• Philosophim
    2.6k
    This is a continuation of In Any Objective Morality Existence must be good
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

    In continuing on with this portion, one has to accept the very fundamental premise that "Existence should be." If you disagree with this premise, feel free to refer and post back in that thread. For those who at the minimal can at least assume the premise is true for now, this will continue to build a morality that goes through non-living existence, living existence, and finally human existence. This part will cover non-living existence.

    Here are a few definition repeats:
    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Our first necessarily objective good: Existence

    But wait, where are the people? Isn't this about morality? I don't care about rocks and hate math. :)

    Yes, this will eventually get to people, but an objective morality has to build to that point. Since we know that existence is good, we know that morality exists even if people wouldn't. Meaning morality is a part of existence itself, and thus to build to the point where we can understand it as it applies to people, we have to examine as it builds up to the point where we consciousness comes about as an evolved expression of the many atoms that make up our being. I will have one example at the end that applies to people if you want to see that first at the bottom.

    Existence may be good as a fundamental, but where do we go from here?

    Existence is 'what is', but existences are discrete breakdowns. We have atoms, plants, cats, and humans. We have distinct differences within existence. What is it that makes something a 'thing' instead of being the sea of existence?

    At least to living things, a 'thing' is recognized by its function. A cell has organelles, but a cell is a 'thing', or an existent, because the cell as a whole interacts as separate from what is around it. A mitochondria produces energy, while the amoeba it powers pokes a fish in the eye with its false foot. These identifiable actions are expressions of an existent, or thing.

    But let us go simpler. We do not know what, or if there is a smallest particle, but we can use atoms as a good base to start with. To start with, let us imagine that the only things which exist are two hydrogen atoms. We can observe two expressions of a hydrogen atom. One expression is the atom on its own in relation to the absence of anything around it, while another expression is if it 'bumps' into the other atom.

    Why is it important to identify existences? Quantification and measurement.

    If we know that existence is good, then we know that more existence would be more good. But the only way to know if we have more existence is if we can quantify them, which we can do here. With this, we can make our next claim:

    The more existence there is, the more good there is.

    So we have existences identified by expressions, and can now quantify and count existence. So at its most basic, having 2 hydrogen atoms is a universe that is better than one with only 1 hydrogen atom. Of course, the atoms could express themselves individually, or bump into each other. This brings up two more points: Potential, and time.

    Potential expressions are another form of existence. How a hydrogen atom will react when it 'bumps' into another hydrogen atom is different then when it is by itself. Even though a hydrogen atom may be by itself, its potential expression still exists. While potential expressions are a bit harder to measure, they are very important to analyzing existence.

    Of course, potential means nothing without time. Time is a moment of existence in which a difference of expression occurs. Not 'existents', but the totality of existence. So if even one existent changes its expression, time is happening. If nothing changed, time would 'stand still'. Potential existence is what can happen over the next tick of time.

    So then we reach another proposal:

    The total existence of any closed examination is the sum of the expressed over actual time, and potentially expressed existences over predicted time.

    So then let us examine some scenarios.

    Two atoms exist. They express themselves individually over two 'ticks' of time. For convenience and to have to think less, we'll use seconds.

    So, (2 expressions + 4 potential expressions) * 2 seconds = 4 expressions(ex) and 8 potential expressions(ptex) over the next time measurement.

    It doesn't seem like we have much to work with here, but now lets introduce a new concept: Evolving existence.

    Existence has an interesting property that if it expresses itself in a unique way, or combination, it evolves into being capable of creating more expressions then on its own. Take two hydrogen atoms, and they can do more than 'bumb'. They can interact in such a way as they become a molecule, or di-hydrogen. What does this do for our existence?

    2 ex + 4 base ptex for the atoms. But with the addition of a molecule we now also include
    1 more molecules expression plus the potential that it could break into individual atoms again.

    This is a total of 2 + (1) exs and 4 + (1) ptex.

    Why is this important? Because without adding another atom, more existence and potential existence is created. Evolving existence. Alright, lets simplify further and see what else we can figure out.

    Part 2: Establishing patterns of existence for moral analysis

    Since an evolved existence is composed of other existent expressions, and there is the potential for those existent expressions to break into individuals again, no ptex is lost.

    So in sum:

    1. Existences and potential existences are expressions over time. This is the measure of 'good'.
    2. Existences can evolve into different identities which create new and more diverse expressions.
    3. The more potential expressions, the more existence, and the more good.


    Finally, we reach a human evaluation at the end! Read here if you're just interested in this part and then want to review the earlier stuff to see how it gets to that point:

    Let us take a situation in which a submarine has crashed to the bottom of the ocean. There is no communication with the outside world, no way for the submarine to recover, and everyone on the submarine will die. No one will ever discover what happens on the submarine, as it will be crushed by gravity into a pulp. There are currently 10 people aboard the ship. There is enough air for 1 person to breath for 10 hours. An explosion could happen which would kill 9 people and leave one alive. Which is more moral, 1 person living 10 hours, or 10 people living one hour?

    In this instance we remove all culture. We remove all appeals to authority. All notion of history. All notion of rewards or punishments. All notion of intention. There is only material existence and its expressions.

    In regards to material existence, we know nothing changes. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. What matters here is the expressions of that material existence, and the potential it creates. As this is a comparison problem, 1 person living 10 hours vs 10 people living one hour, we will eliminate anything that is the same on both sides of the equation.

    The bodies are the same. The key element is the expression of life. To simplify, each life will be a point. Life will be an expression of that point. Lets start with one person living 10 hours. In this time with no other lives to interact with, they could do everything any one of the other lives could in this time. Our time tick will be hours, and what they do with that hour is one expression of that life.

    1 life * 10 hours = 10 unique life expressions.

    It would seem that 10 lives * 1 hour would result in 10 unique life expressions as well. Except we haven't yet included the unique potential expressions. In the case of the crew, each life expression can potentially interact with another life expression. This does not exist in the case of one person being alive. The amount of potential interactions are:

    10! * 1 hours = 3,628,800 unique potential life interactions

    Meaning, while the unique life expressions are the same, the potential existence of what those unique life expressions dwarfs that of the single individual. Meaning that it is equal material existence, but more potential existence for ten people to live on hour that 1 person live for ten hours.

    Finally, lets evaluate the best actual existence that could happen during that time. If each life interacted with each other life in that hour, we get: 10(self existence)+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 55 expressions of existence. The single person living would need to live 55 hours to make up for the actualized optimal expressions of existence.

    Taking existence as being good, we can finally calculate an objective measurement of what “ought” to happen. And that is the ten people should survive for one hour instead of 1 person killing them all to live 10.

    Let me know what you think!

    Continuation to "The morality of life" here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15250/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-life
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Our first necessarily objective good: Existence
    Philosophim
    :lol:
    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    As I noted in the OP, if you have an issue with existence being good, please go back to the previous thread to discuss.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    At a glance I can tell it will be an interesting read. But I must run along and chase my wild hounds elsewhere at the moment! I'll be back, but I see why you directed me here "existences."
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Not a problem, ask questions as needed. There's a tiny bit of math and this is a new concept.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Is existence good? Now that's one of the oldest if not 'the' oldest question of philosophy, along with what is existence and what is the meaning of existence (and/or life). The Trifecta.

    If you ask a happy person, existence is good. If you ask a depressed, endlessly tortured, actively suicidal or nihilistic person, existence is not very much not good.

    Biologically speaking, sex is good. It feels good (generally speaking ofc - rape and dyspareunia aside).

    If it wasn't fundamentally good, pleasurable/ rewarding then we wouldn't be long for extinction or a state of non-passionate monotonous "duty" for the sake of continuity of the human species.

    I take sex as evidence that biology "wants" us to believe existence is good, from genetics upwards - because of the power of a). Libido b). Maternal(/paternal) instinct and c) survival instinct.

    I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.

    Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.

    Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living.
    Benj96

    This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction.Philosophim

    I did, I found it a bit convoluted tbh but probably because I'm not sufficiently intellectually adept to understand it all. So I went back to the very basics of the title and what I could grasp.

    I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust.

    And therefore - with morality not applicable to everything in existence, only things that can experience (the quality of being good, bad, in suffering or contentment), morality cannot be objective.

    If either a). Everything exists for us alone (creationism) or b) everything is some degree sentient or conscious (panpsychism) then I could believe in an objective morality of the simplest form, sure.

    I do apologise if I've completely missed your point. But I am a subscriber to the belief that the finest ideas can be explained briefly and simply, as though explaining to a child, esotericism aside. And I am a bit of a child when it comes to it. My simpleton brain only captures the basics.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    Is existence good?Benj96
    That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. All philosophies are "wrong" in a sense that they are produced out of a limitation of life experiences beheld by its creators.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust.Benj96

    Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical result. So if you decide to believe there is no objective reality, then yes, we devolve into subjective reality and whatever anyone thinks is good and evil is. We win, the Nazi's win, we all win. :)

    One thing I would consider though, is aren't we made up of rocks and dust? When does is transition from the matter we're made up of into subjects?
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one.DifferentiatingEgg

    No doubt our prejudices incline us towards wanting certain outcomes. But I try to hold myself to a higher standard than that. If you read the OP, you'll see, and Benj96 agrees, that if there is an objective morality, the conclusion that existence is good is logically sound.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    I absolutely agree. I think the truly objective doesn't care for individual discrepancies and opinion. For example gravity gravitates despite whether we believe in it or not.

    So you're right, any philosophical stance is just that- "a stance" - a bias, a tendency or leaning toward one or another idea, based on selective choice and omittance, and not perhaps held by other subjects. Thus it is subjective.

    The question here is are some philosophies "more true" (objective) than others? I think it is certainly possible. I just don't know what the limitations are. Are all philosophies inviolably subjective or can they indeed be objective as scientific hypotheses often are proven such.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    I read the OP. I find it a suitable adaptation of "Selflessness is Selfishness." People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality."
    The question here is are some philosophies "more true" (objective) than others?Benj96
    Fact is: the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality." Fact is, the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality.DifferentiatingEgg

    I would say our opinions do not determine what is objective. Objectivity doesn't care. However, society does not have to accept objective conclusions. We know that smoking objectively will give you a much higher chance of cancer, age you prematurely, etc. But people don't have to accept it.

    That's the difference between subjectivity and objectivity though. If I say, "Blue is the best color," society has all reasonable rights in rejecting it. If I say, "Blue is a wavelength of light," society can reject it, but it does so unreasonable and wrongly.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence?
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical resultPhilosophim

    Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality.

    I believe an objective reality exists outside of our subjective perceptions of it. But what I was saying is that morality applies to us - "subjects".

    So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality.

    Can you explain how an objective reality leads to objective morality?
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence?DifferentiatingEgg

    The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    ↪Philosophim Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence?DifferentiatingEgg

    I can. I call the point in time when there is too much existence "being overwhelmed" or "over-stimulated". Ofc this is a subjective experience of too much going on, too much happening, too much information to absorb or an inability to manage with the reality you're currently facing - but to me, "too much existence" describes this feeling well. When ones awareness outweighs ones ability to cope or perceive such.

    Autistic people experience this "too much existence" feeling frequently. Because what exists for any individual is contingent on their ability to ignore the background noise, to be selective in valuation of incoming perceptions
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality.Benj96

    Did you read the original post? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 This is where I prove my point.

    So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality.Benj96

    Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is blue.

    Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality period. Only those who make the rules, and those who have to follow them. I find most people do not think this is correct.

    Consider the example at the end with the submarine. I'm able to come up with an objective conclusion as to what is most moral in that situation. You can only come up with an opinion that holds no more weight than emotional self-satisfaction. What do you think would be better for society overall?
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no.Philosophim

    Well if the conclusion is not opinion but rather...fact, then bravo. Its a great discovery in this case. However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity.

    So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it! It could be something. Time shall tell when it's peer reviewed by the most intellectual of us.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is bluePhilosophim

    I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts.

    There's a difference between subjective concensus and objectivity. Objectivity stands true to all components of the universe - for example electromagnetism or gravity or photoelectric effect or the ability of hydrogen and oxygen to combine to form water.

    Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is.

    Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality periodPhilosophim

    But subjective morality does not preclude subjective existence. Just because its subjective in nature a). Doesn't mean it doesn't exist and b) doesn't mean it cannot be exercised by subjects onto other subjects. This is the internal sphere where such phenomena occur. We exert subjective justice on other subjects. We don't imprison the boulder that fell on a person during an earthquake because we don't see boulders nor earthquakes as subjects, only objects without agenda and therefore impossibly malevolent.

    Subjective morality can exist, because subjects exist, and have actionable existent consequences, limited to existent subjects. Objectivity need not be relevant for this dynamic to occur.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity.Benj96

    Absolutely. Its partly why I'm posting it here. Looking for criticism and challenges.

    So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it!Benj96

    Thank you, those are kind words. I don't want to leave the intro just like that though, it needs to be built up more like I'm doing here. We'll see if it works out in the end.

    I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts.Benj96

    Correct. But this is simply 'might makes happens'. Its not really a morality, its simply an exertion by force of how another person should act in society. There's no objective reason behind the enforcement besides the fact one faction feels others should follow their precepts.

    Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is.Benj96

    No doubt. But consensus only means consensus of opinion, not of fact. There is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean its flat. If they took over the world, they could very well decide to enforce this precept, and kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. If this was the subjective consensus, then this is a subjective morality enforced upon others. We can't say they're objectively wrong for enforcing such morality upon the rest of us, as no one has any greater justification for their personal moral belief than any other person.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    ↪Philosophim Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy.DifferentiatingEgg

    No, that's not a fallacy. Feel free to challenge the definition. If you can give a reasoned counter why that should not be the definition of what is good, that would be an appropriate challenge to the theory. But if its not challenged, then it stands.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise.DifferentiatingEgg

    If good = "What ought to be" and
    Existence = good then
    More existence = more good
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    37
    Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug* I don't need to repeat the same rebuttal, as it still stands.
  • schopenhauer1
    10.9k
    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti
    @180 Proof

    Nice quote there! I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion, not to mention Schopenhauer..
  • schopenhauer1
    10.9k
    Nice assist, appreciated.DifferentiatingEgg

    And thank ye kind sir.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug*DifferentiatingEgg

    How is it not necessarily so? Where's the fallacy? If all are true, then the logic is true no? If you have an issue with one being true, which one? If you are in this thread, you are assuming that "Existence is good," is true from the argument where it is concluded here btw: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.