Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904275

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 — 180 Proof

If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges.

Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.. — 180 Proof

Statements like these are subjective opinions and don't address the OP. Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that.

If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges. — DifferentiatingEgg

I continue with the next steps here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life

I'm not sure how you automatically elevate the subjective over the objective, when the objective also exists and is good as well. This first part doesn't really declare what particular type of existence is better than any other type of existence, just the fact that existence, innately, is good compared to their being nothing.

Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that. — Philosophim

:roll: Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904265

Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that: — 180 Proof

If you would expand on your points a bit, I might be able to engage with you. I've tried responding based on what I thought you were trying to say, but it doesn't seem like I've hit the mark. No, I don't understand it, but I'm willing to try if you'll expound on it a little.

(Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196

↪Philosophim (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ... — 180 Proof

Alright, I've been polite and you insist on trolling. What a waste of an intellect.

"Trolling?" Nah, just rodeo clowning bulls*** :smirk:

What does 'rodeo clowning bulls' mean?

What does 'rodeo clowning bulls' mean? — bert1

The opposite of "trolling".

What are you talking about?

↪180 Proof What are you talking about? — bert1

I have no idea. He put two incoherent sentences together, and I've been trying to get him to explain what he meant by them. Instead he wants to climb on trash talk mountain and declare himself king. I genuinely thought he was playfully admitting he was trolling here, which I can forgive if it stops when requested. Apparently he can't even communicate basic trash talk clearly.

I did request in my other thread that he move on, so I'll give him a chance to. Otherwise I'll report him for clear trolling at this point, and I'll talk with the mods to ensure he stays out of my threads going forward. For a member that's been here as long as he has, his conduct is pretty poor here.

e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim

It seems like all of your subsequent reasoning devolves upon this set of specious reasonings.


First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"?

All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. Which is trivially (definitionally) evident, and doesn't add any substantial information. Your argument makes exactly this much sense:

If a banana exists, then it is good.
If a banana claims that it does not exist, then it is self-contradictory.
Therefore bananas are good.

As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. It exists all around us. In which case you may not stipulate that "existence is good" because what exists is clearly both good and bad.

Existence qua existence is neither good nor bad, it just is. Non-existence is not; meaning nothing can be meaningfully predicated of it.

First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. — Pantagruel

Lets look at the definitions in the OP once again.

Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good

If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. If you would like to propose other definitions, and why they would be better, then we can discuss that.

You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"? — Pantagruel

I'll repost point one again:

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

My point is if good is "what ought to be" and we are analyzing "what ought to be", all moral questions will arrive at a fundamental that must be answered. "Should anything exist?" If existence should not be, then it is not good. If existence should be, then it is good. And to be clear, we are talking about any existence vs no existence at all. This is not 'existents' or discrete identifies of existence like atoms, humans, etc. This is the fundamental question of, "If there would be no existence, or some existence at all, what would an objective morality have to answer?"

All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. — Pantagruel

No, I don't prove ruductio ad absurdum. I'm using it to prove a point that any objective morality that claims, "Existence should not be" contradicts itself. Let me post the last few points again:

e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim

This is not the same as a banana proving that it is good. This is noting that at the fundamental question, there is a binary response. One leads to a contradiction, the other one does not, therefore the other one is true.

As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. — Pantagruel

And once again, those others are clearly wrong. I assume both binaries, and the binary that "Existence should not be" contradicts itself, while the "Existence should be," does not. Its a fairly straight forward Reductio ad absurdum argument.

In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. — Pantagruel

True. You may want to read the next steps then. This part is only about answering the fundamental of "Existence vs non-existence". In my later papers that are linked in the OP, I note how to identify within existence discrete entities called 'existents'. So at that point I'm able to say, "This is separate from that" in existence. As we dig deeper, we find that some existents and their combinations result in over all more or less existence. For example, it is more existence for a father and son to live then the father to die and the son to live.

For now, understand that we are starting a base fundamental here, and the problem of the fundamental should be analyzed as it is.

If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. — Philosophim

Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions).

"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction).

What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion ("Once again, in participating here, you assume the validity of the previous conclusions.") You are pre-empting criticisms in order to extend your reasonings, which motivation I can understand. But some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out.

Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. Do you mean counting? Anyway, You "prohibit" people from making legitimate observations about any of your current ideas unless they are willing to already concede all your preceding assumptions? That's a poor idea. It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it.

Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions). — Pantagruel

Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all. Where is the contradiction here?

"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction). — Pantagruel

Let me post these points from the OP again:

a. Assume that there is an objective morality.

If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.

b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".

Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false. — Philosophim

In sum, we work down to a fundamental question of morality, and realize there can be only two answers. Logically, if I demonstrate that one answer leads to a contradiction, then this means the other solution must be true if it does not lead to a contradiction. This is a basic Reductio Ad Absurdum argument. There is no begging of any question here.

What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion — Pantagruel

Why? The subsequent posts rely on the conclusions of the previous posts. This helps separate the arguments into chunks for better discussion, and helps focus the conversation on areas that people have difficulty with. I'm also clearly indicating that each post builds upon the last. If you don't agree with previous points, then you won't be able to understand how I build to the new points.

some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out. — Pantagruel

Feel free to point them out. I have no objection to that. But specify them, don't generally accuse if you want to make a point. I'll answer as they come, and if you point out something I agree with, I'll let you know. Just post them in the section that best suits your questions.

Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. — Pantagruel

Feel free to post in that one about quantification of existence. I can refer to the OP points there, answer your questions, and go into detail. However, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that section, if you don't find the premises that build to it sound. Then we've just wasted both of our times when really we needed to agree to the underlying points first (Or at least assume it while discussing the next steps).

Of course, if in the later steps I contradict conclusions in the earlier steps, that's perfectly fine to call out.

It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it. — Pantagruel

Nope. You'll find I'm straight forward with any issues or questions you have. Its just a simple A-> B -> C set of arguments, so if you're going to argue against point C because you believe point A is wrong, we really need to discuss point A before C. I am not claiming that you must agree to all the points in this, the first post. Only that if you want to discuss the later posts, its assumed that you understand and accept the premises of the previous posts.

Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all — Philosophim

The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. But only then. Otherwise, you have no business bringing existence into the domain of morality. None. That is the only sense in which "what ought to be" can meaningfully confront the question of non-existence.

The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. — Pantagruel

Correct, and that is all this section is proving. The follow up post is where I try to logically build something off of this fundamental. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to post your critiques in that section and I'll address them to the best of my abilities.

But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not?

↪Philosophim But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not? — Pantagruel

Yes, what I do here is question the inherent goodness of existence, and determine that if there is an objective morality, it must conclude that existence, as a fundamental, should be. After the proof is finished, there is no longer any question. Even if my other proposals which build upon this fundamental are flawed, this fundamental answer to the base question stands.

Greetings again @Philosophim,



Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make.

The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good.

Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

I will continue our conversation here, till we are ready to circle back. I have been so busy with looking at morals now, that I totally forgot what you wrote in your last message, and zoomed in on this.

My ideas work more in the realm of hypothetical and possibilities, whereas your foundation is spot on when it comes to what is currently known. I do believe I have something to add here, and hopefully you can work with it.



I’ll start with the connection between objective morality, and existence being good. Wouldn’t your argument work even if you changed ‘objective morality’ with ‘objective amorality/immorality/‘? Adding to this, there might be inherent conflict between the various objective moralities pertaining to the necessity for existence.



Secondly, the connection between objective morality and existence. This simplifies what I see as a rather complicated line of connected assumptions. The reason why I assume many prefer the human-centric moral reasoning, is probably that it is hard to disprove that people with consciousness and moral ability exist, but harder to causally link existence and morality.


Here are some issues that I see:

- The possibility that this universe, and life, operate on different morals altogether. Even when we are conditioned to the rules of the Universe, that does not necessitate that we agree. Similarly, growing up we are conditioned to our parental figures, but when we have the ability, skill, courage and wisdom to question them, we might strongly disagree with them. 
And yes, our lives and conflicts are very local in time and space, but is it safe to assume, based on life so far, that the Universe will ever change?



Secondly, ‘objective’ and ‘Fundamental’. These words can mean very different things in this context. Are you talking in ‘absolute’ terms, or in relative? If we look at the present universe, and us, we can talk about ‘Objective’ in the context of the rules in our world, and what seems to be moral in this world.

In absolute terms, we are talking about some absolute force capable of sustaining itself regardless of any laws, and would seem to be more like a God. 
The question you are asking; «Should there be existence at all?» doesn’t seem to be the one you are answering. The question seems to be «Does ‘conscious and moral’ existences contribute to the «moral» impetus of the Universe?

 However, arguing that since ‘conscious and moral’ entities contribute, it must be moral, is definitely a possibility, but not the most prudent one. Or am I misreading this?



Well, with all these things said, let me try to remedy and build on what you have already written. Firstly, I don’t find it objectionable to say that ‘within’ the confines of this Universe that there are certain possibilities that are infinitely more ‘moral’ to life than others. However, I find it very hard to argue that the Universe is moral. My hard stance on this is that the rules of the Universe are Amoral. And as such, a much more moral action than trying to be moral as an individual, would be to change the laws of the Universe perpetuating immorality by default. 

We are cogs in a bigger machine, and are made of stardust, and so going against the rules of the Universe is folly. Which aren’t to say that it is wrong to do, or that we agree just because all our actions, if we are to live, go according to the rules of some grand fate.

For the reasons above, I prefer a more open approach when it comes to the Universe and beings capable of moral action. We might not be the same, similarly to how you aren’t your video-game character, even when you play it. This is an important point to me, because I do see a lot of «I love the earth» written many places, directly or indirectly. But all the 'accidents' that happen, that we are not protected from, why don’t people blame the Universe? To me, this seems more like a serious bout of Stockholm Syndrome, where you make all sorts of excuses out of extreme fear, confusion and hopelessness.
And is our moral relationship with the Universe any different from the one children have with abusive parents? 

If anything, Existence the way it is structured, is inherently immoral to us. Our moral rules are constantly violated simply by the foundational rules that operate on us. None of the things a human being, in as much capacity as they are able to, views as sacred, by virtue of that action, is protected from sacrilege, devastation and/or entropy. Which is morally depraved, is it not?


The only difference is the lack of communication with the universe. If anything, panpsychism aside, the Universe is passive, and never 'intentional' in its actions. And so it is our imagination that gives rise to a personification of nature, the sun, the stars and the rules of the Universe.


Hope this is useful feedback on this, and it is a contribution to the efforts you have put into this.



Hear from you when you’re ready, and as always, appreciate the interactions.



Kindly,

Caerulea-Lawrence

Another way to put it, 'existence' is an abstract not a concrete word as for instance a green apple. We have the idea of the apple, but we have no similar idea where abstract words are concerned. What needs to be defined therefore is what precisely do we mean by existence? Does it mean something that has consciousness? Then we enter further ambiguity. What does it mean to be conscious and what is consciousness? And what is morality? Here there's another abstract word with the invitation to an abyss of further abstract ambiguity. Intuition at least comes to the rescue. We all know that it is morally wrong to murder another human being in order to steal his wallet. This is a veriafiable objective truth. If denied, then you may as well say that I have the right to murder you to profit from what I find in your wallet. I might go further and even state it is a moral obligation on my part to benefit myself from murdering you so I can profit from what's in our wallet.

Good - what should be — Philosophim

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Good and evil are psychological states of affairs and are features of reality.

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

Morality is about releasing what is a right action, good or evil, in a situation.

What needs to be defined therefore is what precisely do we mean by existence? ... And what is morality?  — Ray Liikanen

Read on through the rest of this thread, particularly page 2 (re: my proposals for "existence" and "morality" in the context of (how I understand) Western philosophy).

I’ll start with the connection between objective morality, and existence being good. Wouldn’t your argument work even if you changed ‘objective morality’ with ‘objective amorality/immorality/‘? Adding to this, there might be inherent conflict between the various objective moralities pertaining to the necessity for existence. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Morality is simply about evaluating what 'ought to be', so immorality would be its opposite or, evaluating "What not ought to be". Considering that we proved that the removal of all existence would be the removal of morality, we can know that if there was no existence, that would be immoral.

Adding to the inherent conflicts of other objective moralities...there are no other objective moralities. None. Its an area of philosophy, like knowledge, that still has a lot to explore and contribute. The problem until now is there has been nothing but a subjective foundation to all moral theories (that I know of).

Secondly, ‘objective’ and ‘Fundamental’. These words can mean very different things in this context. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, a good question for clarification. Objective in this case is 'What can logically be deduced apart from a singular viewpoint." And deduced is "A set of premises that lead to a logically necessary conclusion". So what I'm noting is that the premises do not require any one particular viewpoint. It is not an argument of opinion that requires any particular lived experience. There is no murky foundation such as, "We've always done it this way, common sense, or edict from God". It is a clear laying out of defined concepts, and a logical conclusion from those concepts.

To contrast, most moral theories' foundations are subjective inductions. They rely on rationalized feelings, cultural pressures, or myth and edicts. There comes a point in drilling into their foundation in which it begins to break down. "Why are our feelings an indicator of what is moral? Does that mean our feelings are moral themselves? So if I feel a particular way that is immoral, but act in a way that is moral, how did I know how to do that?" Just a loose example, nothing we need to drill into. :)

Secondly, the connection between objective morality and existence. This simplifies what I see as a rather complicated line of connected assumptions. — Caerulea-Lawrence

To clarify, this is not a complete moral system, this is an objective foundation. While I later build upon it as a proposal, here I am just laying groundwork. I have no illusions that what I've built upon this groundwork is anymore than a well reasoned rough draft, but I feel the groundwork here is solid. My hope is for people to understand the foundation, look at what I've built upon it, and add their own viewpoints, critiques, and possibly their own theories.

The question you are asking; «Should there be existence at all?» doesn’t seem to be the one you are answering. The question seems to be «Does ‘conscious and moral’ existences contribute to the «moral» impetus of the Universe? — Caerulea-Lawrence

The answer is, "Yes, consciousness and moral existences contribute", but I build to the reason why that is yes in the later posts. What I'm trying to do here at this point is ask the question, "Is there a possible objective foundation to build a moral theory off of? If so, what is it?" I can't prove that "Existence is good" based on pointing to a God or some law of nature that we've discovered. I only note that if an objective morality exists, any objective morality must logically include 'existence vs nothing' as 'good'. I also note that if an objective morality does not exist, then the argument would fail as well. But if an objective morality exists, this foundation I've pointed out is one logical conclusion that must be true.

The possibility that this universe, and life, operate on different morals altogether. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, we can always consider that possibility. Again, I am not claiming the entirety of the moral theory is sound, but I am claiming that logically, the foundation that "existence vs nothing" is good, is logically necessary, even if how we think the universe morally behaves as a total is different then we might think it is today.

However, arguing that since ‘conscious and moral’ entities contribute, it must be moral, is definitely a possibility, but not the most prudent one. — Caerulea-Lawrence

To be clear, I am not stating this. The moral foundation I've established does not require people. It would be a logical conclusion whether we exist or not. Just like the laws of physics would still exist without us.

Firstly, I don’t find it objectionable to say that ‘within’ the confines of this Universe that there are certain possibilities that are infinitely more ‘moral’ to life than others. However, I find it very hard to argue that the Universe is moral. My hard stance on this is that the rules of the Universe are Amoral — Caerulea-Lawrence

Without an objective foundation, we cannot claim that the rules of the universe are moral or immoral, so the assertion that they are amoral is correct in this case. But if we have an objective foundation, "Existence is good", then we can look at the universe and see if certain rules and setups are more moral than others. But I'm not going that far in the foundation at this point. Building from that into a new theory is where I try that, which you'll see in the other posts. What we can conclude here is that compared to nothing, the universe is moral.

And is our moral relationship with the Universe any different from the one children have with abusive parents? 

If anything, Existence the way it is structured, is inherently immoral to us. — Caerulea-Lawrence

True, without a moral foundation, we cannot judge. But with a moral foundation, we can. And if that moral foundation is sound, we can shape the universe around us to be better than it is as a non-conscious force. Just like we take rocks and turn them into statues, we can take the universe as it is and mold it into something greater than its mere existence.

I hope this helps to limit the scope of thinking at this moment to only the foundation. Once we come to a consensus on whether the foundation works, then we can build upon it to hit more of the issues you're thinking of.

Good - what should be
— Philosophim
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Good and evil are psychological states of affairs and are features of reality. — MoK

It is fine to disagree. But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?" Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
— Philosophim
Morality is about releasing what is a right action, good or evil, in a situation. — MoK

And how do we know what is a right action? Doesn't that require us to evaluate the situation? I do agree that we can also use morality in a sense that we have already determined what is good or evil. But this is the conclusion after evaluation. I do not mind either use.

What do you think about the logic of the rest of the post?

Morality is simply about what 'ought to be' — Philosophim

No, that is art. 'What one ought to do' is morality.

It is fine to disagree. — Philosophim

I am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you.

But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?" — Philosophim

No. Good and evil are fundamental and they are both necessary. Think of evolution for example. The weak agents are eliminated in the process of evolution so room is left for the stronger to survive since the resources are finite. Evolution is evil since weaker agents are eliminated for the sake of stronger ones.

I do agree that we can also use morality in a sense that we have already determined what is good or evil. But this is the conclusion after evaluation. I do not mind either use. — Philosophim

I have to first answer what good and evil are before discussing morality. Good and evil as I mentioned are two categories of psychological states. I cannot define good and evil but I can give examples
of psychological states in which a set of psychological states are good and others are evil. Good like love, happiness, pleasure, and the like. Evil like hate, sadness, pain, and the like.

Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be? — Philosophim

Apparently, we cannot. We have to accept the reality as it is. Think of mental or physical exercises for a moment. Without physical activity which is tiresome and painful, therefore evil, you cannot have a body in good shape. The same applies to mental exercise. You must read, think, memorize, and discuss things to become mentally strong. This is also tiresome and painful, so we cannot avoid evil when it comes to mental exercise.

Doesn't that require us to evaluate the situation? — Philosophim

Sure, we need to evaluate the situation before deciding whether we should do good or evil.

And how do we know what is a right action? — Philosophim

This is a tricky part so I have to give examples of a few situations to make things clear. Think of a situation in which you have a nasty kid who breaks things and messes up your house. You don't reward him for what he does instead you punish him. The first act, rewarding, is good and the second act, punishing, is evil. Therefore, evil is right depending on the situation. Think of a person who is terminally ill. The act of killing any person is evil since it causes sadness to friends or relatives. But the act of killing a person who is terminally ill is right if she or he wants it. Here, I just gave a couple of examples of the situations in which evil acts are right. I am sure you can come up with situations in which a good act is the right choice.

What do you think about the logic of the rest of the post? — Philosophim

I read your entire OP once but I have to read it a couple of more times before I become ready to discuss it in depth. For now, let's see if we agree on the definition.

Hello again @Philosophim,

I can't prove that "Existence is good" based on pointing to a God or some law of nature that we've discovered. I only note that if an objective morality exists, any objective morality must logically include 'existence vs nothing' as 'good'. — Philosophim

Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good'.

You wrote about belief being necessary for knowledge, but also about the usefulness of gaining applicable knowledge:

An indirect contradiction is an inability to experience one’s belief in reality. For example, if I believe in an invisible and unsensible unicorn, there is nothing in reality with which I may apply this belief. — Philosophim

If you start to believe in an unprovable and unsensible Objective morality, you start off with an indirect contradiction of your own belief by reality. What is then the applicable use of the rest of the 'Knowledge' you create, when it is indirectly contradicted to begin with?

The moral foundation I've established does not require people. It would be a logical conclusion whether we exist or not. Just like the laws of physics would still exist without us. — Philosophim

Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. Neither does 'proving the laws of physics' mean the results are the 'truth' of reality, it is just our 'human' understanding of the matter. Without the human element, any practical and useful understanding of 'what is good' breaks down completely, as you simultaneously argue that we don't need humans to evaluate morals, and that we as humans can understand fundamental morals. This is contradictory.
We are human, and as long as we are, we can only make 'human' claims about reality, not 'objective claims'.

True, without a moral foundation, we cannot judge. But with a moral foundation, we can. And if that moral foundation is sound, we can shape the universe around us to be better than it is as a non-conscious force. Just like we take rocks and turn them into statues, we can take the universe as it is and mold it into something greater than its mere existence. — Philosophim

We don't know if we can mold the universe or not, and believing we can, just because we believe in Objective Morality, seems no different from any other fundamental beliefs that start off indirectly contradicted by reality.
This seems to be an obvious categorical error of reasoning on your part. It is fine if you are post-hoc arguing, but that is a known fallacy, and it doesn't make any sense to me to build a theory that prefaces by making a known error of reasoning.

If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections, as there is nothing for me to add, and I don't want to build on such a shaky foundation.

If this is your faith, that there is an objective morality, and so existence must be good, I can respect that - but then it is Faith, and should be presented as such.

Faith doesn't have to be 'Logical' to make sense, after all.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence