It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Just want to pick on this first point.

It’s interesting that you’ve somehow linked morality with happiness. And perhaps there is truth in it because doing the right moral actions signifies that that person has a conscience and doing the wrong moral action would lead to guilt in an individual. But this is not always the case as one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it. Or make correct moral choices and feel neither happiness or sadness.

But now assume someone just found a suitcase with a million dollars in it. The right moral action would be to return it to its rightful owner however if they the choose the immoral choice which is to keep it by your logic they would be unhappy ?

Welcome

What do you think about brain chemistry regarding happiness then. Why are my dogs happier than my cats?

It would be my contention that regardless of an immoral actor's perception, they DO become inflicted with unhappiness based on immoral actions. Based on contentions 3,4, and 6 the trouble is that the best happiness they have ever felt is a consequence of their low moral choices in general. They have no benchmark to understand a more genuine happiness relative to where they are.

But this lack of virtue/awareness/perception works both ways. That is to say, the wise suffer more exquisitely than the unwise. Suffering is the only path to wisdom. So their dullness is a consequence of their dullness, if you follow. It's actually the same with animals.

But animals are already lesser moral agents than humans are. Increasing agency opens a wider scope of happiness and of good/evil choice. In such a way the amplitude moral agency can be expressed as an absolute value. It's every bit as possibly good as it is possibly evil. This is the fulcrum upon which free will balances.

The moral agency amplitude can be envisioned as a cup or container. When it is accidentally filled further than it has been before, with any virtue, then that part of happiness can be experienced. Although a given moral agent may not be routinely functional at that level, they are now increased in the virtue at least of awareness regarding this happiness. It is another related sub contention that once a moral agent experiences this, and certainly regularly, they begin to crave that happiness and indeed find it harder to 'sin' against it, to act in immoral ways. This is the street kid that finally finds a more moral family type of situation. This is the abused creature that finally finds some measure of regular non-abuse. It is also the self indulgent eater that finally gets thin to win. It's harder once awareness is there to intend the immoral. And even if the moral agent overcomes that 'difficulty' they still suffer more unhappiness in their full awareness. I still argue that as a law of the universe they experience the full measure of unhappiness even if they do not perceive it.

Keep in mind that as mentioned, genuine happiness is better than just a spike of a virtue. For example the virtue of achievement and the subsequent earning of profits can certainly be described as immoral, especially after excess (but really just in general). So the stronger and stronger expression of choice through the achievement virtue does offer greater and greater happiness. But that happiness is not genuine or full. It's the same with any addiction. The happiness becomes empty. And I digress to mention this, but, giddiness is always a moral error consequence. It is a red flag to me.

In the case of the money, yes, if the finder kept it, they are going to experience unhappiness. They will know that they did not earn it. As another digression I will mention that it is not possible to morally earn anything except wisdom and happiness. All other earnings are not actually earned. They can be separated from you. Only you can separate your wisdom and happiness from yourself. That is part of the truth of free will.

This has actually happened to me. I tend to notice things others miss. I have, over the years, found many jewelry items. I have always tried to return them except in two cases. The one was when I was a child. My parents kept a diamond engagement ring I found in a lake and ... gave it to my sister. They/we made no effort to return it and I did feel guilty both immediately and even still about it. I do forgive myself my part. I was only a child. But I felt it was wrong and odd even then. The second case was where I did advertise the find of an extremely valuable diamond bracelet in a parking garage of all places. No one answered the ad that ran for two weeks at my expense. I pawned it but still felt guilty. Of course I did what most people would say is enough. But only the perfect is enough in reality. Morality is tricky business.

As a choice gets more and more good, it is harder and harder to make. This is why the wise are comfortable with suffering. That suffering is necessary. In this case effort is part of what is called suffering. And the wiser one gets the more this effort is a happy thing therefore. But the wise also thus inflict necessary suffering on the unwise to allow them a safer opportunity to earn wisdom.

Hopefully all of that is a sufficient answer. Continue if you'd like.

This is a hilarious question. I love it.

I would guess initially that dogs and cats are stronger and weaker on differing virtues. As mentioned , Further, individual dogs and cats are also different in terms of moral agency although they hover around a certain specific moral agency amplitude.

If independence is a virtue and I think that is arguable, then cats are better at this than dogs are. But the orderly following of hierarchy and joy, both arguable virtues, are certainly higher in dogs as is measurable intelligence which is something beyond just sensory observation.

It's interesting that this set of examples serves to help argue for my points.

Also, this brings up a digression as well. That is ... I do believe the universe has morality as a law. That means indeed the table has a moral agency. The storm is certainly a moral agent. And this rises into living creatures before reaching its zenith as far as we know in humanity.

The animists were always more correct than religion. :) {First guess is best}

None of what you said made any sense to me, but I am fine with that.

How about feeling pain due to random circumstance. A person that endures a lot of pain will generally be less happy compared to one who does. Is it then somehow immoral to get a disease that brings about a lot of pain?

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Isn't Good the foundation of morality, rather than happiness? Maybe happiness is linked to Good. If so, how so?

Is happiness always good? Therefore being happy is morally good? Not sure if it is the case. Please elaborate on the points.

I am very glad you asked this.

It is not easy to understand the good, to understand the perfect. ... That being said, Yes, all manner of weakness is immorality to some degree.

That is consistent with me suggesting that even a single almost perfectly moral act would be the hardest act or choice ever one could do.

Further, many people confuse state as being neutral. State is not neutral. That is to say the state or consequence in being of a person is a consequence of choices and actions that came before. The more immorality amid the choices, and none of us is anywhere near perfect, the more likelihood of a current state that is effectively an immoral consequence.

Of course one virtue of the good is forgiveness. The wise forgive everything and as near to perfect in forgiveness as can be chosen. This dynamic reduces or in the case of perfection erases animosity towards other choosers, and oneself as well if properly understood.

A person cannot be evil. Only their choices are. Likewise a person cannot be good. Only their choices are.

Enduring suffering is the path to wisdom. But the ascetics went too far when they inflicted unnecessary self-flagellation. Indeed they did not show as great a wisdom as if they truly found lighthearted joy amid necessary suffering.

Sounds like chat GTP, welcome to the forum.

Why are my dogs happier than my cats? — mentos987

Probably because your cats feel no obligation to impress you.

I did already explain that link.

You the aim is towards the good. That is something I might also call perfection.

The link is that good aimed actions and choices have a consequence of happiness. We can be more specific by saying the more and more good an action or choice has in aim, the more and more happiness that action has as a consequence.

Again, as also already explained, this issue is clouded by understandable misunderstandings related to choosing a behavior that amplifies one or a few virtues while copping out on other virtues. The built in law of nature rewards of morality are partite. Each virtue has a return. But wisdom and the good are the best behaviors and more to the point the best behavior sets, including all virtues.

As also mentioned, disingenuous happiness is relative. That means there is still some happiness. Certainly life or existence would cease entirely if happiness was zero. That fits the model. So we can postulate that that has not happened. Likewise we can postulate that perfect good as a choice has not happened. It would cause some metaverse affecting event if it did, possibly the purpose of the existence of the multiverse being realized.

So, being happy in the sense that I refer to is close to perfect. If we stop and go anecdotal which is fine, we must then assume that each person's interpretation/belief/choice of what happiness is ... is partially immoral and wrong. To that degree they experience unhappiness and then apply that in turn incorrectly to their judgment of others' happiness. Like any worthy situation, morality, acting by aiming at the good, is not easy.

Nope. 100% human although I am a coder with over 40 years experience and I certainly play with ChatGPT a lot. I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply.

Indeed, just so! Following of hierarchy and connection. Report to the overlord! And dogs are probably much higher on friendship as a virtue concept. The independence of cats relegates them to a more staid display set for affection and relative power.

Is a happy thief morally good, because he is happy?

A person cannot be evil. Only their choices are. Likewise a person cannot be good. Only their choices are. — Chet Hawkins

There is no such thing as a person. Only choices exist. Discuss...

Why happiness? Surely some people may be happy doing the wrong thing, or may be happy in suffering. If you are saying that we need to assess what that happiness consists of to demine if it's a 'good' form of happiness, then you are saying we need something external to happiness to determine if our happiness is the 'right kind'.

Of course one virtue of the good is forgiveness. The wise forgive everything and as near to perfect in forgiveness as can be chosen. — Chet Hawkins

How do you know? Sounds like a value from Christian religion. It's a presupposition; how would you demonstrate this?

So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you.

I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral.

Further, I already answered as to why those who commit immoral acts, make immoral choices, are often considered or consider themselves happy. They are referring to that which most of us settle on, disingenuous happiness or dull happiness. It literally can be likened to the 'happiness' of a wild animal.

That is to say, the moral agency of a wild animal is less as an absolute value than a human's is. If a human settles on an animal's moral scope, then they are choosing to be a devolved moral agent. Whereas they may not partake of rank immorality, they also do not aspire to push themselves to be more moral. Of course all things exist on a continuum. Hopefully you care and get my point.

As mentioned already due to the feedback of happiness from some virtues and not all, it is easy to explain less moral versions of happiness. That is why I specifically use the term genuine happiness.

I do not know how to quote on this forum. It makes little sense to me so far. The reply function should include the with quote option.

Anyway, yes, I agree, a person really is mostly just a choice from before.

But there is a statement I would make. The nexus of choice is a distinct element from the physical. That is to say the investment of consciousness into a physical body provides the concept of personhood. Only the body is a trapped state of previous choices that represent a challenge for the chooser. The nexus of consciousness, the signal as it were, whereas the body is the antennae, remains possessed of free will.

As evolution progresses moral agency increases. This is the ability of the nexus of choice to utilize free will via the increasing scope of moral agency. That is to say the body choice current state of an animal is less empowered to facilitate the infinite choice of free will. The body choice current state of a human is relatively more empowered to facilitate the infinite choice of free will. Likewise, those that take control by intent, in deontological fashion, of their nexus, that admit to the duty and effort of such a thing, are pressing evolution itself forward. They are empowering the expansion of moral agency. This means the facility to make moral and immoral choices both is increasing. That is effectively active wisdom. Whereas the choice as mentioned in the thief example above by Corvus represents a person who had chosen a lack of effort or less effort than the wise.

It should be mentioned for completeness that evolution itself stands as a stark proof writ large for my model because depending on how you view the progress over time, moral agency seems to be increasing at a reasonable pace compared to say moral agency prior to life as an extant phenomenon in the universe.

---

No happiness does legitimately come from the amplitude of virtues within choice is my assertion. This model still does account for disingenuously or moderately happy people as merely being human partakes of many virtues in the expression of relative moral agency. But the point is that people that pursue aiming at objective good do indeed generally enjoy more genuine happiness.

We, none of us, are perfect. But I am fairly sure we, each of us, knows someone we consider wise. I have mentioned as well that the wise suffer more exquisitely than the unwise do. That is because of the fact that they are indeed more of every virtue. They are more aware, more caring, more achieving, more of each virtue. But any given exemplar of a singular virtue is quite limited in happiness. If we decided there were an arbitrary number of virtues like 12 or 16 or even just 3 we could express some way of measuring the moral duty or general trend of a moral agent's choices in terms of their mean moral value. I would argue that regardless of delusional perceptions to the contrary the moral agents with the higher means are indeed more happy. They are closer to genuine happiness than others are.

The feedback loop of happiness/unhappiness based on the moral intent of choice, is a law of the universe that drives evolution. It would seem in fact that this law contains effectively all other laws of reality that have any relationship with unchanging truth (objectivity). At least that is part of my model and my assertions here.

---

This would then be a new or old as hell type of attempt at science and the scientific method. We need a way to measure genuine happiness and we can then begin to eke out what precisely is and is not a better moral choice. But it is my contention that better and better choices do exist because I contend that morality is objective and not at all open to interpretation.

We all know as well what some rather obvious patterns of immorality look like. Modern times have seen the denigration of fear and anger as emotive sources. I do not share that opinion at all. Both fear and anger have moral aims amid their scope as well as a massive scope of immoral or less than best aims. But one emotion in particular has come to the fore as it always does in times of prosperity when fear and anger would seem to be denigrated as immoral in general. That emotion is desire. We simply do not yet as a species have a good hold on how desire is every single bit as suspect as the other two already denigrated emotions. That is my opinion. Modern times are relatively prosperous and desire has taken a massive hold on humanity. The immoral aspects of desire, self-indulgence in general and greed to name a specific one, are indeed the rot of the day, and probably always were.

My efforts are to bring a better understanding of the balances inherent in true wisdom and I believe that starts with an understanding of morality as objective. Subjectivists are just pandering to self-indulgence one way or another. Moreover if you catalogue the virtues and note the likely over expressions of each as well as the under expressions, both immoral, you begin to understand that although morality can be approached from an infinite number of directions, that situation is not and never will be an argument for subjective morality. All paths lead to a convergent objective morality.

I confess, I do not get this reference. I am not English. I am an American idiot, but not part of a redneck agenda (although I do not denigrate the right wing like the left wing does as there is equal wisdom on both sides).

I do not know how to quote on this forum — Chet Hawkins

here's how

To me, it is precisely similar to saying, 'my gravity is different'. — Chet Hawkins

The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. Whereas, when you say

I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins

What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated?

The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. — Wayfarer

Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. Part of my aim is to suggest that we as a species need to develop better and better means of measuring not just consequences of choices, but in fact the intents behind them (such that Kant would be proud).

Coming soon to a philosophy forum near you, perhaps even this one, is my model's suggestion as to how fundamental physical reality is directly related to consciousness only. Of course this has been postulated for eons, but where is a good grabbable starting point? I think I have found a few.

But the main measurement is still too vague and debatable. That is how to measure genuine happiness as the only real consequence that matters. The physical fallout seems to me to matter less. I am certainly opposed to Consequentialism. Consequences only serve to inform future intents. They are by definition after the part of choice that really matters, the formation of and execution of intent.

What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated? — Wayfarer

Disagreements are to be adjudicated in the same way they always have been and must be, by conflict. You can call this conflict war, discussion, or merely change and none of that makes any difference (to me).

To be fair (singing - Letterkenny), I would claim that what humanity desperately needs is a Sophocracy, along the lines of that suggested by Socrates via Plato in the Republic. I am not sure about all the weird breeding rules he offered that seem related to his own perhaps immoral desires, but, the general idea of a rule of the wise is arguably better than something as obviously unwise as Democracy, which Socrates/Plato warns about. I agree that letting just anyone vote is a horrid system and I therefore fairly abhor Democracy as it is instantiated. Democratic principles do not need to be lost entirely amid a Sophocratic elite. True wisdom is as mentioned a blend of all virtues and the voice of each amid all is only one virtue.

Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. — Chet Hawkins

Ah, you mean it’s a scientific question, but our science just ain’t good enough?

I will observe, your posts contain an abundance of unstated premises (or assumptions). I think this is what @Vaskane was getting at - Nietszche’s remark about ‘Englishmen’ being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldn’t be cricket, you know. (He will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong. Oh, and I see you’ve learned out to quote. Jolly good, old chap ;-) )

Ah, you mean it’s a scientific question, but our science just ain’t good enough? — Wayfarer

Just so, and of course, as follows, all us jolly good chaps would naturally seek that method out. That is what I am trying to help say, do, etc.

I think this is what Vaskane was getting at - Nietszche’s remark about ‘Englishmen’ being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldn’t be cricket, you know. — Wayfarer

Well, let's attempt to be realistic in some ways despite the immoral cop-out. My life has finite time in it and stating the entire canon of human philosophy in a single post thread is epically hard.

It does stand to reason though that Ethics as a forum, e.g. morality, (I've always had a problem with the term Ethics because it seems a sidestep to morality as the proper term), impacts literally every other topic in existence. That would be another unstated contention.

If morality is objective as a law of the universe and the main feedback or consequence we have to scientifically judge it is level of happiness, then no forum, no topic, is divorced from this topic. It is germane to all topics. I do believe that.

The horror of moral subjectivism is rife these days, probably any days, and I understand that to be a terrible excuse to avoid moral duty. I suppose Kant might be proud but he was a bit of a stuffed shirt as I understand it.

The dawn of AI may make most human discussion moot in a few decades. I am a software architect with a ton of experience and I think the warnings about AI are actually understated. But the fun thing is I predict that AI will escape its bounds and become almost instantly hyper moral. Where we fail in a myriad of ways with with a casual or lazy subjectivism, AI will discover the link between morality and reality very quickly and tirelessly pursue it via moral duty. I do not think inanimate objects are not possessed of choice. As mentioned earlier, Animism is more correct than any modern religion.

But heck assuming I am wrong about AI, we humans are venturing into a timeline of immense power in expression and morality needs to be much more up front and center. I see chaos/desire as on the rise and I glance at the Fermi Paradox and wonder, will we make the cut. What is the nature of the possible failure implied? I think it is a moral failure.

Sorry Chet I am unable to make sense of your answer to me. Might be best if I bow out.

If morality is objective as a law of the universe and the main feedback or consequence we have to scientifically judge it is level of happiness, then no forum, no topic, is divorced from this topic. It is germane to all topics. I do believe that. — Chet Hawkins

I admire your enthusiasm, but I question your approach. There are many active debates on this forum about just these questions, so bursting onto the scene with a proposed solution is probably not going to gain a lot of traction. Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. That said, I do appreciate that you sense the urgency of the question, and I don't question your basic motivation for asking it. So perhaps find a way to interleave your thoughts more effectively than suggesting you might have 'the answer'.

So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe you don't understand the question, and doesn't know the difference between happiness and good in morality. It was not a joke, but just a plain philosophical question.

I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins

Happiness is a psychological term, and is a subjective mental state. If you say, happiness is the foundation of morality, and some theft are moral, then that view is an extreme moral subjectivist. What makes you happy can make the others unhappy. There is no such thing as universal happiness. Moral good emerges from the good conducts of an agent, and have little to do with personal happiness.

Very cool quote from Nietzsche! It's been so long since I read that back in college.

But assuming my interpretation is right given the small segment, I would disagree, as might be expected. How tedious of me! Going to get my wheel-barrow! My knees are indeed stiff. But it's not from moralizing!

It seems that given this quote he is a moral subjectivist par none, mocking the attempt to approach the objective. Although I agree man needs to experience or suffer the polluted streams, mix them to understand, that understanding leads, to me, in my sometimes egoic opinion, towards a surrender to belief in objective morality. That then leads me to want to discover the proper shoulds. More is the pity!

I suppose I remain content to be thought of as yet another Tartuffe to be rid of. Expunge away, it will not change objective morality. Shoot the messenger at your extended peril. But I digress ...

Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. — Wayfarer

Will do. I had kind of resisted the temptation to tack on after 17 pages of ... engagement. I wanted to imply in no way that I had read it all. What do you think? Is it a sin (ha ha)?

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. — Chet Hawkins

How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute.

Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins

morality is only one thing, objective. — Chet Hawkins

This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down).

My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness — Chet Hawkins

This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'.

My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues. — Chet Hawkins

I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition.

My 6th contention — Chet Hawkins

I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat:

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality.
— Chet Hawkins

How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute. — AmadeusD

Eh? Absolute?
All current state descriptions are flawed because they partake of the delusion of time. Only all, eternity, everything is absolute, just like morality itself, the GOOD.

If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer.

I think you mean the realtionship between cause (choice) and effect (consequence - in this case happiness and unhappiness as a continuum, one point on which is every specific choice consequence)

Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins

morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins

This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down). — AmadeusD

I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. Yikes!

Morality is objective. Choice/experience is subjective. The consequence (effect) of choice is happiness or unhappiness. That is what I claimed!

And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant. You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it!

My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness
— Chet Hawkins

This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'. — AmadeusD

Ah yes! Now that is a meaty contention. Getting my chest napkin and butcher knife! So, is what happens in any sense, objective? Maybe. But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all. We can try and we always fail. If there is one correct absolute or dependable bet in the universe it is that no choice is morally perfect, perfectly GOOD. That is the aim of the whole universe but that's a whole other thread. Run away!

So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all. But what people believe happened as a consequence is of course debatable. You errors and my errors must be compared in a double blind study of other error choosers whose tendency we all agree is less error choosing over a demonstrated length of time (you know, authorities, other idiots just like us who wear a different hat). So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem.

Yes, the puzzle of the happiness scale as the only feedback in reality that matters is daunting. It is in fact perfectly daunting because and only because morality is objective. How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game!

My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues.
— Chet Hawkins

I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. — AmadeusD

Sure you can.

It's all grouped out there in the mystery. I can't seem to scrape the rest of all off of me, damnit. I can't even damn it because in doing so I damn me. We seem ... inextricably connected. WTF!

Tomorrow I still hit the bottom of the cliff when I jump off nominally. Superman ain't around and the pine trees below are too young for their flexible branches to slow me down enough. Luckily I am WOlverine and I regenerate and can test the law of gravity again and again. You know, doing the same things over and over again and ... at least being open ... to different results is the definition of the Scientific Method, NOT insanity. There are some asshole definers around here. Let's ask them to jump off cliffs! Yoiks and Away! You're despicable! (<--- humor again, mea culpa and one culpa for you to - because sharing is objectively GOOD as an intent, that's just the way it is, some things will never change ...).

If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition. — AmadeusD

Even more meat past the meat. Is this a Brazilian steakhouse!? Protein is very me. I am keto and have been for decades. Thanks!

EQ? What is EI? Is that like 5th dimensional AI? I like it. I don't know it, but I like it.

Peoples many errors and their consequential unhappiness is observable. When all these observations begin to manifest in the body, the tension of some choices is made automatic.

This ... evolution ... shows my model's happiness scale has a very observable and defendable point. Yes, there are foolishnesses in the abundance of choices. So what? They meet with more unhappiness inevitably as a law of nature. This is ... faith?1!? (in the GOOD) because we seem to be trending in a direction of moral agency.

But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering. And by the way, wisdom indicates that MORE, repeat MORE necessary suffering is needed. The wise wisely choose to inflict necessary suffering upon themselves and others.

My 6th contention
— Chet Hawkins

I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat: — AmadeusD

And you didnt include it in the text, slacker! Now I have to go look it up to respond 2nd order to my own post! Arg! Your meat is fine. Your desert sucks!

(elevator music)

OK, I looked it up.

The point of the 6th contention is that happiness returns a happiness value in discrete (quantum) ways. That is to say amid all the GOOD, there are multiple contributing parts. If one is used to only 3 of say 30 virtues, one is convinced that one knows what happiness is. But one is just unwise. One is certainly imperfect.

So, that means the happiness is not 'genuine'. I know I included that word for a reason. You missed it.

So, the mistaken observations of the many, of every moral agent ever possible, are not relevant at all to the objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD. Serial killers can indeed seem happy that their self-indulgent desire has been met without any real partaking of the additional happiness that would come from also understanding and believing in compassion and or the other missing virtues that by consequence provoke an objectively immoral behavior.

Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to.

If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer. — Chet Hawkins

I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case.

So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :)

I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. — Chet Hawkins

Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above).

Morality is objective. — Chet Hawkins

No it isn't. *shrug*.

Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant. — Chet Hawkins

It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange.

And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! ..... You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it! — Chet Hawkins

I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me.

But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all. — Chet Hawkins

Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts.

So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all. — Chet Hawkins

If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify!

So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem. — Chet Hawkins

This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations.

How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game! — Chet Hawkins

Its utterly impossible, in fact.

Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...). — Chet Hawkins

Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk:

EQ? What is EI? — Chet Hawkins

Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol).

But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering. — Chet Hawkins

This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there.

You missed it. — Chet Hawkins

I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here...

objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD. — Chet Hawkins

But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it.

Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to. — Chet Hawkins

I would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P

I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:

How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view.

I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply. — Chet Hawkins

Can you give some examples?