moral nihilism is true, because either way it doesn't matter... Even as I human being which can feel pain, I want to see society thrive, because it makes my life better, as sad this is... And if I can't ultimately know that, that I need learn learn learn, in case it would be otherwise... I have also other important reason I can't tell you about!!!

To claim that nothing matters in the universe is to make a fact value judgement about it that you are going to use to inform your actions, thereby imbuing your objective behavior with meaning, as it is motivated by a perceived fact. Furthermore, to make the claim nothing matters in the universe and no ethics, and then to proceed to a debate about ethics and meaning is to place value IN the concept of no-meaning, thereby self-detonating nihilism with meaning imparted to it from that very same nihilist claiming the universe has no meaning and no ethics — Garrett Travers

Yeah I can see how this can be confusing, I have my reasons.

But I don't know what I said now, because I sick of scrolling (even in other browser tab). But I can't absolutely know it has no meaning, probably it isn't about us, because universe doesn't give crap about us! I can't ultimately prove it. So there is goes, I have so many positions with so many modalities, how I can even say something, when 10 other things leaches from elsewhere and all these overarching things.

While if you ask me specific think I admit it. I care only about truth and I Am dialectical. Because I Am surviving on negative entropy :D Otherwise I would go crazy! And even I Am depressed, I have my reasons. I Am forced to learn 24/7 once I Am better, there is nothing else anyways and what I can do...

An innate element of reality that can be independently verified, falsified, and related to by other things of its nature, or within its sphere of proximal influence. This definition combines both correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth into one easily digestable definition — Garrett Travers

Yeah but how do you determine what is a reality, if everything is filtered though your brain and what about noumenal things? What if I say there is a red carpet and it is my truth and you hear blue and see blue and it is your truth? Which is which?

Or what if there are mutually exclusive truths: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/reality.htm

I don't know, this one is really hard... Don't have really strength to think about it right now!

FYI, if we continue this insanely long conversation, I say we move from here to messenger and tackle these one at a time, or we simply tackle them here one at a time henceforth. So, for next post, just pick on thing you want clarity on and I will assess it, and I do the same for you. Sound good? — Garrett Travers

I had the same idea :D

Depends what you want to talk about, I can't currently read anything complicated! I don't know what is your background in neurology, but I know nothing about that! So it is not like I would have be able to learn that soon anyways, if that is something complicated which requires expertise in that area!

I Am good at Logic/Philosophy and verifying "some" facts... I know on the surface from all areas of sciences, some broad and mostly very specific things. So I have good ideas, but I don't have expertise in science! I know what I can know and if I don't know, that I don't claim anything as a fact...

Damn it, bud. I wanted to tackle individual topics at a time to limit all this writing, lol! Which one you want me to hit first? Quote it and I'll respond to it directly, and we'll go from there.

I wanted just to give last answer, because I wasn't sure if you want to continue talking. And I thought you would PM me if so. Do you have discord? PM me if so.

No, I don't have discord. But, yeah, I'll dm.