Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently.
— Chet Hawkins

So perhaps the monkey's behavior arises from evolved instincts conducive to training conspecifics not to be bad persons? — wonderer1

Implying the monkey sees the human as a peer? Doubtful. The bizarre situation with regular human interaction is almost not factorable. Caged animals are well aware they are caged.

The throwing monkey thinks that Chk'ka has Stockholm syndrome. And he's been psychosomatic against vinegar containing products ever since that Quepos Norwegian tourist incident. You just don't know how hard it's been on him. And his moon is in Mercury! Ugh, the monkanity!

Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt?
— Chet Hawkins

Could the answer to your question be, "Because we share instincts, to some degree, with our capuchin cousins?" — wonderer1

Well, of course we do. They were named for a religious order after all. But those nasty little buggers never converted. They stuck with free will and balance, instead of highbrow persecution and itchy clothing.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way
↪Chet Hawkins

Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).
Right but experiments are within reality. Reality perforce includes the inability to attain perfection. So an experiment in which the word perfect is used is often a red flag, if you follow. That was what I was objecting to, and I explained that.
— LuckyR

Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease. — LuckyR

It does, actually.

But again you made the same exact mistake.

You deny that perfection, the unattainable thing, is what causes desire. And it does that perfectly. So, it matters not how close we get, we are still not perfect and perfection still draws us on. That is precisely going to cause a feeling of restlessness and unfulfillment to everyone, every time, in every case, without exception. That is because morality, unlike us, is perfect, is objective.

As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings". — LuckyR

I feel like I should be insulted.

So, what you're saying here is that I am sincerely wrong, yes?

Your contention here says nothing. So what if often people find that others disagree with what morality is? I agree that is the case. Both are wrong. It's always the case. That is my argument. But, since morality is objective, one of the two is more correct in every such comparison. So when you get down to comparisons, the fact that morality is objective is the only thing that allows for the comparison in the first place. Good? Relative to what, precisely? You must compare each example to a standard. Then there must be a measurement.

That measurement is to the objective standard. We sense that it must be objective because we are happier when acting and choosing in an ever narrowing scope of choices, as if our behaviors were being guided by a law of emotion governing choice in the universe. That is objective morality.

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow. — baker

'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that?

We have to add in all other virtues to see the effect it has on the aim. So, saying usefulness is not in and of itself sufficient. We need some other descriptor that means 'good' use. Just so.

So, if you say then that the aim is good amid being useful, and the predictable effect is also good, then that shows alignment with objective morality. If, however, something is useful and not good, then it really was not ever accurately useful in the first place, if you follow. The real term useful must include only that which is useful for good.

It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its an indicator it does not. But, it DOES mean that there is something to that overall goal that has universal appeal, and we sure do want something about that goal. — Philosophim

I agree that things that are right are usually simple, a corollary to what you said here. It is essentially the Occam's Razor argument. But the thing is, it is simple. The only thing complex about it is the interactions of the virtues. And that is actually simple, just a wee bit harder when you combine them.

As mentioned as well, it is not an appealing truth in some ways. Wisdom hits every person, every entity, on that entity's weakest traits. Wisdom states that effort should increase to get to more and more worthy moral choices. These are not appealing to immoral wishes of most people. This is why wisdom makes people uncomfortable and often they will reject it on their weakest traits precisely to prevent or deny their having to change.

So, I can agree that people want a system of beliefs that has the same GOOD wholesome flavors as traditional religion, which is more and more a failure in social circles. But, after they hear how this model translates the virtues almost everyone will hopefully realize that they are incredibly weak in 1-3, maybe more virtues and that your lowest virtues are more determinant of one's wisdom. That could cause wholesale rejection of the model. The model needs a lot of wise advocacy to get very far. I remain skeptical. People in general are so unwise.

So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. — Philosophim

I countered those problems. You claiming this means you did not understand. That, or you did not give a counter argument.

We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. — Philosophim

No, there is nothing wrong with that. And if you make that claim you should explain why. I did explain the pro.

It makes total sense that what we think of as unhappiness is just less happiness than we normally experience. That means if we are normally immoral in the same ways, and we are, then the low contributions of our lesser virtue expressions (vices) offer us less happiness contribution regularly. It feels normal. And if we delude ourselves into believing we know what real happiness is like (and we do delude ourselves) we might suggest something as crazy as being supremely happy when we dumb down others.

There is nothing inherently complex or confusing about that situation. What is hard for you to believe?

But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal. — Philosophim

Yes, that one is super easy. But we are trying to get to the hard one. The mix of virtues as wisdom and the mix of virtues for additive happiness. The third realization is the normal value of happiness being deemed 'ok' by the person regardless of how bad it is.

This is why loss is so hard. Loss changes the normal level of happiness for an extended and reliable period of time, the grief interval. Loss is delusional as well, because matter, energy, emotions (all three) are neither created nor destroyed. They are all harmonics. Its a lack of awareness and wisdom overall that causes the failed perception of loss. I mean this can get all squirrely with time is also a delusion, and then question is why do we accept the focus on the 'now' view only?

So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then? — Philosophim

So, no. That would only be one virtue or maybe two, achievement and accuracy. So yes, these two would offer their contributions to happiness. But what about beauty, joy, unity, awareness, preparedness, connectedness, challenge, etc? So, the only virtues being fulfilled that I can detect for sure in your example are the two. It is then a tautology that perfection will not be pleased. It will pull you to do more or do what you do better. It will try to involve all virtues equally as that is the balance of truth and nature.

There is no mistaken association in my model. Actions and choices all do give their contribution. It's the comparison with the norm for that moral agent that matters. Once they have a spike or a dip in happiness from the norm that is extended, they 'wake up to what life could be'. This is evolution or collapse.

The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others. — Philosophim

Indeed. There are virtues that center on each of the primal emotions, part of my model. The basic sin of desire is self-indulgence. The restraint of balancing fear is needed to help counter desire. That fear is fear of damage or 'going too far' with the emotion. What does 'going too far' sound like? If you mapped the strength of the virtues you will see that a person very high on the desire virtues as well as the desire infused virtues has a greater chance of being self-indulgent as a pattern in life. That is because that one virtue is over-expressed. It supports my model entirely. I have found no aspect of reality that does not support my model. I am here to see if there is some, in part.

So, immorality is only a lack of balanced morality or low amplitude morality.

Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions. — Philosophim

Aiming at objective moral truth, from any point (state) will yield the greatest happiness. You can take the circuitous route all of us do, but that yields less happiness and less and less the more distal the aim is from the perfect point of objective moral truth.

Maturity and wisdom are the same things. If you describe one without the other, I think that would mean you did not understand either (really). So, maturity is only properly described as alignment with intent towards perfection, the GOOD. There are many adjectives and verbs that are changed in my model because of the importance of perfection. Any expression of any choice is partially immoral/evil if it is not perfect. Moreover, intent towards the negative direction of immorality even from an exalted state (perhaps especially so) is a very dark and immoral act. As Treebeard says, 'A wizard should know better!' But even wizards are not perfect.

For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.
— Chet Hawkins

I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others." — Philosophim

Ultimately, all virtues funnel into the unity principle as might be expected. I mean, ... unity, duh. But the deeper truth is that you can build a compelling connection between any two virtues and that connection will show enough similar ties and strength to explain why all virtues are equal, despite the intuition that they are not. Why is beauty and expression equal to accuracy? Why is unity the equal of connection? But it turns out that each virtue can only be equal or morality and reality could not happen.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is.
— Chet Hawkins

Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed. — Philosophim

Certainty cannot ever be had, so it had better not be needed.

But the concepts of proofs and facts are similar. The astute observer or academic realizes that these two items are limits. They are mathematical limits in how they work. Proof is asymptotic to certainty, and that is wise. Fact is asymptotic to truth. Choosers that belief that proof is certainty or that fact is truth are not very bright, nor very wise. The proof is the explanation of why we believe a fact is a fact only. It is the 'non-conclusion', a term I invented to be in alignment with objective moral truth. If we state a non-conclusion, rather than delude ourselves by using the term conclusion, we admit up front that we are partially wrong, and yet we show that for right now, this is our best guess as to the truth. That is very wise indeed.

In most human interactions we actually prefer delusion. We want the fantasy and reminding us of reality just chafes us. This is another reason wisdom is secretly reviled. We would prefer the bridge maker brag and say 'Oh, don't worry! It'll hold! I been doing this for years now!" She doesn't mention it's only 2 years and with a degree from a low rep mail order diploma uni. We scoff and chafe at C3PO or other logic odds assessments duly noted. "Don't tell me the odds!" is our retort. Another way of saying that is 'Don't let fear get in the way of a good time/death.'

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?
— Chet Hawkins

If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. — Philosophim

Nope.

That is incorrectly stated.

Subjective BELIEF in objective morality is the proper way to say it. And that is fine. It does not deny objective morality. You just tried to pull a fast one there semantically.

Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced. — Philosophim

And their cowardly need for certainty will remain a foolish cross to bear. It will eke them out of life itself. They should choose not to live in fear. That means over-expressed fear, like the need for certainty over courage and will.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.
— Chet Hawkins

No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more. — Philosophim

Well then, yes, chase maturity (wisdom).

Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion. — Philosophim

Ha ha! Thank you. I appreciate the testing ground for my model and my ideas.

Moral non-cognitivists will say that a sentence such as "this is wrong" actually means something like "don't do this", and that the sentence "don't do this" isn't truth-apt. — Michael

Well, I would say instead to be more clear:
<this action> is morally wrong according to what can be guessed about objective moral truth.
That means <this action> will objective contribute less to happiness than <some similar action> which is more in alignment with objective moral truth.
And then I have to be vague here because you were, but, then you would state the moral proposition for review.

Of course, we all can contend different and immoral things and we do all the time. And people are not even aware of how to judge these actions because they are not deep thinkers or deep feelers and they exist in a pool of easy prosperity and are mostly only concerned with shallow consequences like a giddy high, rather than genuine happiness. But leave that same person on a desert island for a year with 10 other people and it's probably the best thing that ever happened to them, if they live.

Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently.

They have a monkey trapped in a cage, for heaven's sake. That's just horrid, almost no matter the reason. And then they are experimenting on it by feeding its buddy better food or more desired food. That is not exactly a moral aim.

I mean I know they rationalize that they are learning behavioral things by doing this in a 'controlled' way, but I don't think you can escape it being fairly wrong.

Choices, of course, not people, are possibly bad or evil or immoral, use your favorite term.

If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral? — Philosophim

I do not know how I missed this post before. Wonderful!

So, it's a great ask. I love it when things are not easy. It does turn out to be easy to me, but I am no young stump-jumper. You be the judge.

There is happiness returned for each virtue. I may have mentioned this, but it's surprising how people only really get deep into something if they are in dialogue mode. OK. Here we go.

In the case of your question there is a virtue of ownership or you could even say challenging the self to be better, to be the best you that you can be. If this virtue is subjective or delusional, then it can work one way for one person and one way for another person. Luckily for us all, this is not the case. But right now that is just my belief let's say.

Let's add in another virtue and see how this might work. It's the interaction amid multiple virtues that is precisely what confuses most people. This is what turns them away from the GOOD. They get all bangin hard on one virtue and turn a strength into a weakness. It's comical, sad, and typical. Each virtue acts on the other virtues to bend them into alignment with objective moral truth. If there is a skill or belief set that reflects this condition, this ability, to work towards all virtues expressed at the same strength at the same time, that skill or virtue that is special is called 'wisdom'. Wisdom can be said to be strength rising in a single virtue only if that strength is already equal in all other virtues. Otherwise to raise a single virtue is actually over-expression of that virtue, and dangerous (immoral).

Your example is a fairly easy case of this trouble. It does not invalidate my happiness return theory at all. In fact, the example properly understood supports it. If we envision that happiness is the consequence of any virtue in choice, and also that each virtue offers increasing happiness as a return or consequence of increasing expression of that virtue, we have a match with reality. That is my contention anyway.

So, the case you offer would roughly correspond to 3 virtue areas that I offer for your consideration. These are the need to challenge (which has as a darker component the need to control), the need to be just or accurate (which has as a darker component the need to be superior), and maybe even the need to achieve (which has a darker component in the need to be seen and understood or accepted as a 'winner', especially with one's boot heel on the throat of the other). I think that is enough to consider for the moment. But these are virtues that indeed by your example have become objective vices instead.

If I claim morality is objective then something is gravely amiss. These virtues are being expressed quite strongly. And indeed objective morality is rewarding this person for doing so. This is the happiness you say you (you said you in the example, I would have said 'one' to depersonalize it) would feel.

So the way morality works is objective. The high expression of these virtues is returning a giddy high. But what you do not realize, the you in the example, and maybe the real you, is that other virtues are missing. This means to me that you are merely wrong. You cannot know what you are missing. You are terrible at the other virtues. But this is the best happiness you have ever known, more is the pity. You are some sort of hideous tyrant getting off on just a few virtues.

This has several corollaries. One is that people are not really just gut sucking evil in general. There is too much good involved directly in otherwise mundane seeming things like deciding just to remain alive, to continue to exist, to be. That's one example. Another is building connections with others, connectedness, which can indeed be over-expressed and turn into bigotry. That is because it is not balanced with other virtues. And that is the same here. No, people are actually fairly good, and even what we think of as rank evil is really just an over-expressed and imbalanced virtue. It actually takes exceptional good in some way, high values in some virtues, to be famous or infamous. It's not easy. And the hard things in life are usually more moral. This is a very complex equation finally, but it does work.

So, back to the example. Although I have already pointed out how over-expression of a virtue is actually immoral even with the virtues mentioned, there are also virtues missing that my theory claims would deliver unhappiness. I continue that assertion. But the low lying virtues are also offering happiness, just less. So, it's only additive. That causes confusion. So less happiness than ... regular or normally experienced is all that unhappiness is. That means to know that you are unhappy you have to have been more happy than normal. Do you see now?

So, let's look at the low virtues. For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.

Wisdom and morality also objectively include the idea that only through suffering can wisdom be earned. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering on the unwise. An example is a parent 'forcing' a child to do chores. This is quite wise and needed. And I promise you if interviewed the child would call it suffering. But later in life, if that child earned wisdom amid that process, they will claim quite vociferously and rightly that they understand and respect why their parent made them suffer. Just so.

So that virtue of unity is super low and missing in you, in your example. That means your adjective, 'Supremely' is precisely wrong, a delusion. The you that would claim such a thing is unwise. It is a tautology because morality is objective. It is also a tautology because an exactly similar person who is forced somehow to go through struggles that show the unity principle and thereby earns that wisdom is now aware of the more genuine happiness that can come from that belief. And such a person cannot be fooled by your delusion any more. They have been there, to better happiness. They will fight to keep on suffering to remain more happy.

In fact, one might ask, and I have been asked many times by the unwise, why not just be happy on drugs, the Hedonist perspective. The answer is simple. The wise seek out suffering for themselves willingly with joy in their hearts. They seek out necessary suffering only though. Taking it too far is self hatred, wallowing in worthlessness. The wise can only maintain a moral stance amid great suffering. Luckily the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are happy enough to oblige. The wise suffer thus, far more exquisitely than the unwise do, and they would not change a thing. This type of suffering launches happiness, genuine happiness, into the vaults of perfection. They never quite reach the top but closer and closer is the idea.

And it is this concept of genuine happiness that matters. That is to say, a wise person with ALL virtues present, experiences a genuine happiness that others can only guess at when they say silly things like 'supremely happy' by making others dumb. That other is you. Would you be happy dumb? Awareness is pain. Step right up! Here is the red pill. Wallow in giddy ignorance or be aware and suffer, and the more awareness the more suffering! Behold objective morality. The hard path is the moral one.

Hopefully that was enough of an answer.

The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? — Philosophim

Of course I cannot prove it. I would not want to.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. Fear is the emotion responsible for the limiting and separating force in the universe. When we take the math short cut of saying the limit of x approaches y is y we are failing morally. We may be making a Pragmatic choice, the betting man's success, but that is moral failure. Perfection is the asymptote. It is unattainable. When you write things off, you fail, and in doing so, you begin lazily to write more and more off. The goal must be unattainable. THAT is wisdom. And it is, objectively so. But it still returns the most happiness no matter how often and how far you miss if that was your aim. The miss is consequence. That has no value really except to inform future intents. Kant was right!

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists? — Philosophim

Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?

Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire to be a thing in the universe. We interpret it wrongly. But it is the call to that unattainable goal.

Yes, we live in a subjective experience but we can sense and aim at the objective. We can and SHOULD try to be objective, to be perfect, to be GOOD.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity? — Philosophim

Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.

The GOOD is every single bit as chaotic as it is orderly.

Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.

Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally. — LuckyR

I suppose my answer is strange to you. I am not perfect, so the GOOD eludes me. But my intent is as good as I can make it for now. I do not really 'pat myself on the back' for this at all. That is smugness. The smug Gods punish people mightily for smugness. At the poker table I see this all the time.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way.

Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism. — LuckyR

No, in fact this is easily demonstrable as not true.

People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.

a) Moral propositions are truth-apt
b) Some moral propositions are true
c) Some moral propositions are objectively true.

(c) entails (b) entails (a).

If you reject (a) then you are a moral non-cognitivist. If you reject (b) then you are an error theorist. If you reject (c) then you are a non-objectivist.

Some say that you must accept (c) to be a realist, others say that you need only accept (b) to be a realist, and that to accept (c) is to be a "robust" realist.

Although I wouldn't get too caught up in labels, they're just pragmatic tools with no real philosophical significance. What matters is whether or not (a), (b), and (c) are true. — Michael

Well. ok, yes.

Clearly by these descriptors I am a moral objectivist.
But I am interesting in the gray area that arises when people do not pay attention to details, and yet often enough people think improperly that I am the one missing the details.

That is to say, states cannot be true, meaningfully. They are too transitional.

That is also to say what a person 'is', is not finally good or evil. They actions and intents are done on a choice already made. This means that the choice CAN be determined as good or evil, assuming one also believes morality itself expresses good and anything else is evil.

Evil is in fact merely a lack of perfection. All aspects of reality partake in some degree of evil as expressed. That is every state of every thing and every being in the universe. It's unavoidable. It's true.

So, one cannot discuss things like killing babies as making one evil. They are evil choices only.

---

Why do I bother making such distinctions? Why indeed is it typical for people of all cultures to entertain these notions? Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt?

It is only the nature of existence itself, a law of the universe, which we refer to as morality, that causes this tendency, just like gravity. Morality is another law of nature. It is no more ephemeral nor less compelling than that.

Gravity itself actually is morality in action. All laws of nature are only morality. There is nothing happening but morality.

Gravity is a pull one experiences towards mass. The greater the mass, the more the pulls. Literally, this yields a compelling moral proposition which is the basis of the physics:

'What matters, will draw you to it, and that is morally correct.'

Then we would be tempted by delusion and foolishness (immorality) to say things like,

'Yeah ok, wise guy, let the black hole pull you in.' or
'I feel my porn, calling to me. It must matter and be moral.'

But these do not deny the truth of the first statement. What happens is, other virtues are involved and they split the need for choice, bend it, in another direction.

Loosely,
'Matter that expresses higher moral agency, matters more, at this time, but not finally.'
and
'Some patterns are self-destructive. Fear must rise to balance desire in these cases.'

Morality is the hardest thing there is to understand. It is only worth understanding at all because:

Morality does not change. It is objective.

An interesting possible corollary proposition:
'It is not important to understand any state or being. It is only important to understand morality.'

In terms of “hiding” behind moral realism, it cannot be hiding if the OP is an exposition of a moral realist theory. If you have disputes with moral realism, or the underlying framework within metaethics, then we can discuss that. — Bob Ross

Well, perhaps I need to detail more of my model, but, I agree that this is kind of derailing this thread because of the way everyone, including me of course, is choosing to discuss it. I am a free form theorist, but I can learn this way, I think; assuming it's not just repugnant once I do get more of it. For now I think I'll read more of what others say here on these forums and digest it. Maybe I can. Who knows.

I am certainly not here only to annoy you, which is all I seem to be accomplishing now.

He seem to use the terms ‘objective’ and ‘truth’ very differently than me and the contemporary literature, which is fine; but I need more clarity from you on what you mean by them. I have already explained what I mean by them. — Bob Ross

Well, If I explain more of my model it would help. But I surmise that it would be rejected from start to finish here, although I think its way more useful to people in its verbiage and formulation than what I seem to need to do and say here to interact with you successfully.

I had hoped that interaction with lay and professional philosophers or logicians would be less problematic, that my rather unorthodox approach would be more what was missing perhaps, a theme that follows me wherever I go in life. So, far that is not the case.

Truth to me is all that is objective, the summation of it. It of course does not change. It is pointless to call anything that can change truth. You may make a truth statement about something in a state and that statement is true. It is not especially wonderful or meaningful to me. It's just as cool as saying, it's hot, or it's cold. Who cares? I mean I know people care about temp and I do to. That's not what I mean. Useful truth is only about laws of the universe that never change. Effectively, there are no other truths. There are only states. The laws of truth govern the state changes. So, that's truth.

Objective is the nature of truth, unchanging, eternal, conceptual. Only truth can be objective. If something can change, it is a state. Truth statements about states are less useful than truth statements about objective laws of the universe. So, that's objective.

That's a short sweet and easy to understand synopsis of the system. There is a lot more detail, but that is the highest level, the monad.

Maybe I am not whatever a moral realist is but I do believe that morality is objective and does not change, so you tell me, what is that WITHOUT the other requirements? What is that called? Because that is what I believe and my current state.

By something being ‘objective’, are you just meaning that it is ‘immutable’? — Bob Ross

Well, no. It does not change. So, to me you can also say, TF it is a law of the universe. It is truth or part of truth. And there are many such laws. But one can also say 'Morality is truth' or 'Morality is objective' or 'Objective morality is a law of the universe'. The 'rules' of morality do not change. Opinion is only error. Choice always contains error. Belief always contains error. Fact is just a certain type of belief, so, facts always contain error.

Who cares is my answer. Morality is objective. I can offer arguments as to why.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the view outlined in the OP, not your ethical theory insofar as it doesn’t relate thereto. — Bob Ross

That makes no sense to me at all. It's like you started talking about microscopic portions of the wall and their dimensions and such, but I am not allowed to discuss that same wall my way. It's ridiculous to me. Of course all opinions about the wall should be entertained when speaking about the wall. I mean moral objectivism is indeed what we are both talking about, just two apparently quite different models of that same thing. I do not mind leaping into such a discussion and saying, no, that's not what 'red' means to me. Here is what it means to me. I will tell you why and how I support my belief. I will not just say, 'Hey we are only discussing this way to moral objectivism.' I suppose if that is how it is, I need a new thread of my own.

That's what I tried to do with the first post on happiness and was told that moral objectivism was being discussed here. Apologies if that is also wrong. It seems I have nowhere to be me.

My position is a form of moral realism, and a part that is the affirmation of moral cognitivism. Are you a moral cognitivist or non-cognitivist? — Bob Ross

As discussed already in great detail I suppose I would have to be a cognitivist.

I consider myself both an idealist and a realist

By ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’, I was referring to metaphysical, specifically ontological, outlooks—not whether or not you like following ideals. Idealism, traditionally, is the position that reality is fundamentally made up of minds, and realism is the view that it is fundamentally made up of mind-independent parts. — Bob Ross

Well then tradition is not so useful to me. I'm more fluid.

To me there is the path of mind. That path is also the path of a single emotion, fear. Fear is entirely responsible for realism, Pragmatism, and what might be referred to as the limiting force amid moral objectivism.

I was thinking perhaps you are an idealist, and that would explain why you seem to think that nothing in reality is mind-independent. — Bob Ross

Everything in reality, all iota of matter and even dreams, all of it, yes, everything, partakes of fear. It cannot avoid it. It is objectively true. It is a law of the universe. But, yeah, assuming there is interest, I need another thread to discuss it it seems.

If you think that flourishing can be defined by two different cultures, and that either one could be correct, you are not what I call a moral objectivist.

It cannot be defined by two different cultures in the sense that they are both correct about what flourishing is while simultaneously having contradictory accounts. There is only one way there is to be flourishing. — Bob Ross

Ah, then we agree. Perfection is singular.

Moral objectivity is truth to me

So this would entail that what is true is equivocal to what is moral, which seems very implausible. — Bob Ross

No, because you will now go off into state changes that do not matter to truth at all.

Free will allows for errors in choice and state. One cannot be moral. One can only TRY to be moral. To be moral would be to be perfect. It cannot happen. When it happens I am guessing that would 'end' the universe in all dimensions we are capable of discussing.

If it is true that Gary raped that woman, then is it thereby moral? Of course not. If it is true that 1+1=2, then is it moral? Of course not. — Bob Ross

Again, truth does not apply to states. I would even use another word and clear up logic itself on that basis. A true state is a goofy thing to say/discuss. States can change.

If this model is correct, it accurately describes reality. I contend that it does. I have of course only put fear here in very low detail. And there are chapters of this treatment that flow into every aspect of reality.

Truth is correspondence of reality, or perhaps the whole, or what is, but certainly not equivalent to what is moral. — Bob Ross

Yes it is, to me. To me there is nothing but morality in the universe and that is synonymous with truth, or God, or Love; choose your delusion.

And note the word certainly there in your verbiage in light of my fear treatment above. It can become quite telling if you know what to look for. There is no certainty.

Your flourishing example is terrible and cannot be used. That is because either the intent is to the aim of the perfect good or it is abject failure

You are importing your own views and then simply demonstrating mine are incompatible with them; instead of analyzing my position on its own merits. This ‘perfectness’ being ‘goodness’ doesn’t exist in my theory: should it? I don’t think so. — Bob Ross

Yes, I agree. I am discussing objective morality as I understand and believe it to be. But that should be useful to you. If I have even some shred of a point, at all, you can use my model and assertions to fuel thought and discussion on yours. Clearly I was confused at the examples you gave and admittedly I thought you were on the track of subjective morality and then what you were saying sounded like objective morality.

If you build a tight model, I mean, you can make it, but does it really answer to reality? How can you judge two different models, then? How do you compare one to the other? Is intuition involved at all?

1) Morality is objective and represented by a perfect intent, which is unique.

I don’t know why morality is ‘represented by a perfect intent’, or what that means. — Bob Ross

Well it's not hard to imagine, is it?

Assume there are 16 discreet virtues for example. And assume there is a harmonic amid choice for each of these. There is a perfect vibration to choice for each virtue separately and then if you get all 16 perfect at the same time, you have a single perfect choice, the entire and only purpose of the universe. Does the universe end? Probably! Its conjecture of course, but that's the general idea.

2) Moral perfection is all truth at once. Nothing that is possible is left out.

Again, this just equivocates truth with morality. — Bob Ross

And again, that is precisely correct. I assert that is true. They are the same thing.

3) Between any two beliefs, one is always better than the other, because it is intended along a vector more proximal to objective moral truth.

Why would this be a part of the thesis? — Bob Ross

We need as choosers, as moral agents, some capacity to judge the error level of a choice or state. Due to the nature of the limiting force and the seeming impossibility of perfection, this 3rd contention becomes true and interesting. It means if we have a morality meter no two choices or beliefs could ever be precisely equal in moral value, goodness value. This all depends on, you guessed it, moral objectivism.

There is no state for which there is not a mind component. That component is not zero, ever. The seed of our human mind is in inorganic matter. The fact that science does not yet understand this is irrelevant.

Hence why I thought you may be an idealist. Anyways, you are confusing ontology with epistemology: our knowledge of the world is always mind dependent, but that does not entail that what fundamentally exists is mind-dependent. — Bob Ross

The physical reality we think we know, is not known. It is delusion. It is just emotion, just consciousness. The model I am getting to is a theoretical 'proof' for this truth.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them.

Ok, so you are an idealist. — Bob Ross

Not in my model, I am not.

Idealism is just as much of an error, a moral error, as Pragmatism is. Only wisdom is the right path. Wisdom is the middle path between these two, combining the order of Pragmatism and fear with the chaos of Idealism and desire.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them. And although mind is only precisely one third of reality

That is a flat-out contradiction. You can’t say X is all there is and X is one third of what all there is. — Bob Ross

I agree. That is only because I am not saying it quite right. But, unlike logicians I am more comfortable with that. So, I need your help actually.

I want to learn how to say it right, if that is possible.

I still think you mean that there seems to be a respectable barrier between one mind and another. I think that is what you mean. Please confirm what you mean. I need some term or understanding I can follow. our minds are NOT actually separate from one another.

I mean that it seems as though, and we have good reasons to believe that, our minds are emergent from mind-independent parts and that the universe is fundamentally mind-independent. — Bob Ross

And of course, I disagree entirely. I would say there is precious little reason, the limit as x approaches none, to suspect that. It is in fact a horrid suspicion, and groundless. It is much more likely that all seeds of emotive capacity were part of natural law. We only see discrete breakpoints because we are still deeply deluded. We do not have enough awareness yet. We are going there.

The which is exactly what I was saying and missed by you for no known reason. I can also use the other two paths to make similar theoretical statements:

I am because I think.
I am because I intend.
I intend because I think.
I intend because I am.
I think because I intend.

This set of statements encircles all the possible equivalent statements at that level. Without these statements the understanding is less than best. It highlights the think side only, a problem I detect amid most of academia.

It's compelling, tempting, and entirely wrong to pursue truth only through thought.

I never was, nor will I be, arguing for the cogito argument. I don’t see the relevance of this to my moral realist position. I do not hold cogito ergo sum: I don’t buy the descartes argument for it. ‘I’ do not exist simply because something thinks. — Bob Ross

Whereas Descartes fits my model well and indeed my model would allude to the other statements I made as equivalent and necessary as a full closed set.

I would also say that to think without existing is entirely incoherent. Why would you try to defend that? Yes, something exists because it can think. Any I that thinks, must exist.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to stop there for now; and see if that helps. — Bob Ross

I mean, I think I get you. I am not at all sure you get me. I would like to discuss the whole topic of objective morality.

I tried to trim this down after the fact. It was like 3-4 times larger before. Hopefully its still succinct and coherent.

Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins

What does this mean if not "some moral propositions are objectively true"? — Michael

I mean, I agree.

I am only in this thread like ... for ... moral objectivity. But if there is something called moral realism that is different for glossy technical reasons, I am trying to understand so that I can either agree or disagree there.

The moral cognitivism issue was one I either just misunderstood or disagree with parts of it.

I guess then the clarity I think I am trying to obtain for myself and maybe others, is, ...
1) Morality is objective (all that assertion may not be to assert moral realism)
2) Once that happens, I have more to say, as in, how was this concept obtained? How can it be derived from reality? Why is it that this is the case, and of course then, had to be the case?

So, you must then agree that the reader must agree that this theory indeed can possibly describe moral realism.

Any theory can possibly “describe” moral realism. That it is a form of moral realism depends on if it is purporting at least the following thesis:

1. Moral judgments are propositional [moral cognitivism].
2. Moral judgments express something objective [moral objectivism].
3. There is at least one true moral judgment [moral non-nihilism]. — Bob Ross

So, you went right back to a requirement that I do not believe in. I suppose that's a hard thing to get past. If you want to HIDE behind an academic construct instead of addressing the issue, that is not going to help. It does not matter, by the way, if you are right. The fact that even everyone but me agrees that the above is true is irrelevant.

In fairness, what you do not know about me is a lot of things. One that I am a software developer with 30+ years experience and so although I am not a philosophical logical guru, I do understand logic. I also chafe when people offer up the 'I've been a so and so for so many years' thing that I just did. I get it. Academic pursuit. But no, it isn't. Reality is academically interpreted and yet not only possessed of such considered structures. The trouble with science and academia is the same, every time, its odd constructions are considered right, until every single time, someone proves them wrong, or just not detailed enough to be useful. That's where I am at, trying to do that. And I face a true believer in the status quo, entrenched in a singular approach I know is masking the problem for him and others.

Nowhere in reality can I find and point to the tree of moral realism to verify that these 3 propositions must be true. I have to depend on you and this body of academic work that contends that these three are the right requirements. I do not. I refuse. If that makes me a caveman or a fool, I accept that danger. You have to let me know if that means I should no longer post here, because retreating (yes, it is a retreat) behind such structures is not helping anyone. But it is to be expected. My model predicts it. More on that in a bit.

It's one of those conundrums that's really sticky. Lots of moving variables and if you get even one wrong the whole thing looks like spaghetti instead of a string.

Does it feel like or seem to be moral realism? If it bears little resemblance to moral realism, the debate is ended because you are demanding us to lose our minds and believe that black is white as a starting point.

I agree with this. Rhetorically, even if the theory is a form of moral realism, people will not be convinced if it seems counter to moral realism. — Bob Ross

And I am not convinced. I am not even convinced now that moral realism matters at all if it must answer the 3 propositions. I am trying to argue for objective moral truth. That has ramifications that disagree entirely in my opinion with those three propositions as stated. It does not help at all that you keep regurgitating them back to me. I will try to address your comments about why they are necessary below.

I have already given my argument for the uselessness of moral cognitivism.

Moral cognitivism is the metaethical theory that moral judgments are propositional, which is a required position for moral realists to take. You cannot reject moral cognitivism and be a moral realist. — Bob Ross

Yes, I can. I just did. I do again. If that makes me incoherent, so be it. Maybe I am not whatever a moral realist is but I do believe that morality is objective and does not change, so you tell me, what is that WITHOUT the other requirements? What is that called? Because that is what I believe and my current state.

1) All beliefs are in error partially because perfection is impossible (anti-cognitivism)
2) Some moral statements are possibly true because they embrace the concept of limits towards infinity as infinity. (cognitivism)

Beliefs being fallible does not entail that moral judgments are non-propositional. Saying moral judgments are propositional means that one can formulate them into statements which are truth-apt. If you reject moral cognitivism, then, for example, “one ought not torture babies for fun” is incapable of being true or false. — Bob Ross

Well, ok, so, I think that statement is true, so, that means I must be for what you call moral cognitivism, but, the idea of anti-cognitivism is then the issue. But you for some reason did not do the redefine of that one here.

I suppose that is the one I most reject then and I am a moral cognitivist by ... someone's ... definition. Who cares is my answer. Morality is objective. I can offer arguments as to why.

I do not want to go into the deeper basis of my theory or model yet, because it is not only about morality being objective. It's about so much more, everything in the universe, indirectly. But I am one that believes effectively that there is nothing in the universe but truth and all of it is based only in morality. Indeed, morality is the reason for physical existence. I just want to get to a place where I can understand why and how anyone could argue against objective morality. So, on we go.

This ... proves ... to me ... that moral cognitivism (and anti-cognitivism both) are useless.

They are defined such that they are foils to each other and, thusly, you have to either accept one or the other (or suspend judgment): you cannot sidestep the issue by claiming they have low practical utility—even if it is true. — Bob Ross

OK, If I must decide, it does indeed seem that moral cognitivism is, within reason, acceptable. I know we will have to revisit that issue though. So, hopefully my objection is noted.

They are simultaneously false and true meaning they are both true and juxtaposed

That is logically impossible, because non-cognitivism is the negation of cognitivism. You are saying X and !X are both true, which is the definition of a logical contradiction. — Bob Ross

So, what is deemed a contradiction is often not. I understand you are saying that these are not interpreted phenomena that seem contradictory but that the negation was DERIVED from the opposite. Well, ok. But when in the history of mankind has the wording not been wrong on something? Never. I do not want to just digress into confusion either. On we go.

Here you are throwing out two entire models and expect people to read all and follow. I only expect one post at a time and you are expressing difficulty.

Correct. Moral cognitivism and non-nihilism are metaethical theories which are not themselves the same as the debate about realism vs. anti-realism; rather, they are subcomponents of the moral realist thesis, and, for the sake of brevity and because I have already outlined them in full in my moral subjectivism thread, I refer the reader there. This OP is about a moral naturalist theory that presupposes moral cognitivism and non-nihilism and ventures to prove objectivism. — Bob Ross

I can accept for now, with the objection in place.

1) There is no such thing as a mind-independent state of affairs. That's the biggest issue.

Are you an idealist? I am a realist (ontologically), so I think that most events are mind-independent. — Bob Ross

I consider myself both an idealist and a realist. So, about now you are shaking your head. Yes, I mean it. I am dedicated to balance. Balance and wisdom REQUIRE in my ethics that idealist is correct AND that pragmatism is correct at the same time. The contradiction is not there even though people erroneously believe that it is. Sounds familiar right?

Pragmatism is prone to realism, which is based in logic, yadda yadda. Idealism is based in mostly the idea of perfection, in various forms, which I am sure you are familiar with given your verbiage so far. The error of academia is that in pursuing only the realist or pragmatic path, they are almost guaranteed to fail. That is what, in my opinion, you are doing, and probably most people on this forum are doing. The paths of being and of desire (idealism) are being neglected. They do not have equal weight in your considerations. The trouble is that if truth were known, then logic would agree with my complaint. It is a 'childish' or imperfect logic that cannot find its way past this conundrum. Academia in its entirety has that flavor.

The thing is, and this is a case in point, I can argue with the academics some on their home turf and not be offended by their blindness. Most balanced types just hand wave the tediousness. Most idealists can't even do they because they lose it in the face of logic and reason. My question is to the rigorous academic, can you entertain the notion that you are merely wrong? That is to say, the structure that you are relying on to make these models is built on an incorrect base? Because that is what I will end up contending I think. If you can't and I can, I understand. You don't believe my strange tubes are cannons yet and you hide in your fort and think I don't have the holy hand-grenade.

2) If the good is a form, that is mind-independent, in the only way I think you mean it, which means more properly stated that the GOOD does not depend on opinion or choice, but is preset, a law of the universe, then I agree, you are talking about objective morality. But you later suggest that you are NOT talking about a law of the universe making your premises unclear (entirely).

To clarify this a bit, another way of thinking about it is that the Good under this view is identical to flourishing, and flourishing is objective. The methodological approach to determining that is two-fold: (1) the analysis of acts such that they are conceptually subsumed under general categories and (2) the semantic labeling of a particular category as ‘the good’. — Bob Ross

And this is a retreat to jargon again.

No

If you think that flourishing can be defined by two different cultures, and that either one could be correct, you are not what I call a moral objectivist. It is required by my belief model that neither can be correct. That is not relevant either. Truth is not at all related to anything but perfection. Moral objectivity is truth to me. No one can be perfect and knowing is the understanding or aware part of perfection. So, that is why knowing is not possible. The fact that virtues like knowing or being accurate are not perfectly possible to us is fine and it actually proves or is evidence for objective morality. The math of this phenomenon which is demonstrable within reality can be represented by the limiting force. That means it is a limit as intent approaches perfection, and asymptotic. There can be no belief strong enough to arrive at perfection in intent. When we see this effect in reality, we know we are near to truth, yet cannot arrive.

Your flourishing example is terrible and cannot be used. That is because either the intent is to the aim of the perfect good or it is abject failure. So, despite the fact that two differing cultures have nuances of that definition that they are both aiming at and succeeding in, flourishing by your (subjective) definition, the fact that they answer the objective progress towards what is my objective GOOD is not finally relevant. Progress is fine, sure. But both are still errors. They are not perfect. So we cannot be objective in intent. We can only try to be objective in intent.

Further, since there is an objective truth about flourishing, that objective truth is the ONLY real truth, the perfection of that concept. Everything else is just an error. But between the two sub-cultures one error is always objectively closer to the perfect aim by intent. This is relative morality (not subjective). It allows us to possibly use judgement. We can say this or that belief is better or worse than the other. With your way, it is my assertion that because you say, I think, that they are both objectively flourishing despite their possible amazingly different aims, you are saying they can be equally moral. They cannot. It is impossible. If you believe they can that is what I call subjective morality or moral subjectivism. That is in fact the definition of it.

For me all that is necessary for moral objectivism are these propositions:
1) Morality is objective and represented by a perfect intent, which is unique.
2) Moral perfection is all truth at once. Nothing that is possible is left out.
3) Between any two beliefs, one is always better than the other, because it is intended along a vector more proximal to objective moral truth.

Now the thing is these propositions are not academic. I am not schooled in how to craft them. I almost want to thank the fates that that is true. I see the closed mindedness that is prevalent when realism and structure, order, is too highly favored over chaos and balance. It is not pretty and those rocky walls will fall even if they are sorcerously smooth like Orthanc. Truth has better cannon than that.

3) This means you are asserting that these 'forms' which you do not define yet, are mind-independent. But you also have said in other posts that you are not referring to a law of the universe. So you are contradicting yourself and not in a good way.

That which is mind-independent is not necessarily a law. A law is a force of nature that dictates particular behaviors of objects. The action of a cup smashing to pieces is a mind-independent state-of-affairs, but it is not itself a law. — Bob Ross

You say it is not a law and that is not relevant at all. It depends entirely on law. Everything does. There is nothing in the universe but truth, and that is what philosophy is about discovering. We do not create truth. We can only discover it. If we make something, it is flawed. Same argument I used before. Perfection is a limit and we cannot arrive, only intend to make progress towards it by aiming directly at it the best we can.

But, again, as mentioned, and still not addressed, there is no such thing as mind independent. You did not confirm my refinement of that. You refuted it. So we have no common ground yet in shared understanding. We do have common ground in reality. So one of us is more correct and one less.

Mind is ubiquitous. Every iota of this universe contains it. There is no state for which there is not a mind component. That component is not zero, ever. The seed of our human mind is in inorganic matter. The fact that science does not yet understand this is irrelevant. The fact that an academic can go on and on about mind-independent states when they cannot exist is ... terrifying.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them. And although mind is only precisely one third of reality, it is ubiquitous and there is no mind-independent state. It is ironic in the extreme that the realist, taking the path of the mind to truth, suggests almost comically that there is such a thing as a mind-independent state. It's ludicrous from my perspective.

I still think you mean that there seems to be a respectable barrier between one mind and another. I think that is what you mean. Please confirm what you mean. I need some term or understanding I can follow. our minds are NOT actually separate from one another. We are just currently unable to muster the will or connection because it is too hard for us. We are not in a state of being that facilitates this awareness enough. We are making progress towards that state. But these many failures do not deny my assertion. The reality though DOES deny your assertion of any mind-independent state, despite the seeming support of the current limit of our being. The seed of any mind, of all minds, was present as a law of the universe at the start of time and will always be so. It is the only way mind could emerge and be deluded enough to consider itself laughably separate.

I assume you mean good and evil as the only categories.

At least those two, there could be more. Such as a neutral category. — Bob Ross

Holy lack of clarity batman! Pow! Ok! Well, I think you should state the list of categories and also mention that they are a single value on a sliding scale if they are. Because these things are all different conceptually, yes?

But, no, I deny it. As soon as you went there I was like, nope. I was ready for that. My model shows and for now this is unsupported entirely, that there is no such thing as a balance between good and evil. This also speaks directly to your (what I would call incoherent) ideas on flourishing. Good is only in a singular direction. If two things, aims, intents, disagree; then one is objectively better than the other, always. This means there is no way to balance good and evil for the good. The only way is not a balance at all. Its all one way. That is in fact the meaning of objective. Perfection itself as a concept is synonymous with objective.

There is a balance amid the progress towards the good that is helpful. But it is not good and evil. It is order and chaos. And I will go ahead and say clearly, the path of logic and reason is only the path of order. The path of idealism is the path of chaos. And balance is the third way, neutral with respect to those two only. But the evil and good bit is not a balance at all. It's one way only. That confusion, of a possible balance between good and evil is rampant in moral subjectivism. It has no merit.

So what precisely denotes good and what evil?

The good is flourishing, and the bad is the negation of that. In action, what is good is progressing towards The Good (i.e., flourishing) at its highest level (i.e., universal flourishing) and evil is the regression from it. — Bob Ross

This can only be true if all definitions of flourishing are perfect, e.g. precisely the same. That is not to say that progressing towards what someone erroneously considers as good is acceptable. No, that that they consider as good must itself also be exactly the same. Otherwise, flourishing is not good. And perfection is quite demanding, I assure you.

So, I still think your flourishing maze of reasoning is wrong, unless you clarify it.

How does a behavior fall into one category or the other?

It will be whether or not the action progresses or regresses from a world with universal flourishing—i.e., the highest Good. — Bob Ross

Yes, as long as the 'highest' Good, and I already warned you about the term 'highest', is the same for everyone. No two people can differ on what flourishing is, because that is subjective morality.

It is no help because you just basically gave no filter and expect that we can decide what makes something good or evil. You have not even said that there is a continuum. What relates the good to the bad?

This has nothing to do with that quote of me, which was:

For example, there is no mind-independent state-of-affairs (or arrangement of entities) in reality that makes it true that “one ought not torture babies” but, rather, it is true because it corresponds appropriately to the mind-independent category (i.e., abstract form) of ‘the good’ — Bob Ross

This is classic jargon and obfuscates understanding. It does not help in understanding.
There is no such thing as mind-independent.
Abstraction is caused by the virtual nature of perfection only. This is the limiting issue mentioned earlier. It is called virtual in honor of the virtues which have that quality. Each is perfect and an unattainable ideal only. Yet and still, the sum of all virtues combined is a perfection of perfections. It was always singular, but that is a way to say it to facilitate understanding.

There is in fact a mind-dependent state of affairs (objective morality) that makes it absolutely true that one ought not to torture babies. It must depend on mind, because everything amid truth does. The term torture includes the negative intent to me, so, it's evil by definition. The whole situation gets much more dicey if you said instead 'cause suffering' for 'torture'. As examples and conundrums go, that is vastly superior to yours. That is because the wise should indeed inflict suffering on the unwise to facilitate their earning wisdom. And then we should be led to speak about such a concept as, 'is harm really harm, as long as it is necessary suffering only?' THAT is a much better set of arguments and such. The term torture is too evil committed.

I was referring to, here, is that, in simplified terms, normativity is not objective; but the good is. The good is flourishing—which is the abstract category I was referring to—and this is objective. I do grant that I need to refurbish the OP to be more clear. If it helps, then use my summary I gave a couple responses back instead of the OP itself. — Bob Ross

Well, I think you should realize by now what my issue with flourishing is. It does not work as an example for the reasons I have stated many times now. You have not addressed my concerns in that sense. You are still just repeating it. I do not know what else to do to get you to address it.

In the OP, I focused too much on the methodological approach to determining what goodness is and not in clarifying the end result (of it being identical to flourishing). — Bob Ross

Which it isn't. Your flourishing is not the good as described. That is unless no two people can differ in any way on precisely the details of what flourishing is, not the fact that they are making progress towards their goals. That can be progress towards evil. It can be evil for one and less evil for another making the latter more objectively moral in their intents. Is that agreed?

And you wonder why I got confused. No. Stick with one theory at a time. You are laying out tenets of a subjectivist theory in an objectivist thread. People will of course respond to each/both.

The problem with that is that you argued as if I was arguing for moral subjectivism, which is not what is happening in the OP. For those tracking my threads, of which many have been, I wanted to provide clarity on how I overcame my main argument for moral non-objectivism.[/.quote]
We are past that.
— Bob Ross

Wow! There is nothing to support this wild conjecture at all up to this point. In fact I would offer a much more reasonable proposition which is this:
Anti-P1: The way reality is currently is clearly the best example of how it should be because it's the only example we have. Guess what? That's a tautology

P1 wasn’t supposed to be incredibly elaborate: it was meant to re-iterate the syllogism from my moral subjectivism thread. The elaboration of that premise is found there.

As for your ‘anti-P1’, it doesn’t negate P1 and it isn’t tautological. — Bob Ross

This is classic you so far. You just state these things and do not say why. That means I ignore you. I say it does negate P1 and it is tautological and round and round we go until you deign to explain WHY.

No they are not.

Better P2: Moral facts are statements about what choices should be made by any and all choosers.

We have entirely different theories of truth and, subequently, of facticity. — Bob Ross

Yes, but, the twain shall meet. We are both within reality. One of us is onto a better set of assertions and beliefs. This is collaborative. But explanation is needed. If you just assume the work without showing it, we all lose. I admit I am trying to learn here. Are you?

Facts are statements that agree with reality. — Bob Ross

They are not. They never do. They cannot.
Perfection is unattainable. Any lack of agreement is lack of perfection. No fact has ever agreed with reality. They only SEEM, SEEM, SEEM to agree with reality. It's always a delusion.

The mind path to truth is always delusional. It must be balanced by the other two paths, chaos and balance, in order to attain perfection.

A fact properly defined is only a belief that a chooser has decided is supported enough with evidence to deem it true. Each chooser is a local authority. Facts sadly often bear little in common with reality or truth.

Truth is the correspondence of thought with reality. — Bob Ross

Said like a mind path only advocate for sure.

No

Truth is objective and dependent of mind, yes, in all cases, but just as dependent of chaos and balance.

Truth is unknowable, unattainable, and unchanging.
It can be approached, in thought, in being, in will. That is good, to do so. The degree of miss to that perfect approach is the degree of evil, which is only properly defined as less good.

By states-of-affairs, I do not just mean temporal processes: I also mean atemoral arrangements of entities in reality. — Bob Ross

I know that. I agree.

States are possibly three kinds:
Being state
Thought state
Intent/will state

There are no other states. These three states combine to form the state.

Moral facts are morally signified statements which agree with reality. — Bob Ross

There are no other facts apart from moral.
Morality encompasses everything. Nothing is devoid of meaning. Everything is only meaning. That is non-Nihilism, to me.

But no, as mentioned, facts are all errors. So they never agree with reality. That makes your last statement false.

Better to say:
Moral statements agree with truth. Reality is only truth. All else is delusion.

We swim in a sea of delusion supported by free will. Only morality is true. Only morality is objective.

Moral statements are possibly true. That means they do not change.

This is a non-sequitur. — Bob Ross

Why? You should not just say that and not explain.

What I meant was that if truth does not change and a moral statement is made and is accurate to describe truth, then there is no reason to change that moral statement. And if you do, it becomes false.

What is TF, true, false?

Sorry, that is shorthand for ‘therefore’.

By the way this statement undoes YOUR P2 completely so you have two contradictory premises

C follows logically from P2 and P1.
You say what a moral fact is and then say they cannot exist.

One can define something and in the next breath claim that something cannot exist: there’s no logical contradiction nor incoherence with that. — Bob Ross

I disagree. There is no way to define something that does not exist. To try is insane.

The concept is perhaps approached only when defining 'nothing'. That one is really hard. But when you defined nothing you do run up against the truth of my assertion and not yours. Defining something that does not exist is worse than useless. Its insane. It has no relevance. It cannot be proved, disproved, or meaningfully discussed. It's just confusion.

Instead, by form or category, I just mean an abstract category we derive by validly subsuming actions or events into more general classifications. — Bob Ross
This is nothing more finally than conceit.

It is the conceit of thought, of a thinker, to think that, in thinking, all else came from thought alone

Categories are conceptual, and conceptualization is the process of subsuming things under more general concepts. I never claimed everything came into being from thoughts. — Bob Ross

Interesting. I do claim that everything comes into being from thoughts. But being is another path, just like intent and will is. The structure and order is thought.

It is a ruination of 'Cogito ergo sum!'

That is not what the cogito argument means: it is not that “thinking is the one aspect of being”. It is the argument that one exists because they can think.

Bob — Bob Ross

The which is exactly what I was saying and missed by you for no known reason. I can also use the other two paths to make similar theoretical statements:

I am because I think.
I am because I intend.
I intend because I think.
I intend because I am.
I think because I intend.

This set of statements encircles all the possible equivalent statements at that level. Without these statements the understanding is less than best. It highlights the think side only, a problem I detect amid most of academia.

It's compelling, tempting, and entirely wrong to pursue truth only through thought. It is fast, better in every way, more alive, to use all three paths. We cannot avoid finally using all three paths, but that is not the issue. The issue is stress or priority. In prioritizing thinking over being or intent/will/passion; we will fail more often and in very patterned ways. The failure of the mind path is cowardice.

Here is a new metaethical theory I am working on that is a form of moral realism, and, since I find it a worthy contender of my moral anti-realist position, I wanted to share it with the forum to see what people think. — Bob Ross

Very well, from the start.

You say this theory represents moral realism. So, you must then agree that the reader must agree that this theory indeed can possibly describe moral realism. Does it feel like or seem to be moral realism? If it bears little resemblance to moral realism, the debate is ended because you are demanding us to lose our minds and believe that black is white as a starting point.

I do not have a name for it yet, so I will just explicate it. — Bob Ross

On we go, in good faith ...

For the sake of brevity, and because I have already covered arguments in favor of them in my moral subjectivist paper, I am presupposing moral cognitivism and non-nihilism in this thread. — Bob Ross

I have already given my argument for the uselessness of moral cognitivism. That applies here. To assert uselessness is useless.

I can give the same argument again?!?!?!

The brief is this:
1) All beliefs are in error partially because perfection is impossible (anti-cognitivism)
2) Some moral statements are possibly true because they embrace the concept of limits towards infinity as infinity. (cognitivism)

This ... proves ... to me ... that moral cognitivism (and anti-cognitivism both) are useless. They are simultaneously false and true meaning they are both true and juxtaposed. This state of things is normal. It is found in all truth worthy of the name. It is found in all wisdom.

So, THAT would be your one thing. Start there and only there if you wish. I will continue to respond JUST to the OP though to offer more. Respond only to one at a time if you wish.

If anyone would like me to elaborate on them, then I certainly can; and I suggest anyone who is interested in that to read the relevant portions of my discussion board OP pertaining to moral subjectivism on those two metaethical positions. I will focus on a positive case for moral objectivism, which I deny in my moral subjectivist (anti-realist) view. — Bob Ross

Here you are throwing out two entire models and expect people to read all and follow. I only expect one post at a time and you are expressing difficulty.

My acceptance and balance with chaos is unusual to this forum. It is misunderstood. That is because academia and classical logical approaches are not inherently chaotic. They often dismiss chaos as the enemy. Chaos is an integral and required part of morality. You are not allowed to dismiss it. You must deal with it. That so far, in my opinion, is a large part of your ... problem.

Heaven knows, I am only one small man. If I alone in a single post offer up too much to deal with, what hope is there of tackling something as wiley and wonderful as objective moral truth or let's just say, the truth, in general? Not much I'm afraid.

On we go ...

The core of this theory is that ‘the good’ and ‘the bad’ are not determined by mind-independent states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality but, rather, are abstract categories, or forms, of conduct. — Bob Ross

There is so much wrong with this paragraph that it might take infinite time to detail it.

1) There is no such thing as a mind-independent state of affairs. That's the biggest issue.
2) If the good is a form, that is mind-independent, in the only way I think you mean it, which means more properly stated that the GOOD does not depend on opinion or choice, but is preset, a law of the universe, then I agree, you are talking about objective morality. But you later suggest that you are NOT talking about a law of the universe making your premises unclear (entirely).
3) This means you are asserting that these 'forms' which you do not define yet, are mind-independent. But you also have said in other posts that you are not referring to a law of the universe. So you are contradicting yourself and not in a good way.

For now, let's leave that complaint as this section and move on.

The (mind-independent) states-of-affairs, or arrangements of entities, in reality inform us of what is right or wrong in virtue of being classified under either category. — Bob Ross

You are unclear here as to the 'categories'. I assume you mean good and evil as the only categories. That is confusing because we all know there is a continuum there. If one is dealing with a continuum one must/should specify the dividing line between them. So what precisely denotes good and what evil? What filter do I use to distinguish between them? How does a behavior fall into one category or the other?

For example, there is no mind-independent state-of-affairs (or arrangement of entities) in reality that makes it true that “one ought not torture babies” but, rather, it is true because it corresponds appropriately to the mind-independent category (i.e., abstract form) of ‘the good’. — Bob Ross

This paragraph explains NOTHING OF USE about the former paragraph and yet that is what it purports to be doing. No help. Why?

It is no help because you just basically gave no filter and expect that we can decide what makes something good or evil. You have not even said that there is a continuum. What relates the good to the bad?

This paragraph only has use if of course, as assumed by it, everyone, sort-of agrees on what good means. They do not. In fact, that is the entire point of this discussion. Is what is good or evil objective or subjective?

So, in light of this and in an attempt to contrast with my other moral anti-realist theory, I would like to point out the flaw, from the perspective of this theory, of my moral subjectivist argument; so let me outline it briefly again: — Bob Ross

And you wonder why I got confused. No. Stick with one theory at a time. You are laying out tenets of a subjectivist theory in an objectivist thread. People will of course respond to each/both.

I'm here to hear your ostensible realism theory and the first thing you start explaining is subjectivism. What? Can we talk about the thing before we talk what isn't the thing?

P1: The way reality is does not entail how it should be. — Bob Ross

Wow! There is nothing to support this wild conjecture at all up to this point. In fact I would offer a much more reasonable proposition which is this:
Anti-P1: The way reality is currently is clearly the best example of how it should be because it's the only example we have. Guess what? That's a tautology. Have fun with that.

P2: Moral facts are statements about states-of-affairs which inform us of how reality should be. — Bob Ross

No they are not.

Better P2: Moral facts are statements about what choices should be made by any and all choosers.

To be is a horrible verb. It is misunderstood and misused constantly. States can change. Truth cannot. So if moral statements are true they cannot change. So, if there is something that IS, the verb to be, the suggestion is that it is that permanently. If it can be something else, then it IS NOT (only) what we are saying it IS. This is the trouble with is-a. It's ALWAYS a lie. So everything is a delusion? Yes. Except for one thing, truth.

Moral statements are possibly true. That means they do not change.
Choices result in consequences that are states. States can change.

If something 'should', then the something that 'should' can only be a state.

Hence, my better P2.

C: TF, moral facts cannot exist. — Bob Ross

I do not know what you mean here. What is TF, true, false? By the way this statement undoes YOUR P2 completely so you have two contradictory premises. You say what a moral fact is and then say they cannot exist. Again, putting TF in front of this statement with no explanation is messy at best.

Analyzing this argument from this theory, as opposed to moral subjectivism, P2 is false; because moral facts are not only about states-of-affairs, in the sense that they are made true in virtue of corresponding to some state-of-affairs in reality, but, rather, are made true in virtue of how the state-of-affairs sizes up to the abstract category of ‘the good’ and ‘the bad’. — Bob Ross

I like that. It's not discrete but it says the right things to be considered in support of realism.

So, the key misunderstanding of moral subjectivism, or so the argument goes (:, is that a fact is a statement that corresponds to reality and not solely states-of-affairs in reality—as abstract categories are still mind-independently true insofar as, although we can semantically disagree, the actions are subsumable under more general classifications and this is not stance-dependent—and thusly P2 is false. — Bob Ross

Smaller sentences might help. This is hard to follow. You merely claim it is a misunderstanding and although this sentence is perhaps one of the longest in history it does not say why there even is a misunderstanding.

You do not offer these 'more general classifications' so why was time wasted with P2 in the first place?

As I more cleanly mentioned in my earlier post and I even explained it, STATES are not truth. If something can change it is not truth. This does not deny the existence of truth. If we find any stability in reality it is because of truth.

Here is one for you: Logical:
Nothing can depend on anything that is not truth, finally.

Therefore nothing can depend on a state that can change. Stand on quicksand if you like, I do not like it.

Likewise, P1, if taken as true, only refers by 'reality is' to states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality and not abstract categories of events or actions in that reality (nor what potentially could occur in that reality). — Bob Ross

You do not say what this means. So what if P1 only refers to states and not truths? And this is wrong anyway.
And realize what you did there. You just said that P1 changes. Its therefore not true. Why bother discussing what is not true. What is the point of that?

The meat of any matter of discussion on objective anything is only and always discussion of what does not and cannot change. States are right out! Do not proceed from state to state unless you reference them within a frame of truth that is unchanging. If the frame changes, discussion is useless. Do you understand the problem?

Discussing subjective morality is only possible in an objectively stable universe. Thankfully that is what we have. Properly understood that is the end of the discussion. On to determining what is objectively a should.

But instead we continue with delusions and since that is the process of growth, I accept this burden.

Although there is a lot I would like to say, I want to keep this brief—so I will say only one last thing: this is not a form of platonism. By abstract form or category I do not mean that there exists an abstract object, or a set of them, in reality that in virtue of which makes moral judgments (which express something objective) true—as this falls into the same trap that they are indeed states-of-affairs, or arrangements of entities, in reality and this violates P1. — Bob Ross

Is that a sentence? Smaller is better. Discreet! You asked me to address ONE thing instead of a complex and interweaved response to you, but sentences like this are a tornado through a trailer park. Wreckage abounds.

Don't use the word virtue the way you do. It confounds the issue. And it is wrong as stated. Virtue is an ideal, and that ideal is objective or, let's say, can indeed be imagined as such. Any given state is only a point along a continuum which has its end in perfection of that virtue. This does not deny the form. A state cannot deny truth.

It sounds like you are suggesting that because states exist, truth cannot. That is patently absurd. This is caused by the fact that P1 is incoherent in the way I mentoined.

Instead, by form or category, I just mean an abstract category we derive by validly subsuming actions or events into more general classifications. — Bob Ross

This is nothing more finally than conceit.

It is the conceit of thought, of a thinker, to think that, in thinking, all else came from thought alone. It is a ruination of 'Cogito ergo sum!' The latter explains that thinking is only one aspect of being. The former is an elevation of thinking to being and is simply obviously nonsensical.

Ideas centering on that topic come from both Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morals. According even to Wikipedia, the discussion is about identity and resentment in particular and apparently there is no word in German that is precise enough to mean resentment.

Are you curious about any moral issues within the works or just interested in finding the relevant passages?

To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense. — LuckyR

Ok let's examine that.

If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, — LuckyR

So far so GOOD.

so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? — LuckyR

Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.

One would have a clear conscience. — LuckyR

Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.

What part do you not understand?

I think it might be best if I give a brief elaboration of this moral realist theory, and see what you disagree with. So far, it seems as though most of your critiques and points are irrelevant to the OP. — Bob Ross

That is your assessment, not mine. Of course I mention them only because to me they are relevant in the case of my stance FOR moral realism. I suppose I could take the con to moral objectivity and argue that, but that is not my belief, and I prefer genuine argument meaning arguing only for that which one does actually believe.

This theory posits that morality is objective—i.e., that there are states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality that inform us of what is moral or immoral. It posits that what is good (viz., The Good, in the sense of an objective goodness) is flourishing—i.e., goodness is identical to flourishing. Flourishing is, at its core, the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. Flourishing is contextual and objective: it is contextual insofar as one must posit a context in which one is assessing flourishing (e.g., I am flourishing, you are flourishing, we are flourishing, society is flourishing, etc.) and objective insofar as it is a mind-independently existing relation between a purpose and fulfillment thereof (viz., one’s psychology has nothing to do with flourishing being identical to the fulfillment of purposes). — Bob Ross

I mean you did not answer my earlier critiques and instead retreated back into your 'jargon' I prefer to believe I refuted, actually answering your comments.

I mentioned before many ways and explained it perhaps in a less than best way that it does not matter how you attempt to define 'flourish'. Yet you keep going back to that as if repeating the same thing I objected to as an error works. It certainly does not help.

Whether you or I or anyone believes that they are flourishing is not relevant if morality is objective. All beliefs are partially in error. So there is wrongness amid even overall correct claims. This situation in fact underscores the objective nature of morality. The unchanging and pristine nature of perfection, of objectivity, of truth, as opposed to belief, is what we should be debating.

Finally, the issue between subjective and objective goals is only that the objective ones do not change. They cannot ever change. They are truth and truth does not change.

A subjective morality requires that indeed fundamental laws of the universe must change on a moment to moment basis. I say that indeed because as mentioned, I assert that morality is a natural law. Its truth was true at the dawn of time and perhaps before, depending on if a before could exist.

The only possibly objective things, or true things, can only be so if they are always true (reiteration). This means that morality was objectively true at the dawn of time. The one thing logically requires the other. So, only a moral subjectivist can claim that morality is not a natural law. I have explained my position with these statements. Theoretically, amid real discussion you must provide a substantive reason why you disagree.

Assertion set tentative:
1) Truth is eternal and ubiquitous. To write a truth assertion you must show or contend that this assertion was true at the dawn of time, and never has not been true at any point in time.
2) States are not ever truth. If something can change it is a state and not truth. A truth can be distilled into a principle, often called first principles, a useless term because truth already suffices.
3) States are best referred to as transitional and therefore effectively delusional. They are not truth, they never were truth, and dwelling on them is missing the point of truth-seeking. It is (objectively) disingenuous immoral behavior.
4) Perfection is the only real ideal, and is effectively synonymous with truth.
5) Moral perfection can have a special name and that is the GOOD. It just means perfection. So Ideal, perfection, truth, and objective (and even the term God) can all mean the same thing. In my belief model and writings here, they are always all the same things. There is no need to separate them and that act of separation by intent is in and of itself suggested and can be discussed as immoral and bound to have immoral consequences therefore.
5) Consequences are only state fallouts of intents. Intents are synonymous to me with the term 'choices'.
6) Perfection is a state and a final choice consequence as well as an ideal. It can be considered a strange duality of delusion and truth and it is the only exception to all rules. Its distinction on this basis is critical to all thought, all definitions, all discussions.

I am not trying to derail the thread at all. I still intend to discuss it more, although I think I have made great points already that have been ignored because they do not fit the OP. But that is not correct, so, what am I to do? They do fit any OP that has any bearing on the 6 assertions I detailed here and any sub-assertion that conflicts with the 6 here amid that OP is in fact being challenged on that basis. My reasons were explained and my explanations were not addressed. That leaves me reiterating until they are addressed. One does not properly address an assertion by merely saying, 'that does not obtain', or similar dismissive non-helpful attempts at countering an argument by mere negation statements.

This relation, however, contains an element of subjectivity insofar as purposes are subjective (i.e., what it means for something [within a context] to fulfill its purpose is relative to the psychology of one or more subjects): this does not make flourishing itself subjective but, rather, merely that that very objective relation is that of (subjective) purposes being fulfilled. — Bob Ross

I can agree that because I believe morality to be objective that to me flourishing is objective. But that merely means that subjective opinions on flourishing are all always wrong in some way. They simply can never be perfect.

And this inability to arrive at objectivity is super relevant. It leaves us all sitting in our subjective error pool of beliefs still 'doomed' to want perfection because that objective moral truth gives rise to desire itself, but eternally unable to arrive there.

This situation is the juxtaposition of moral duty. Amid moral duty, an objective aim at perfection only, we must both seek perfection and acknowledge that it is impossible to arrive there. That is in fact, wisdom. It could be called as well the source of humility itself.

Subjective experience makes choice errors likely, despite the pull of perfection, because desire itself is distorted by the immorality and weakness present in the state/choice mix. State is current only and choice is the next pulse to the next new state. State can be and is always immoral/imperfection and by degrees. Choice can be and is always immoral/imperfection and by degrees.

Nothing but free will exists in any state. The state is just an accumulation of free will consequences, and free will manages the choice which is the next pulse to the next new state. Nothing is in action but free will.

I will add for completeness although I mentioned this before, that all instantiation is possessed of free will. Even though the moral agency of an atom seems ridiculous or infinitesimally small, it simply has to be there because that seed via evolution gave rise to greater and greater moral agency. So, Animism was always the best belief system, and later religions were a backslide only. I am still just framing my arguments for you. The internal consistency of my belief system is very high in my opinion. If someone wants to say it is wrong they need to have a logic reason why and explain it here. They should not just link to someone else's argument or even their own from elsewhere or Wikipedia as an example. I am providing enough information here to allow for meaningful debate.

Each context one could posit, for evaluating flourishing, which is infinite in amount, is hierarchical in the sense that larger contexts have more flourishing and smaller contexts have less flourishing (in total); and, consequently, the larger the context of flourishing, the greater the good (i.e., the greater the flourishing). Thusly, the highest good is universal flourishing, because it has the greatest amount of flourishing being the largest context. The highest good has the most good and is, therefore, the best good: it is the ultimate good. Therefore, if one is committed to being good, then they should strive for this best good, this highest good, this universal flourishing, instead of a lower one. — Bob Ross

Yes, my system of belief is in alignment with that, except in one way that should be stated.

That is saying 'highest' and 'lowest' does have proper inferences but it implies something that is not true. Striving for a lower good can only be a relative determination. The default point of comparison is what you are calling the highest good, and what I call perfection. Perfection must be specified (in my opinion) as an n dimensional intersection of dimensions that by definition will all only intersect at one point and that is perfection. To say 'highest' therefore is misleading. That is a scalar uni-dimensional term. It is entirely insufficient to describe the objective moral good.

Another way to say it that between any two state/choice comparisons, one is always both:
1) Originating from a better state because perfect state matches are impossible ... AND
2) One choice n-dimensional matrix value is always better than the other.

This is effectively a writ small description of judgment, a single virtue. Choices that are judged as wise or good should always point directly to perfection and they are 'bad' by the degree that they are missing in this vector aim.

With that being said, what do you disagree with in that theory? — Bob Ross

I just stated why. I am a moral realist so I do not disagree with what I define that to be, in general. Any model that ends up supporting the tenets I defined as moral realism, because that is what I understand and believe it to be, is fine with me.

But some of the language used indicates the belief system assertions are not all agreed upon and therefore must be stated, as I did.

I would like to also disclaim that this position is not “fake”, as you implied multiple times in your response: by noting that I have a separate thread for moral subjectivism, I was not meaning to imply I am a moral subjectivist. Personally, I hold this theory instead; but I am more than happy to discuss moral subjectivism, as I think it gets a very bad wrap by most people who, quite frankly, do not fully understand the theory. — Bob Ross

As mentioned, we should both be able to easily agree that all understanding is incorrect when compared to perfection. So, we do not have to harp on that.

What we should be dealing with is the fact that moral realism put a tremendous and increasing burden of free will onto the chooser. The reason it does so is only because as moral states rise in moral value, in goodness, it gets harder and harder to make more and more moral choices. This truth is critical to acknowledge as part of any useful moral realism set of assertions.

It takes greater and greater virtue states and greater and greater aim accuracy at perfection to increase the moral state value of the next state after a choice pulse. Accomplishing that is harder and harder because you are requiring the chooser to do it all at the same time.

Normativity is (pardon) bovine poo revisionism for objective morality. It's just another way of saying moral subjectivism has merit in and of itself.

I don’t think removing normativity from the good makes moral subjectivism itself have merit. — Bob Ross

And I never said that it did.

Normativity is just moral subjectivism redefined. It takes the viewpoint off of perfection and normalizes to an error based standard. There is no point to that. It is immoral counter wisdom. So, do not do it. Do not admit that normativity is useful. If you do, you are inherenity supporting subjective morality.

Instead, it just fixes a lot of problems with moral realist theories which posit the contrary and makes more realism more plausible. — Bob Ross

Indeed not. Normalizing to an imperfect standard is merely immoral. It is an error, just like moral subjectivism. There is no need even giving pretense to errors, finally.

I guess I would say, it is more perfect to just call it subjective morality, to build a thought-of-as-perfect for now, best guess, standard of perfection, and then try aiming at that. Then you can identify where in the intent dimensions your 'normative' new subjective standard originates from and you all know and admit you are discussing moral errors only.

None of this implies that the guessed at perfection currently is anything but a normative standard. That can be confusing. But there can only be 1. We should agree on what a best guess is and use that as the universal default standard. Anytime debate moves a virtue scale or consensus, the 'authority' shifts the normative perfection. But all sub perfection guess normalizations are just and only even worse error including deviations.

I am trying to be clear with my meanings here.

Another thing I would like to disclaim is that when I say flourishing has that subjective element of being the fulfillment of a (subjective) purpose: I am referring to the depths of the soul and not whimsical day-to-day opinions or desires a person has. — Bob Ross

There is zero difference in these things you claim as partially different. No single choice is neutral. There is nothing in this universe but morality of state and accuracy of moral aim towards objective moral perfection. Those are the core tenets of objective morality.

Maybe you mean depths of the soul to be belief which is state only.
Maybe you mean day to day opinion to be intents which is choice only.

But, It sounded to me like you were opening up a new category of important choice and unimportant choice, and that is a delusional lie.

Correct me if I am wrong.

It doesn't matter what people believe because what is good is a law of the universe, objective.

So, this is not something posited in my theory; and I don’t see any evidence to support the good being a natural law. — Bob Ross

The entire universe is evidence but I know that is a dodge.

As mentioned earlier though and unless that earlier but is refuted this position of yours is merely wrong. Since morality is objective, it is a natural law, a truth, by definition. To remove it as natural law is to remove objective morality entirely. That or the very concept of objectivity is not properly understood 9is my contention).

Well yes, I follow your distinction here. But no, you are sidestepping a dangerously important issue. If you fail to realize that virtues ARE the quantum discrete parts of goodness, you fail (in general).

I didn’t follow any of this: what is a ‘quantum discrete part of goodness’? Virtues are habits of character that are good: they are not identical to goodness. — Bob Ross

And I did not say they were. They are however, as mentioned, parts of goodness. And the way they are arranged or add value to perfection is discrete meaning objective. But this is objective in multiple ways at the same time. People do not realize that virtues have discrete structure and value. People will often devalue one virtue compared to another. That is a moral error. All virtues that I am referring to, that can be properly named as such, have a discrete interaction between them. And they are all equal, precisely perfectly equal.

I do not claim perfect knowledge, only better moral awareness than most, hence an interest in philosophy and such and spreading the 'good' word from my normative perfect moral value set. Ostensibly others here are at least interested if not possessed of their own normative belief set. And possibly they could also have less interest in spreading the 'good'.

Well you did what the other guy did and did not put your part my part refers to that you are referring to here with your response. That makes it too hard to respond.

Correct. I am not going to quote everything you say, because there is too much. I only tag the portion relative to what I am responding to, and trust you will be able to navigate your own responses. — Bob Ross

That is sad because it is just as easy to quote the whole thing and avoid this problem, facilitating all of our efforts at communication.

I said necessary. But yes, if it is necessary. It is not torture as that implies negative intent, negative wants.

It is immoral to torture someone (or torture them absent of this ‘negative intent’ you mentioned) for the sake of building their virtue. — Bob Ross

And yet it is moral to inflict suffering on others to help them earn wisdom in a 'safer' setting. Otherwise there is no need to teach, ever. There is no need to communicate ever. This forum is purposeless without that tenet in place. Suffering the exposure to others ideas is the potential for communication/teaching/learning and the best incidence of those is the earning of wisdom.

As previously mentioned, the only real debate is whether or not some inflicting of suffering was necessary (teaching) or whether it was unnecessary (torture) and since morality is objective, that line is also objective and never ever no matter opinions to the contrary subjective. People are just wrong about what they think torture is because being wrong in part is a tautology. Therefore it is always best to have a scenario wherein we compare two different assertions on exactly the same issue and judge them for where that line is drawn between necessary and unnecessary. That is the whole point of any debate and choice.

Beauty and accuracy are objective.

What do you mean by accuracy? Accuracy of what?

I don’t think beauty necessarily instantiates objective moral truth. — Bob Ross

And I did not say it did. Any given beauty is a partial error and there would then be a perfect beauty that would then instantiate objective moral truth. The fact that imperfect beauty can still be quire moral and amazingly beautiful is included and fine. But no beauty we see except all is perfect and we cannot grasp all, ever. So, although we experience all, we sit within it, we cannot really perceive it yet. We are evolving to perceive it accurately.

Being ugly has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral. There could be a reality with universal flourishing and every person therein is uglier than a bat. — Bob Ross

I disagree and for the reasons stated already and not refuted in any way.

Although such instantiations are in some moral state, if they are not perfectly beautiful, they are in a partially immoral state. Beauty is both a state and is also involved as a virtue amid choice. All virtues double dip in this way.

The subjective belief that ugliness (immoral non perfect beauty) is neutral with respect to morality like you just suggested is immoral. It allows for laziness and panders to immoral desire and in a want, a choice, to remain or accept the immoral state and not will towards perfection.

Rev Bem, the Magog Wayist monk from Andromeda
Rev Bem Image
Great, now i cannot get image inserts to work right. Rev Bem is batlike making this funny. He is also a moral Wayist monk, making it poignant.

If my goal is to kill Asians, then if I succeed I am flourishing. That is subjective morality

The first sentence is in principle correct, the second is not implied from the first. In the smallest, or one of the smallest, contexts of flourishing, of good, if one has the purpose of killing asians, then they would thereby flourish if they are sufficiently killing asians. — Bob Ross

So, you are wrong here. So far, YOU are correct, and now you will say the incorrect part.

However, the buck does not stop here: the highest good is universal flourishing, and killing asians clearly violates that. So, colloquially, my theory would state “it is immoral to kill asians for the sole sake of fulfilling one’s own desire”. — Bob Ross

And THAT is the second order distinction I have been talking about.

Any definition of flourish that aims at errors about flourishing less than aiming at perfection are just immoral errors and never were flourishing. So disincluding Asians is what I claim it is, a subjective moral delusion and no, you are wrong, it is not some after the fact correction, because no one can do that, change perfection. One cannot do that and be accurate.

The only reason the vector to objective perfection changes per person, giving rise to the delusion of subjective morality, is that current moral states can be different, and if perfection does not move/change, then the vector from two different states is different. That is the trouble that must be overcome. That is the trouble you refuse to address. It is therefore your trouble in belief, and not mine by my standards and by the standard you seem to be professing, moral objectivism, if properly understood.

Objective morality says that killing people just because they are Asian is incoherent immoral nonsense.

No it does not. Objective morality (i.e., moral realism) is a three-pronged thesis:

1. Moral judgments are propositional (moral cognitivism).
2. Moral judgments express something objective (moral objectivism)
3. There is at least one true moral judgment. — Bob Ross

I do not claim to know moral cognitivism. It is not necessary to know it to assert what I refer to as my objective morality, perfection. The one true moral judgment is perfection, to me, so there is no need to say that either. Thus only item 2 pertains to me. And I contend that it is all that is needed.

I will add regarding moral cognitivism that as I understand it, it is rather useless. That is to say non-cognitivism claims that moral statements are all errors and I agree but only because perfection is elusive, nigh unto impossible. That is not dauting to me at all. It is perfection and acceptable. Yet and still cognitivism is a refutation of non-cognitivism, supposedly only. It essentially confirms moral realism by claiming that some moral statements can be true and although I have no idea how they qualify or disqualify a moral statement, I agree.

So the trouble with uselessness of both cognitivism and non-cognitivism is precisely that they expressive only together of perfection. That is to say ... and I can just repeat myself ...
1) Perfection is effectively impossible to arrive at and all opinions are partial errors (true) non-cognitivism
AND
2) Perfection is simultaneously the only maximally worthy goal. (That statement IS a moral statement and IS true). That is cognitivism or what I would conclude from it.

Wisdom is finally the ability to hold seemingly (but actually not) contradictory statements as both true simultaneously. But such statements have an additional caveat to be wisdom. They must aim at best guess perfection, to be better and finally only at perfection to be perfect.

Moral realism itself does not entail that moral anti-realism is internally incoherent, although a particular theory may advertise that, nor that it is nonsense; but, rather, just that it is objectively wrong to do so. — Bob Ross

And I disagree.

Moral anti-realism is a contention that morality is not objective (to me). If there is some other definition it is intentionally deceptive.

Moral anti-realism would be an immoral stance, clearly less than perfect if indeed morality is objective.

So I assume we just disagree and you have stated no reason why it could be otherwise.

Now you just added another component, 'harmoniously'. You cant do that either

It is implied by the highest good: universal flourishing requires, nay presupposes, universal harmony. — Bob Ross

I covered that earlier. Flourish is from any state, a different vector but that differing does not support subjective morality.

Discussing lower versions of flourishing is only discussing subjective morality is my claim. I explained why. Perfection is a single point within n-dimensional intent space.

Oh lordie! The mind-independent thing again. As shown later that is a rug and a bad one. nothing is mind-independent in the way you seem to suggest. We are all connected.

You cannot claim that moral is objective and turn around and deny that objectivity is ‘that which is mind-independent’.

I will stop here for now, so that we can hone in on our conversation to the OP. — Bob Ross

I agree the OP intends to be discussing objective morality, not subjective morality as I thought earlier.

But your interpretations of the concepts of what could be objective morality are not correct, to me. I have explained why very well. If you do not want to discuss why your claim towards objective morality is not in fact objective morality, I argue there is no reason for discussion at all.

Again, the morality model you described at least in this post is not possibly an objective moral model at all.

Interesting. Well, that's just crazy. And it is of course born of subjectivist delusion, but I do not want to just throw a no without reason.
…
I mean, come on, you're the one trying to defend subjective morality.

I am not arguing for moral subjectivism. This position (in my OP) is a form of moral realism. — Bob Ross

Ha ha! Well mea culpa. Two people arguing the pro at the debate. Run Away!
I feel now like Rosanne Rosanna-danna on the old SNL

'Nevermind!'

That means if I believe the word flourish means killing babies with x traits on that basis alone is possibly moral or a principle of only 'my morality'.

Nope: we don’t define what flourishing is other than the word to semantically refer to it.

So, your postion is based on the rough equivalence of desire and morality.

Not at all. This moral realist theory posits that The Good is identical to flourishing, and The Good is analyzed within contexts; and the smaller the context the lower the Good, and the larger the context the higher the Good. — Bob Ross

OK so now, the whole rest of this post will be you and me mostly agreeing. I was fairly sure you stated that you posted an argument for moral realism to DESTROY it with your 'real' argument.

Hilarious. Myself and at least one other person here have pointed out that you are sweeping the second order issue under the rug. You just tied like 6 goals into that definition

Flourishing is just the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. I don’t think this is all that controversial.

What “second order issue” are you referring to? Normativity? — Bob Ross

Yes and that would be only 'meeting desires ends by attaining them.' In other words morality redefined as desire only.

Normativity is (pardon) bovine poo revisionism for objective morality. It's just another way of saying moral subjectivism has merit in and of itself. It does not.

It doesn't matter what people believe because what is good is a law of the universe, objective.

The good is all virtues. So you could have a dimension for each virtue and then any choice must include n-level complexity (and it does). The word 'goals' is your rug that you are sweeping all of truth into as to hard to look at. Stay messy. Stay real.

The Good, in this view, is flourishing: it is not virtues. Virtues are habits of character that are good. — Bob Ross

Well yes, I follow your distinction here. But no, you are sidestepping a dangerously important issue. If you fail to realize that virtues ARE the quantum discrete parts of goodness, you fail (in general).

That is to say something like this:
Flourish -> Good
Flourish?
Accuracy (is part of) Flourish
Judgement (is part of) Flourish
Beauty (is part of) Flourish
...
therefore something like:
(Accuracy, Judgement, Beauty, ... ) -> Good

Now assume there are 16 discrete virtues discoverable (not saying there are that number)
But now we can get dirty and correct:

(Accuracy, Beauty) -> missing 14 virtues, e.g. not GOOD, not even by half
etc

And
(62% accurate, 78% beautiful, 10 others at some value above 50%, 2 at like 2%) - > Obvious Room for improvement

And then:
Current societal standards = 40% objective perfection (guess)
Above example % are ONLY within THAT already immoral societal aim.
Egregiously immoral as in fairly damn immoral.

Hopefully that nonsense symbolic logic is followable.

By ‘goal’, I just mean ‘purpose’; and I think I have been really open about that flourishing is sufficient fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. I don’t think I am sweeping it under the rug at all. — Bob Ross

But you miss a critical point that CANNOT be missed unless you are wrong (you are wrong):
That is that flourishing IS NOT informed by opinions. Flourishing is objective.

Opinions are only degrees of error away from perfection.

this statement taken at the meta level is telling and horrifying. Wear you hair shirt on your own time. This is said in humor.

I am not following. — Bob Ross

Well you did what the other guy did and did not put your part my part refers to that you are referring to here with your response. That makes it too hard to respond. I have no idea. I dont want to back trace it. Please quote the WHOLE thing each time. Computers carry forward the cumbersome whole easily. That's their purpose.

Wisdom is only ever earned via suffering

One can be flourishing in insufferable conditions; and I never said that we can’t use suffering to flourish more (in the long term). — Bob Ross

Good, then we agree on this. Again, your earlier part is not included so I dont know what I was really commenting on.

Also, wisdom is not The Good. This is a separate issue, but I am assuming you are also leveraging this critique against The Good as well. — Bob Ross

Wisdom is many things. It is a trait that as shown above is ALL, repeat ALL, bar none virtues combined, both in belief and in expression of belief as action. Wisdom is the know, do, want of GOOD.

If one knows wisdom but does not do it or want it one is not wise.
If one does wisely but does not know it or want it one is not wise.
If one wants wisdom but does not know it or do it one is not wise. - John Cusack (not really)

Necessary suffering is wise to inflict upon people in order to facilitate them earning wisdom

I do not necessarily agree with this, if you are implying we should torture people to give them “more wisdom”. — Bob Ross

I said necessary. But yes, if it is necessary. It is not torture as that implies negative intent, negative wants. But because I know one must suffer to decide that it will act in alignment with objective moral aims and that one must also decide to want these aims, I will inflict necessary suffering on one. That one includes myself. What is necessary is not then rightly called torture. But it will be deemed torture by the weak.

If you shrink back from this then here is the result of such a whiny and ineffectual point of view. It will breed the next level of don't go this far spoilage of the choosers. They will choose over and over again ad infinitum to suffer less and less and thereby will declare more and more subtle nuances of action as torture, relegating what is necessary to nothing. This is simply more pandering to desire.

Your path leads to alien encounters that mortify and render our species useless because we have forgotten how to 'keep it real', what real pain is, what real suffering is. Our scions of your would be world will collapse into PTSD when their virtual avatars are unplugged and the scent generator in their pod malfunctions.

The wise understand that suffering must be real, exquisite and rather constant to maintain awareness and self-restraint against the weakening influence of over expressed desire.

Certainly at least a grand portion of society (mayhap the soldiery or some analogous force) must be made to suffer more to be the hand of action for the corpulent pod lifers. But then, you are separating wisdom by separating virtues and no one is then truly wise. It is only a sort of hive mind wisdom that emerges. I suppose it is a possible approach.

I aim more to the Renaissance man style, jack of all trades and aiming at master of all trades also. The cross pollination of the virtues is the only real goal.

You're the subjectivist. I will instead tolerate the many subjectivist errors towards wisdom because the intent to become wise seems present.

I think you have misunderstood the OP: this is not a thread about moral subjectivism. I have a separate thread for that metaethical theory if you would like to discuss that there. If you are accusing this theory of truly being a form of moral subjectivism, then I am not seeing yet why that is the case. — Bob Ross

I missed that admittedly and I apologize. No wonder at all then. I thought you were basically saying things that sounded like realism and that your intent was to say things that were subjectivism.

Does it not also include growth? What about accuracy? Is beauty a part of your flourish. It's so unclear really

Flourishing, being the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose, is not necessarily, in -itself, dependent on anything other than the purpose being fulfilled. That purpose can be anything. For most people, yes, personal growth is going to be a part of that. I am not sure to what extent beauty factors in for most people, and I am not sure what you mean by accuracy: accuracy of what? — Bob Ross

Beauty and accuracy are objective. That is part of the problem of subjectivism. It does not admit to this. In wanting what is immoral it decides that all wants are equal in 'goodness'. That is dangerous lie.

Lets take beauty. What is it? It is an expression of a pattern within reality that shows a more pure instantiation of objective moral truth, of the GOOD. This is why beauty is compelling. Beauty is an image, a representation of what might be, so it partakes of desire. But, is here, instantiated, and that is anger/being. So its presence angrily 'demands' attention. That is what beauty is. The more it is a match for the beauty of perfection the more it pulls on our hearts with desire. The more it is a match the more we perceive it to force our attention. It is not actually graceful. It is raw, commanding. If there were no objective end, beauty would not be a thing.

Subjective errors towards beauty are caused by bad choices, just like other erroneous choices. The signal of love is being misinterpreted. Often this is because some part of us knows on some level that we cannot attain it, therefore immorally we denigrate it. We turn away from beauty because it shows clearly what is right. Right is only in one virtue. Ugly is an objective instantiation of a more immoral form. I am completely serious.

You again included the goal. That is the meta second level of distinction that I was referring to.

The Good, as flourishing, is not dependent on a goal itself: it is the objective relation between a thing and its purpose such that it has been sufficiently fulfilled. — Bob Ross

The which says NOTHING about morality at all. If my goal is to kill Asians, then if I succeed I am flourishing. That is subjective morality. Objective morality says that killing people just because they are Asian is incoherent immoral nonsense. So, objective morality would claim that it matters not how well you flourish killing Asians, you missed the point of morality.

OK, so there is no way for us to be objective. We can only try to be objective.

That is irrelevant to what I said, which was that I deny that the Good is subjective. That our striving towards the good is subjective does not entail whatsoever that the good itself is subjective. — Bob Ross

Ok, as expected there will be a lot of me saying 'nevermind' because I thought you were saying here that the good is subjective. You are claiming that in another thread so these arguments are still valid for you to respond to.

it is not the highest good.' What? Seriously? YOU can't say that. There is no good to you.

The highest Good is universal flourishing, which is the flourishing of everything harmonously (with one another). Again, I think you misunderstood the OP. Perhaps you were forwarded here from someone in the TFP that was asking you to analyze my other thread about moral subjectivism. This thread is about a moral realist position I have come up with. — Bob Ross

Now you just added another component, 'harmoniously'. You cant do that either. You didn't say that before. Saying that is a meta level difference and I can almost agree. But no, people are often harmoniously evil together. So, wrong again. More is needed. That more is objective. It is all good virtues combined.

You say 'factually wrong' and I am thinking you think facts are objectively correct.

A fact is a statement about reality that properly corresponds to it. Facts are objective insofar as their agreement with reality is mind-independent. — Bob Ross

Oh lordie! The mind-independent thing again. As shown later that is a rug and a bad one. nothing is mind-independent in the way you seem to suggest. We are all connected.

I guess I can agree about your fact definition but its a weak definition. Here is a far far better one:
"A fact is only a belief for which some moral agent has perhaps even arbitrarily decided there is enough evidence to declare that fact close to truth, NOT reality." Truth and reality are different. Truth is superior because it is objective. Morality is part of truth. Reality is the what we can interpret of truth, only, e.g. beliefs. Reality is subjective delusion. Truth is objective.

When I say ‘factually wrong’, I mean that there is a state-of-affairs or arrangement of entities in reality in virtue of which make it true that it is wrong. This is objective, not subjective. — Bob Ross

Nope. Reality is subjective delusion. Truth is objective. Facts are only currently held as 'true' beliefs about truth. They never describe truth accurately. Their correctness is only scale of how wrong they are, often relative to one another.

Due to experience, everything, even existence itself, is subjective

You are conflating experience being subjective with everything being subjective. — Bob Ross

Truth is the only thing that is objective.

We can infer that truth is objective, but never prove it. We are left only and always with hopefully better and better beliefs about reality amid truth.

Everything that we call reality is subjective. Truth alone is not.

Lol, so again, you are back to declaring my argument, objective morality. I can't tell. Maybe you are a moral realist.

I would like to ask, and I mean this with all due respect: did you read the OP? I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but I am now suspecting you may have jumped into this thread from someone else who notified you of my moral subjectivist metaethical theory that I defended in a different thread (or actually multiple threads). Am I right? If not, then I apologize. If so, then I would suggest reading the OP: it is a pretty quick read and you will probably understand better what this moral realist position is (and what it isn’t); and, that way, we can hone-in on our conversation to the OP itself. — Bob Ross

Agreed and admitted.
I did read and understand it.

But I am a person who cares too much about a person's real positions. So I was naturally gravitating towards your subjectivist belief that is more real that this fake objectivist post. I admit the error and apologize.

I suppose I will now have to contend with your actual subjectivism in the other thread. Yoiks and Away!

You ARE a moral realist and you just don't realize it.

I am still confused at why you think that this theory (I have presented) is purporting to be a moral anti-realist position; let alone moral subjectivism. — Bob Ross

Again, you are right. It was because I can only ever focus on the real. If you present a front, a fake realism, and I read before as I did that you are a subjectivist, I can't help but speak to you, the real you, that is a subjectivist. Also the sheer length of some of this made me lose my awareness of the former position as a stance only, a pretense. Again sincere apologies.

I was like WTF this guys arguments are all moral realism. How can he claim subjectivism? Oops!

Youth In Asia! Something must be done!

Secondly, there is no such law of the universe that dictates that we have free will: it is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross
(This is a) Wildly conceited and egoic point of view. We did this? Really? The same people that invented twinkies and cigarettes? I see (backs away slowly).

My claim (that you quoted) never attempted to say that we invented free will. It is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross

It is not. It is a law of the universe. It is the only law, really. All else can be derived from it.

Free will is what causes physical reality to occur.

It seems as though, and correct me if I am wrong, you are think that there is a natural law of morality which actually forms things, like a force. I don’t see why that is the case. — Bob Ross

That much is clear. We will meet again, when you are you. Luckily for you, morality is objective.

I will say that I disagree with most of what you said about moral subjectivism, but this thread isn’t meant to debate that; so if you want to discuss that then shoot me a message on the moral subjectivism thread of mine. — Bob Ross

Will do! Thanks for understanding!

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? — RogueAI

Apparently not any longer as now its all pay wall. I don't pay for boilerplate.

Literally it continues to put out useless warnings related to currently accepted conjecture. It can be told to accept certain premises, but then its boilerplate will remind you faithfully that stuff its supposed to now hold as true is not true. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.

As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real.
— Chet Hawkins

Yeah, but you've totally avoided ever (I mean, over multiple threads now) letting us know what your formulation for objective morality is. — AmadeusD

I suspect objective morality only. It is a theory for me. I cannot prove anything. No one can really. My arguments are to support my suspicion.

What's it grounded in? How is it measured (Happiness, already having been rejected by you as a measure)? — AmadeusD

This is precisely incorrect.

I asserted that happiness is a measure. But care must be taken. Disingenuous or partial happiness is often claimed as genuine happiness. This confuses the unwise.

One virtue may be extremely high in a moral agent and their expression of that virtue, so high, will return a high happiness result that blinds them to lower happiness returns from other virtues.

But and still, the other virtues, all virtues, are required for wisdom. So there is much more work to be done.

Still, measuring happiness is one correct approach to understanding objective moral truth.

In fact part of the original argument for subjective morality here in Bobs OP was that existence is good or more existence is better. I agree. Why is that though? It is because more leads to a higher value on some virtue axis.

But wisdom is pursuing higher values on ALL virtue axes at the same time. And wisdom is realizing that the lowest virtue value of all virtues is the limit to wisdom. Failures show more strongly than the strengths. In fact, due to the interaction among virtues, being very high on one or just a few is an impediment to earning wisdom, because that high happiness return gets in the way of earning more wisdom. It becomes lazily easy to just accept what one can muster.

But subjective morality would literally require that from one day to the next there could be a defendable 180 degree shift in what is good. The reason that does not happen realistically is because morality is much more stable than that. It's objective.

But examples abound in the real world where people fight for immorality or a set of immoral desires against others that have similar immoral desires. But amid that fight there is always or usually a pretense towards some ideal. Why? Why bother if morality is subjective? It's because happiness is being returned to those that believe they fight for the GOOD.

and I do, so we can
— Chet Hawkins

Ah. Feel free to not respond to me if I seem too combative :P I'm unsure we can get anywhere. — AmadeusD

In general I respond. I am an anger type person. Combat is acceptable.

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. — AmadeusD

Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of.

I am making that connection because that is what I observe in reality. Anecdotal, to be sure, but no theory does not have anecdotal observation as a precedent.

Observation, if in alignment with objective moral truth, what is precisely referred to as the GOOD, is the only means of preparing a theory to then test more rigorously. This is a theory stage conversation. We do not properly ask here for proof, only supporting evidence.

Why does a job well done in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does success in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does beauty in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does accuracy in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does preparation in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does awareness in general often result in some measure of happiness?
Why does experiencing new things often result in some measure of happiness?

These are all sort of general ideas that each represent a single virtue or virtue themed idea. I argue that each of them contribute in part to happiness and or unhappiness.

The only way in which this universe works according to my observations and resulting theories is that these many (not all listed) virtues each return some part of what might be called total happiness.

Wisdom is only and always defined within my model as the sum of and choice for all virtues simultaneously amid single choice. leave out even one virtue and there is diminishment.

I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same.

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

You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal.

Dead wrong is I am assuming no different that just wrong. Or is wrongness a matter of degree? What are YOU basing that implication on? I explained mine. You did not.

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). — AmadeusD

Again, in isolation I'd have to keep referring back. For the purposes of this post, I really am not sure what you are responding to here.

Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins

No it isn't. *shrug*. — AmadeusD

I have offered reasons as to why this is so, but, I believe my original post mentioned that I assume it as a part of this sub-theory. To argue in good faith here it is required to assume that as well.

We are testing here the internal consistency of the model.

Later we might get into how the model directly relates to reality, if people make this process efficient and reasonably mutual as to exploring the realm of wisdom via ... philosophy ... the love of wisdom (and of course its pursuit).

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. — AmadeusD

Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not).

Even anecdotal evidence is data. Finally, all data is anecdotal. He said, she said. Do you blindly believe some authority or do you take personal responsibility for observing reality to confirm aspects of it that might be deemed as 'truth'?

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. — AmadeusD

I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality.

In fact I say all the time we cannot be objective. We can only try or intend to be as objective as possible.

I did mention to start with that as a part of my model I assume an objective morality. I do have moderate proofs for it. These are in the other Bob Ross thread on his 'attack?' on moral realism.

This thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself.

Free will and thus ALL bad choices, immorality defined, are not exclusive. It is the existence of free will that allows for the effort towards morality or the failure of effort that has immorality and unhappiness by degrees as a consequence.

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. — AmadeusD

Again, we cannot be objective. We can only try to be objective.
Perfection is impossible. Knowing is, to me, a word of perfection. It is a failure in how it is often used. Suspecting is much more accurate.

I also do not prefer the word conclusion. Non-conclusion is best. It means we acknowledge that there is no perfect knowing and more work needs to be done.

Facts are not objective at all. It would take perfect observation to yield perfect facts. Facts are only a subset of beliefs that a person has decided are true for whatever reason. Even facts are often held at varying degree of truth value, showing this to be more true than not.

Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. It is not necessary to be objectively right to obtain anything, especially suspicion of a non-conclusion, a far superior paradigm for argument that how you seem to be proceeding.

If you delude yourself into believing you can be objective or that objectivity is needed to obtain anything, you live in a mental state of almost complete delusion. We all do, but yours is worse than one that admits to these imperfections, because you hide behind a fool's wall of inexistent certainty.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
That is what Voltaire meant as well.

Argument from authority, yes. Not relevant. Part of my admiration and respect for authority relies upon the accuracy of their wisdom relative to mine. His usually matches up ok, or at least it does for that statement.

Samuel Clemens is supposed to have said something derivative I also use, 'It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So!'
I disagree with this one. Ignorance gets you into plenty of trouble as well, so it's both.

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! — AmadeusD

That is correct.

If we experiment and discover objective moral truth parts and building cases of levels towards it, we will eventually be able to detect immoral intent patterns as well as immoral consequence patterns. This will allow us to discover who is living will immoral beliefs and then of course we would have to know why.

This would be the scientific method of wisdom and I contend it is possible.

The slippery slope of this is shown clearly in China where their moral laws stem from a state sponsered incorrect version of morality. That is because they do not avow and realize that morality is objective and the state is not allowed to unequivocally decide as a conclusion what objective moral truth (the GOOD) is. Rather, my model suggests that we DO attempt to suspect all the parts of morality, the virtues and also how to maximize and balance them. This is the process of wisdom itself.

Without any basis in nature as a law of the universe for morality, states and other foolish imperfect entities are free to subjectively be wrong about morality. They are anyway, even in my model because free will exists and is infinite. But my model understands that there is a demonstrable feedback loop within reality, this happiness relationship, that is actionable evidence to explore with and in.

We highly suspect that people are imperfect and that they will fail to get morality correct. But, some among us are referred to as 'wise'. What does that mean? Are they magical? Why are they considered wise? Is that just an error? Is there any or at least some consensus among the wise? Where does this consensus come from? How do these wise people say they feel about wisdom?

Why would a free roaming cannibal from a warrior culture 'settle down' and declare some aspects of happiness in a more 'civilized' situation? If the warrior laments a lack of freedom, like the good old days, what is really meant? Why does that person not energetically return to the simple wild. Why do massive numbers of people not return to it?

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. — AmadeusD

Right back at you.

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. — AmadeusD

All academia partakes of order-apology, fear oriented dependence only on a single path of happiness, that of fear. Fear seeks certainty and safety which are effectively delusional. They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels.

Balanced wisdom requires balance between fear and desire and anger as well. If you depend or ground yourself only in the paths of fear, you will veer away from truth demanding certainty when it is all around just not possibly realized by you amid so many imperfections that I admit and you do not.

I am content to proceed amid imperfection towards perfection. That is wisdom.

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. — AmadeusD

A free standing denial is nothing really. No reason is given or explained.

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: — AmadeusD

Yes, well, egg-breaking, omelet. You are saying nothing. I have no idea how to respond.

I know you are but what am I! Infinity!

EQ? What is EI?
— Chet Hawkins

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

EQ is the emotional analog to IQ.

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. — AmadeusD

You do not say why it is incoherent. That helps no one.\

Do you think that more awareness is needed in general? I do.
Is it worthy to caution people that this is so? I think it is.
Do you agree that if you increase the range of moral agency, say from animal to human you increase potential evil as well as potential good in their range of choices? I do.
Do you agree that if awareness and judgment increase that this will decrease unnecessary suffering? I do.

That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that?

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... — AmadeusD

Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious. Humor is acceptable. Even anger. But just saying 'no you're wrong' is not helpful in any way.

The weird thing is that I have to stop and take time to tell you that.

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. — AmadeusD

As mentioned that was assumed here.

It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread.

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 — AmadeusD

But you do not say why it is bizarre and unsupportable. So, who cares? I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it.

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. — AmadeusD

Read the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread.

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.

'Mind-independent' is a fascinating rug to sweep things under as a term. That mind-independent state is natural law. But this correct observation of mind-independent absolutely does not mean differing from mind to mind as you are fooling yourself into believing.

You are mistaking the error(s) of subjective choice for signal error. There is no signal error. It is perfect. The error is from ... you, ... us ... choice. Repeat it with me now, 'free will'! Can I get an Amen! {I am not religious - this is only humor}

As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real. As in error-independent, as in choice-independent. The signal, the form, is still perfect as a law of the universe. It seems unattainable and we should assume that from all choices the limit as x approaches perfect is ... (sorry math), perfect seeming but not really perfect. To anyone significantly lower in wisdom than the chooser that choice would seem perfect and be both insanely compelling and damnably hard to get to, so terrifying as a GOOD-aimed example. {C'mon Leroy! Lower those expectations! the rest of us are just trying to do the daily grind. We (don't want to be)/aren't angels (because that is too hard to choose).

The trouble is that that definition is in error (like all extant choice always is, such choices not being possibly perfect). So, how can this Chet guy, howling interloper, explain that bit of conjecture?

Let's see. {Brace for underwhelming impact}

What is love? {Baby don't hurt me ...}

Love is all, everything, the system that includes the GOOD as the unique point amid a realm of meaning of pure perfection in choice, thus clearly indicating objective moral truth.

So, I reiterated my definition of GOOD there in text without specifically calling it out. So I am now, just to hit the nail again (everything IS a nail).

New premise/hypothesis: Nothing in the universe does not partake of mind. Oops! That would mean there is no such thing possible in existence as mind-independent states. Just so, I'm afraid.

The only thing you can say properly is this: The mind is always there. Its a singular field in reality. It emerges differently depending on the person, the body. But if we then relate that separate part of mind to that body only, we can delude ourselves. What we say when we think we are saying 'mind-independent' is really 'this-mind-independent', just another reductionist failure. You did not get particular enough. And even if you demand petulantly that minds are separate, that is only your belief (in error I might add).

What Ken Wilbur would call the Noosphere in his 'A Brief History of Everything' is nothing but mind. But if we can even remotely assume that the universe is consciousness, and I do, so we can, all Noosphere elements are ... linked ... in some way. What is that linkage that allows for your then magical clumping of related things into 'flourish'? That linkage is consciousness itself, a unified field. NOTHING is independent finally of that state, all. Therefore, the Noosphere, is part of ALL, part of everything. There is no person, no Malkovich, no table, that can claim to be dispossessed of a connection to mind. Mind is finally only one thing, 'the' mind. So, speaking of mind-independent states is speaking of delusion only.

If you want to say one person's mind, or the mind of each person, you still err. That is because these separations YOU prefer deny you then the ability to group the patterns because we retreat to German here and say thismindmorality and thatmindmorality and grouping is not possible. If you admit to the possibility then you are left with a continuum of Noosphere like mind/mind(s). The delusional separation of ego and identity are properly shed, the sub-part of consciousness 'belongs' in the continuum and the connection IS NOT independent in any way. There is in fact no way to separate this and that mind. Emergent mind is only plugged into consciousness of all. It is a part. It is connected. The body antennae is confusing you as a separation. But it's just a conduit, as mentioned, an antennae, for the pervasive signal of love which includes the GOOD as a part.

{As an aside I will add that only rising moral agency allows us the power to utilize what is already there in the signal of love, the GOOD, by, you guessed it, choosing it as a direction in intent. The fact that minds seem to even the observant to be disconnected is only an error in observation giving rise to the error in belief. This demonstrates the point I am making in another way. In time, with inevitable evolution, the body/mind instantiation will be empowered to clearly see that no mind was ever in the history of the universe independent from the 'all mind', wu, wu, wu (true, true, true). Where have you gone, old quaint error of choice? You were so delusionally fun (because you were easy to choose), true true true {sung to the tune of Mrs Robinson by Simon and Garfunkel. }

It is the GOOD within love that originates desire and shows us all a singular direction. And it is the flaws in choice, in all choices that misinterpret this direction and thus intend or aim in the wrong direction, perhaps still convinced they alone see the right path (when they are wrong). But this plethora of errors and directions do converge throughout reality and amid groups with no contact. Over time they converge infinitely. The converge upon a single point. That is the perfect GOOD. That shows the proof for moral realism, objective morality, singular, not dependent upon errors in choice and belief is only a choice set.

{No Germans were hurt in the making of this post. Any proximity real or imagined to actual Germans is fully intended and as humor only. No negative intent was intentionally intended. Pax! Agape! Anal nathrak uthvas bethod dohiel tienveh! Void in California (obviously)}

I appreciate your elaborate response! — Bob Ross

No worries! I am nothing if not pedantically elaborate. I know it can be a good thing, but not necessarily. I promise my intent is as good as I can make it currently.

Unfortunately, it is so long that I am having a hard time knowing where to start (and end), — Bob Ross

Quote entire response/post and copy the opening tag. Then when you read until you need to answer, close the quote with the ending tag and answer. Paste the opening tag from the copy buffer and on you go until you finish.

so let me just respond to the key points (that I was able to decipher from your post). You let me know if there is anything in particular you would like to discuss (that I may have perhaps overlooked). — Bob Ross

No worries! That is my general state of affairs. Sometimes I am life the Mask from the movie, 'Somebody stop me!'

Firstly, you seem to be still thinking that The Good requires “a second-order inclusion of meaning” (presumably a standard) which I am overlooking. I say to this, that it does not have any such thing. — Bob Ross

Interesting. Well, that's just crazy. And it is of course born of subjectivist delusion, but I do not want to just throw a no without reason.

I mean, come on, you're the one trying to defend subjective morality. That means if I believe the word flourish means killing babies with x traits on that basis alone is possibly moral or a principle of only 'my morality'. And if you believe that killing babies with x traits on that basis alone is likely immoral or a principle of only 'my morality'.

With behavior we must speak in terms of motivation or WHY someone does something. I do not mean with any idea of morality in mind. I mean just the simple act of doing something. A why is required. The why can often be boiled down to a single emotion, desire.

So, your postion is based on the rough equivalence of desire and morality. If you cannot or more to the point will not address this glaring error, it is not hard for me to know where to begin. It is imminently clear that self-indulgence is your guiding light, a very unwise point of view for a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. This digresses but, I hope you get my point. Moral subjectivism is what I refer to as chaos apology. It is only a shamed nod to desire as wisdom.

Due to perfection, this is actually true. But the path of desire alone is fraught with the peril, the immoral side, of self-indulgence. The basic pattern is either always true or never was true only. Desire -> Greed -> Wisdom? No. One case. Following desire can be bad. Self-indulgence subjectivity is 'wrong'/'unreal'/'immoral'. But this is not just a suggestion. It's the law of reality.

The truth is we must properly mix desire with other emotions to attain balance (wisdom). Subjectivism is a gross submission to desire.

Secondly, you ask what ‘flourishing’ is? I would say that it is the ‘optimal or sufficient actualization of goals’. — Bob Ross

Hilarious. Myself and at least one other person here have pointed out that you are sweeping the second order issue under the rug. You just tied like 6 goals into that definition. Nope. It has to be more primal. And even the triangle one breaks down at a high enough filter level. The critic at higher detail says "This triangle is here! That one is there! You should say 'trianglehere' and 'trianglethere' and give rise to the German language. You are wrong! Blah blah blah."

There IS a second order trouble when you speak of the good. In fact its not even that easy. The good is all virtues. So you could have a dimension for each virtue and then any choice must include n-level complexity (and it does). The word 'goals' is your rug that you are sweeping all of truth into as to hard to look at. Stay messy. Stay real.

I use it very similarly to ‘happiness’, except that I think that ‘happiness’ has a certain connotation of ‘feeling pleasant’ that I wish to avoid. — Bob Ross

this statement taken at the meta level is telling and horrifying. Wear you hair shirt on your own time. This is said in humor.

"Satisfaction = death" - me.

Wisdom is only ever earned via suffering. Necessary suffering is wise to inflict upon people in order to facilitate them earning wisdom. Unnecessary suffering is immorality defined. The only debate in the universe is where that line is between necessary and unnecessary.

Despite colloquial mainstream annoyances like all definitions, words really do need to conform to better meaning, consistent meaning. Ambiguity is acceptable. You're the subjectivist. I will instead tolerate the many subjectivist errors towards wisdom because the intent to become wise seems present.

Being avoidant about what is, ... does not help at all. Confidence (anger) demands that fear recede. And desire demands we move towards truth and perfection. Avoidance is objectively immoral. :) Again, some of this is kidding, but, it's kidding on the square as Al Franken would say.

Flourishing is sufficient realization over time relative to a goal (or goals). — Bob Ross

Does it not also include growth? What about accuracy? Is beauty a part of your flourish. It's so unclear really. And then you are forced as well to explicitly state an infinitude of cases because you must pin down the particulars. There is no over-arching category that applies. You are ... lost amid the infinite seas of chaos/desire. Subjectivity is disintegration, a lack of wisdom, finally.

You again included the goal. That is the meta second level of distinction that I was referring to.

Thirdly, you seem to also worry, subsequently, that flourishing may be subjective, which I deny. — Bob Ross

What? Eh ...

OK, so there is no way for us to be objective. We can only try to be objective. And we are not perfect/objective so we often fail and we fail in a myriad of ways. The only hope we have is that there is something in the universe that is flawless, perfect, and gives rise therefore to desire itself, the entire emotion in every sense. That is objective moral truth, the GOOD.

Experience is subjective. Morality is objective.
When you discuss yours and mine all you are discussing is errors. That is to say how far our choice vectors deviate from the actual objective direction emotionally to objective moral truth (the GOOD).

What is the guide?

The guide is happiness as a scale.

Just like the GOOD is objective and we properly speak in terms of more or less GOOD only and not evil per say, this confuses subjectivists, we also then speak of the consequence of choosing more and more GOOD which is more and more happiness. You could also say they are less unhappy. That is what the other thread was about. Further, if one does understand the discrete virtue structure of morality, one can understand that this reward consequence mechanism can seem to be in error (but only because we do not perfectly understand it). Increasing behavioral strength returns virtue divided happiness. So, if one is smart one becomes over time immorally content (satisfaction = death) with getting only the smart virtue return on happiness. The difficulty to excel at what one is not ... good ... at becomes too much to face. It's easier just to press the known buttons.

This non flaw in reality which supports objective morality as a conclusion is the reason why a serial killer can be 'amazingly' happy. Its the most happy they have ever been but its not genuinely happy. This thing I call genuine happiness is a resonation with perfection, the desire source. If it is authentic it can only point in a singular direction of meaning, e.g. objective. If that serial killer were taught and could learn (structures and chemical states as a confluence of pre existing choices make such transitions super hard {moral choice is always the hardest}) This is observed in every way. It takes an EQ to sense it, to 'feel' it in a balanced way across all emotions.

The wise have this trait, this balance and can 'see beyond' exemplars of singular virtues. Inexactlyasmuch as people love to clap for physical things star athletes do, they do not usually do so with intelligence (because this is too threatening to the observer that realizes that they are out of their depth {avoidance}). That is one meta level difference, just like triangle would be say to kinds of triangles. But there is a worse, more, exponential shift. That shift is from any virtue to all virtues, e.g. between intelligence and wisdom. So people were too terrified to admit intellectual success even though it plays out right before them. They did not understand it. The guy just teleported! Arthur C Clark is spinning in his magical grave. But amplify that to a higher level. Intelligence recoils in every way when faced with wisdom if the observer of the exemplar is the one and not the other. This recoil is meta level worse than the int to str example. It is the source of the concept of Nihilism, denial of meaning, objective meaning.

To take your example, it is entirely possible that a society could be flourishing relative to their own goal of sacrificing babies (to whatever extent they want)—just like how a psychopath serial killer can be happy by torturing other people—but this is not the highest Good. — Bob Ross

I mean you as a subjectivist just said, '... it is not the highest good.' What? Seriously? YOU can't say that. There is no good to you. If everything is possibly good finally, then nothing is good. Good vanishes. And you certainly cannot by your own stance forbid anyone else's radical nonsense as not good. You have no basis.

I suppose I should say: The existence of desire proves that there is one good. The failure of desire is hearing the signal of objective morality wrong because <choice error>. It takes effort to choose the good. Variations in intent are only errors except for one of them.

Here is the quintessential Pragmatic immoral failure writ small explained:
True Statement: 'Death is preferable to immorality.' - me
Pragmatic Delusion: 'No way! I matter! I am different in how I matter. I am not you. You are not me. You have to live as a positive. Survival #1'

The lowest Good, afterall, is, by my own concession, egoism — Bob Ross

No. A much better definition for the lowest good is 'nothing'. I'm not going to bother defending that because my ego is something. And that's better than nothing. Oh wait, I just defended it!

and some intermediate level is a society which has set out goals which make them fulfilled (pyschologically) by sacrificing some babies, — Bob Ross

Nope.

this 'fulfillment' is delusional. It partakes of the good because everything must. But its relative goodness is and will be measurable. And the relativity is to an objective standard as a referential frame, the only one that matters, unchanging, truth.

but the highest Good is the ultimate sight for the eyes of the moral, virtuous man. — Bob Ross

Yes perfection, one and only one thing, objective. You are arguing my point for me.

You seem to have forgotten that The Good, under this view, has levels. — Bob Ross

Yes, but, those levels only serve to inform us where the top is. Perfection, unique, one way.

Flourishing, as I have defined it, is relative to goals/purposes; and from this one can abstract the highest form of The Good, which is everything flourishing [relative to their own goals]. — Bob Ross

It great that you can selfishness, self-indulgence, and pretend it is wisdom. It is also terrifying and morally corrupt. It is pandering to chaos/desire.

Therefore, what that society is doing, in your example, is factually wrong (in light of the highest Good). — Bob Ross

i agree but you are arguing the objectivist point of view and just do not realize it. Ok call an apple and orange and we will all just walk around carefully remembering that to support your 'special' subjective reality. Nope. I don't have time. I don't have patience. And I am not just attacking you here, I am humoring the scenario as I show my point of view.

Facts are only a subset of beliefs.
Wrong and right must be judged by a standard. You say 'factually wrong' and I am thinking you think facts are objectively correct. Yeeesh! But if they are not always objectively correct then something external to 'fact' is superior. That something is objective truth.

The value weight of any relationship imaginable morally causes all order in the universe. Were this not the case the chaos would overwhelm the objective truth and disintegration, the consquence of imperfect desire, would rip the universe apart. In fact what is not understood and that is because its so hard to understand, that if subjective morals were how things are, then that disintegration of the universe would be instantaneous always. So those possible universes are by definition cancelled out. This one has existence! Thank you objective morality! Let get busy correcting everyone's errors (that they foolishly call 'their morality')

This form of the Good, as the form or relation of flourishing, is not subjective: — Bob Ross

Due to experience, everything, even existence itself, is subjective. The only thing that is not subjective is morality. The objective nature of morality ... provides for ... the fulcrum of choice, free will. This is why we ... cannot ... be objective. We can intend toward perfect objectivity, perfection, the GOOD, only. What we achieve ... will be ... subjective, not objective. Just ask any two people!

But the underlying system with the stability to allow for existence is objective morality. The orderly rule of the universe is that the chaos of free will is the only thing there is. This causes subjective experience and makes one prone to the foolishness of subjective morality.

what it means for a particular person to flourish is relative to their own goals, but what it means to flourish (in general) is not; — Bob Ross

Lol, so again, you are back to declaring my argument, objective morality. I can't tell. Maybe you are a moral realist.

and flourishing of all, as the highest Good, does not waver with opinion. So you are partially correct in inferring that what it means to flourish is going to have that subjective element of being relative to a goal, but that itself, in form, is objective. I do not get to choose what it means to flourish, but what it means for me to flourish is. — Bob Ross

No no, you are confusing being, current state, with meaning, which is timeless.
You again here basically stated that morality was objective, and then you say that what happened is objective. OK, if we say it's dead in the past then it was done and cannot be undone.

But what does that matter? We are discussing meaning here.

If twenty people can remember things differently, and they can, then what objectively happened would have no meaning anyway. The subjectivist MUST admit that any interpretation, however inaccurate, is acceptable. That is true unless accuracy is objectively good. What is this good thing? How do you define accurate without the good? You cannot.

Joke: I say accurate is to miss by 50% of the space of any aim, you know, keep things organic, Feng Shiu. Subjectivists must accept and defend that as not immoral by definition. That just 'their morality'. That is what good is to them. So, no, you're just comically wrong.

You cannot define accuracy itself without the good. No virtue can be defined.

Fourthly, you briefly asserted, without any real elaboration on any positive argument for it, a ‘brevity principle’: “As far as humanity can tell using all its resources to date that are widely known enough to be discussed, morality has to have been objective since at least the expected dawn of time.” I honestly did not understand why this would be the case nor why it is called the brevity principle. — Bob Ross

I named it and invented it. I can call pants pants if I want.

The infinity of time (possible) is much much less in units than it is back to when we think time began until now. Thus we are discussing an admittedly brief time in the history of the multiverse. Hence the name.

It would be the case that this is indeed a partial support for objective morality, because the laws of the universe so far seem consistent and stable from now back to then. That's all we 'know'. The future is unknown. So, since there has been stability enough for us to make these observations and communicate them, there ... is ... an objective scenario of meaning in the universe. At least for this brief amount of time between the start of time and now. If you are discussing subjective morality as an outer envelope, the 'way things are' for real, then you must wait until the end of a stable universe to demonstrate your point as this current reality shows quite the opposite.

Fifthly, I think you are misunderstanding, or perhaps we just disagree, on the implications of moral subjectivism; and, more importantly, the nature of desire. Just to briefly quote you:

What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. You have embraced pure chaos.

This is not true at all if moral subjectivism is true, nor is it true of the nature of desire. Desire—i.e., will—is subjective, but it is by-at-large very persistent, as opposed to whimsical: people are psychological motivated by the deepest depths of their psyche, which their ‘ego’ has no direct access to, and this evolves very slowly. People depend on their desires all the time and with quite impressive precision and for large lengths of time. The only kind of chaos that might occur due to moral subjectivism is people’s fundamental desires may not agree with other people’s. — Bob Ross

You ARE a moral realist and you just don't realize it.

I should stop there because that is the whole truth but ...

The source of accurate desire is perfection, the objective moral GOOD. To say there is a source, to depend on it as you do, means you ARE a moral realist and you are just putting different window dressing on your religion. Christianity has fallen out of vogue, let's decorate with Islam this year!

NOTHING can pre-inform the desire a priori if you are trying to defend moral subjectivism.

Sixthly and finally, you claimed that objective morality provides free will equally to subjects; which is not true at all. Firstly, it is clear that all animals of the animal kingdom (including humans) have varying degrees of free will, — Bob Ross

indeed. Amplitude of moral agency is not relevant to outcomes.
Intent is superior to consequence. It precedes it.
Consequence is not really relevant except to inform future intents. The basis of Consequentialism is delusional.

All you are saying is 'evolution, man' and I agree. The alive universe evolves moral agency only, the breadth of free will and the ability to enact it, empowerment. This process is ONLY the earning of wisdom at some level. Of course, there are varying degrees. That entirely misses the real point.

The real point is that this process of evolution may take many paths, but all of them are pulled by desire and that is sourced in perfection, in objective moral truth, the GOOD.

This is necessarily a convergence of meaning to a single perfect point.

From any moral current state, there is one and only one path to the final perfect and singular point. That path is the most good path or intent for that moral agent right now. If they move or change their moral state then the vector to the GOOD changes based NOT ON THE GOOD, but on their failure quality of choice only. In other words we are talking about ONLY their errors, not 'their morality', the term 'my morality' is incoherent. Subjective moral assertion is incoherent. Is it disintegration only, chaos.

Secondly, there is no such law of the universe that dictates that we have free will: it is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross

(This is a) Wildly conceited and egoic point of view. We did this? Really? The same people that invented twinkies and cigarettes? I see (backs away slowly).

No.

Free will is what causes physical reality to occur.

Ever more complex patterns evolve to express more and more emerging amplitude of power, e.g. moral agency. This is why a table is very limited in its choices. It's mostly table. Table, table. But then when we get to life which is a normal emergence, expected, obvious; we see a meta level 'leap' in moral agency from jellyfish to Republican to animal to human. (That was a joke people, even if in poor taste. I am sorry.) That is all because morality is objective. The direction to the GOOD is one way, brother-man. Step into the light Carol Anne!

Man's ability to cognize is arguably mildly better than the table. Yes. Table, table. Malkovich, Malkovich! But let's not get all puffed chest about it. let's assume the pattern is a resonance from something more fundamental. Why? Because nits make lice! Keep following the source question until its realize that meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning, but, that amid this circular logic, there is a pattern, and not just the circle. Amid that pattern there are many patterns. When we get to the highest dimension of meaning that we humans are currently capable of that I can swim in/on, we see that only one direction for each virtue and thus one integrated direction for all virtues is ... GOOD. There is no other more appropriate word for it.

To sully the term GOOD with subjective delusion is ... you guessed it ... immoral.

Don't worry we are all constantly immoral in infinite ways. So that is not a vile accusation. It's only a tautology. But accepting the obvious evidence that morality is objective despite a sea of subjective errors about it all being partially interesting only, is ... better ... than any other corresponding belief scenario.

Thirdly, if morality is objective, then it says nothing about what free will we may or may not have: it says what we should be doing or/and what is good to do. — Bob Ross

It does. You are precisely right. I could not have said it better myself. You are strong in moral realism, just not in correct labelling.

Opinions only, subjective guesses as to objective truth. Eh, I get shot anyway, despite just being a messenger.

For you, what is the difference, the distinguishing factor, between the triangle analogy and The Good such that you would accept the former and reject the latter?

...

I think people do generally agree. We see a basic triangle and say “yep, that’s a triangle”. Likewise, we see someone feeding a starving child and say “yep, that’s good”. Perhaps, to help convey my point, strip the general conception of The Good of the word ‘good’: let’s call it G instead. G is just the general conception of acts which promote flourishing, and is abduced from particular acts [which promote flourishing]. No different than how the general conception of a triangle, let’s call it T instead to remove semantics, is the general conception of a “three-sided shape”, and is abduced from its particulars (e.g., a right triangle [a right T], an obtuse triangle [an obtuse T], etc). — Bob Ross

Hmm, ok, I will try to answer in my way and yet include enough detail that you can show me where I am wrong your way.

Agreed that triangle is a repeatable observation in general. But with good you run afoul as mentioned of a second order inclusion of meaning that would not be 'common' and thus relatable without authority intervening arbitrarily. So the concept of the word good is indeed quite the point. Abstracting this concept to G proves my point. Still, in an effort to be more pragmatic and less idealistic with the case, here goes:

What is to flourish? Is it to grow more living things? That seems like a relatively simple to understand assertion. But wait! Without an objective morality my society says flourish indeed means to kill babies born with x traits, and there is a strange eugenic component that my society really really loves, a hierarchy. So, there is a list of physical factors that have a relative/weighted negative flourish value when phenotypically expressed in a baby. The cutoff line or murder-it line changes from time to time in that society.

It turns out this practice would be devastating to what you and I might agree flourishing is, but this hypothetical society (much like our own in many ways) is convinced that it is a sign of flourishing to kill these many types of babies; that an objectively morally corrupt practice is moral. They even add in time wasting ceremonies that are public where everyone drinks the blood of these murdered babies just because they really want to flourish {adding flourish}. Do you not agree that this is possible?

Your conflation of G hides the truth of the missing meta level issue. The concept flourish is not at all associated with the same acts. Your purely (erroneous) logic is tacking on what you think is good based on the existing standard to all sides, making the match a forced and choreographed affair. That is not allowed in an intellectually honest case.

When the Mongoni who have this practice for flourishing meet the Trifal who do not, they start asking at diplomatic meetings where children are present to honor their potential new friends by murdering the offensive children of the other diplomats that have not been culled, in order of course to strengthen the genetic lines of the Trifal, because they are trying to aid the unaware in their moral understanding. This also begins to cast great doubt on the wisdom of the Trifal from the point of view of the Mongoni (not to mention vice versa), who are elite, slow in birthrate, and very very pure (in their own deluded sensibilities).

What is accepted as the concept, 'to flourish' is not the same in both cultures. In Trifal the babies are nurtured at least as properly as human babies are currently by most societies on our planet.

To add to this messed up conflict just waiting to happen, both sides are moral subjectivists, possessed of the erroneous belief that their chosen dogma/delusion is acceptable as a morality. They have no reason therefore to seek a common ground in that sense (and both societies are in decline because they morally value not seeking common ground without shared values). They both believe it is their right to define flourish as a concept. {And therefore both are wrong, immoral}

It does not matter that you respond with no, flourishing obviously means this or we can define this such that … <what> … is included. That is because your own assertion is subjective morality. You cannot include moral value judgments. Your <what> is the objective good. To support subjective morality you nust properly proceed as I did in the example above from a random verb, 'flourish', and then you attach a random (subjective moral) action to it. It could be anything if you are honest.

I could go on and on with such examples.

The trouble is the one example, the triangle, is too simple, and the other example, the good, is too complex and conflated. I mean come on, its bad enough people think two apples are categorical. The principle of uniqueness forbids it in a sense. It is … what … kind of danger to conflate them, to group them, without realizing that the distinction that is the categorical filter is itself arbitrary. This means arbitrary in realized value, not specific current index. For example apples could be fruits conforming to a certain genetic percentage of DNA similarities and that then could be changed later. This opens up the question, with subjective standards, what is real? Was the earlier apple that used to qualify and now does not, an apple then and not now? The people at both times called it an apple. But the people that define 'Scotsman' change. There is no guarantee at all that differing authorities will decide that similar things are similar in parallel. The infinite variety of descriptors and the infinite fineness of the observation make this entirely problematic.

The above paragraph is not actually an argument for subjectivism. What is discovered is not the fact that differing points of view are allowed to make (incorrectly) different value judgments. What is properly discovered is that if a value is a value objectively, it does not change, if the holders or believers of said value are objectively correct. This ties awareness and accuracy at least to morality. This example is insanely small, a tiny tiny iota of perfection, an immorally (in)accurate slice of assertions, still, as contended, better than a subjectivist's point of view. I will say, it is likely that a subjective view or model of the universe is perhaps almost equally likely to come up with a workable description of morality, but that is only almost.

The almost is based in my 'Brevity Principle' which is to say, “As far as humanity can tell using all its resources to date that are widely known enough to be discussed, morality has to have been objective since at least the expected dawn of time.” That brief period compared to a possible infinity of time stretching out before us is expected to be a certain number of time units in length. So, if you are arguing about what happens after a hideously unknown and unimaginably massive amount of time passes to end objective morality and show that morality is possibly subjective then, why would you bother? There is a minuscule reason to bother, I agree. But that reason is based in objective morality. What are you basing yours on? Such a subjective morality is just not what we are living with now and not what we have been living with since time began. If that's your jam, conjecture as to what might happen in some extremely unlikely time in the future, and not discuss reality as we can measure it now, consistent since it began, then, ok, you have a point.

All of this related to descriptors in the physical realm are one thing. They are one teleological hurdle
to get past. Of course what we call science can help us pin down these differences and ostensibly agreement can be made. But, why do you believe this?

The reason why you believe this (about science or any consistent approach) is the problem. Is it your faith in the meaningfulness and perhaps depth of belief in logic and analysis (consistency) that underscore the problem. That faith is based in something you disavow with your ideas. An objective moralist like me would simply claim, “It is 'good' to be more aware” and such a person is correct. An objective moralist like me would simply claim, “It is 'good' to be more accurate with measurements and judgments related to meaning, both; e.g. accuracy on its own is 'good' ”. Without objective morality the two sides are 'allowed' to subjectively value awareness and accuracy. There can be no honest expectation of any similarity in what awareness and what accuracy are by subjectivists. If you let timeline downstream or competitive practices determine by contest/experimentation what is accurate by any measurement at all, you are proving your dependence on objective morality.

You might go down the route of declaring that awareness and accuracy are not moral considerations at all. That would just be hilarious. I'm going to go with Socrates on this one. There are two sorts of good, virtue and happiness. And I do not remember the context of my brother from another mother's railing at the Athenians, but, I would disagree that these are similar enough to be easily grouped. One side is deontological and the other consequential. They are related but one cannot speak of both in the same breath with moral honesty. Of course, I am stating my subjective moral opinion in an objective moral universe. As Milton might suggest, “let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong'.

Awareness and accuracy are virtues. Their expression leads to one and only one meaningful moral consequence, happiness value. Unhappiness is just lower relative happiness. {This is analogous to evil is just a lesser (objective ha ha) value of good} This relationship between happiness and moral choice was my other thread and too much of a digression here. So, I'll trim that desire and try to stay on topic.

The intent to become aware, the need of it, born of the fear of the unknown, is morally sound, objectively.

The intent to become accurate, born of the anger against 'wrongness', yes another debatable value judgment, is morally sound, objectively.

These are laws of the universe. They are tautologies. Belief cannot change them. Of course I am only stating my current belief. Due to perfection as a concept, accuracy, judgment, … one of these beliefs is better than the other, objectively. Although we can be and often are in error, the truth strength of perfection is compelling enough in all the universe to allow infinite wrongness on the other side and still be better to continue that genuine compelling nature objectively. This is why desire exists.

These virtues which are improperly defined only because there is an objective morality which is damnably perfect and I who am defining them am not perfect. This perfection, unattainable, or perhaps the purpose of the universe and a universe ending event, is objective. Perfection itself, as a concept, only has meaning if morality is objective. There is no way to define 'better' without some supposed objectivity. And although we can be wrong about better, truth is not wrong about it. It always seems harder and harder to get to. Why? Again … derail … restraint … on on!

It is hard to define perfection. I say it is objective, so, I should be able to get closer and closer to it. If something is subjective there is no way to get closer and closer to it, because it itself varies. Accuracy itself is dismissed. But a clever definition for perfection is 'A belief and state of being which can never be obtained despite any strength of desire for it, but should be aimed at by virtue of the existence of that desire.' So, if you can be there or believe it entirely, it is not morally correct enough yet. “Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd!” - Voltaire

If something can be more and more (never perfectly) proven as 'right', independently, by a moral agent, then that something involves a suspected morally objective set of value judgments approaching what is referred to as 'Truth'. This is effectively the scientific method and it can be applied to meaning(morality) in the same way, albeit a meta level harder task, as to physical 'science'. In fact the word 'science' is in quotes because the pattern of meaning intrinsic to that term can only be defined by the greater objective moral concepts including of course awareness and accuracy as virtues.

You cannot define what you value amid non-armchair 'science' without an objective morality. That is because if morality can change then awareness and accuracy can change, and let's add in consistency as a value. Is it valuable? What guarantees that is so? Only objective value can do so. The concept of science itself, and any pursuit based on it depends entirely on an approach (never arriving) at … <what>. That <what> is objective truth, perfection.

What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. You have embraced pure chaos. Within any meaningful timeframe (The Brevity Principle outtake), even a split second, all rules could and would change. The living universe would be partaking of the nonsense of subjective morality. Gravity disappears from one second to the next. Random people but a third of the planet are able to see a new color but only for 30 seconds. What did it mean? The weak nuclear force is tripled over the course of two months. Death becomes so morally preferable that all living creatures in the universe go into zombie desire comas and like robots kill themselves. Order itself has a moral component. Objectivity is a principle of order. Subjectivity is a principle of chaos. Both are components of morality. I am not here to denigrate chaos.

Only the overarching order of the universe, objective morality, the only thing in existence, ensures that all moral agents are equally possessed of free will. This balanced scenario allows for an equal dip into both order and chaos as well as that sneaky balance stuff I will call wisdom and adherence to objective moral resonance. So chaos is included and necessary within the order allowing for immorality. Immorality is nothing but the chaotic or orderly over or under expression, out of balance with perfection. With a subjective morality/universe there is nothing to balance, no need for balance, and in fact therefore balance cannot even be formed as a concept. You need objective morality for all of that, in fact, all meaning.

As this single quote resulted in 4 pages of response, I think I will stop here and see if this is taken properly before more investment.

Hi! I started a thread on Happiness and was redirected here to relate it to my assertion of objective morality. Sounds fun! Here I am! My second thread only.

Ethics cannot be done from an armchair, — Bob Ross

Aw, sure it can. Ethics can be done from anywhere, at anytime, by anyone. (This is the) Protestant Reformation of your faith.

I would say that we do it like any other categories we make: we induce it from particulars.

I see this right triangle, that obtuse triangle, that isosceles triangle, etc. and I formulate/induce the general category of a triangle. — Bob Ross

Ok that particular is fine. It is something the senses can seize upon to make a category distinct.

I see someone helping the needy, being nice to someone else, being respectful, upholding a beings sovereignty, etc. and I induce the general category of the good. — Bob Ross

Nope. You're totally off the rails there. You cannot judge what is good without some standard. There is nothing here for a declared subjectivist to lock onto. You say x, Fred says Y, Rita likes z. Nope. You have made a useless category.

Then if you start to describe what is this good thing about any action/belief, a reasonable amount of people have to agree or it would just be chaos. If a reasonable amount of people do agree, then what is the source of that agreement? {It is the instinct towards the objective morality} Especially over time as people get more advanced they would diverge to the point of unrecognizably ramified. That is not at all what is observed. People from random parts of the world may have some glaring differences but the generally sense and came up with the same patterns and indeed can relate the goodness thing in one action to the same goodness thing in another. So not only does it have the pattern it has but it is also deemed GOOD, a second step you are ignoring.

I see someone torturing a baby for fun, a person being incredibly rude, a person demeaning another, a person being incredibly selfish, a person having complete disregard for life, etc. and I induce the category of the bad. — Bob Ross

Same trouble. The complexity of your categories in these good/bad judgments requires a second meta level of pattern matching not possible without some n-dimensional similarity and that is exactly what you are trying to refute. You are proving objective morality, not your case.

Just like how I can separate triangles into one pile and squares into another, and more generally shapes into one pile and non-shapes into another, I, too, can put generous acts into one pile and respectful acts into another, and more generally good acts into one pile and bad acts into another. — Bob Ross

Nope, and for the reasons mentioned.

Am I going to sort each into each pile 100% accurately? Probably not. Does that take away from the plentiful evidence that the categories do exist? Certainly not. — Bob Ross

I agree on this spreading and uncertain breakpoint analysis. Just like electron shell discretion in quantum mechanics there do seem to be a lot of this cant or this must rules in life. But is the fact that people can even agree on a category at all over time a hint at some meta level order to the universe? Is awareness then subjective, really. If we get it more right, it's closer to something. What is that? It's objective truth. Is awareness part of morality?

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)?

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 ...

The combination of ideas is what is needed to transcend the 'evil' scenario.

Mass transit is the base idea of any new system, but, there is then a combination of Minority Report style vehicles or pods that travel the AI rail system, removing the inefficiency of fossil fuels and 'I'm my own fighter pilot' errors.

With such a system a rich man can buy a fancy autopod and anyone can summon one for a small fee, including children who need to get to school. Drunks and such, no problem. Everything is auto-drive.

Then these self same pods can go off-rail with more extensive AI or even manually piloted. Such a system includes all these solutions integrated into one system.

Wealthy people or smart ones could even 'lease out' or timeshare their vehicles and then almost anyone could 'lease/buy' on the basis of allowing their vehicle to be shared (already a thing, obviously).

I'm not really a fan of Capitalism, but it's clear than any transition to other economic styles would require an extended timeframe. So all of these measures have to be applied in part. Best to get started now.

For the right scenarios where traffic is high and fixed point to point, larger pods would be train or bus like. The whole solution would scale in every way.

Really the protocols and AI levels need to be standardized and that should be something already begun. Leaving the market too 'free' will defeat many of the efficiencies gained.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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}

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.