sounds like standard first year stuff. I remember learning a lot about pathos and related fallacies. Your writing is spot on too. This kind of material isnt that abstract, in fact its rather black and white and pertains to mostly concrete processes (like dispositions of argument). The real hard stuff is abstract concepts, usually multitudenaly layered in terms of interpretation. all the best

It wasn't so much about chance or fortune but whether it is appropriate to say dead men are men at all.

Self-affirmation is another source of motivation that is generally stronger than survival and boredom but weaker than eros. — Agustino

wouldnt self affirmation be weaker than survival?

That's not Plato's conception. — Agustino

Then argue it with wikipedia, its the first paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_tripartite_theory_of_soul

But you can't stay "in meditation" your whole life, just existing. You have to do things. So that apathetic state, as far as I'm concerned, is not good. — Agustino

You misunderstand what it is like. It carries over into real world much like the relief from sex carries over. It doesn't breed apathy, it's the exact opposite.

apathetic:
showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.

Meditation renews your interest, enthusiasm and concern for the most mundane things you took for granted before.

The issue is that it is like going for a run, its an effort and hard to sustain unless you have "that" kind of personality. It's far too easy to just fall into what is easy and not give any effort (even if you know it will bring you contentment).

Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom. We survive and get bored- our two great motivations. This wells up in the form of goal-seeking activities of all kinds. It's that simple. Life is just "there" but we cannot be just "there". We must move around, entertain ourselves, make goals, and essentially find ways to use our time and keep ourselves from discomfort. The result is a mostly repetitious existence of doing but for the sake of doing. — schopenhauer1

Fantastic post, 10/10 agree. This is why I find buddhist views on boredom and attachment so vanguard. I have had moments in meditation where I completely happy with just existing and what a present that is to have. Not having to rush around every second of the day, only to come home and ask philosophy forums "y r we here bro?".

Freud said we only ever do things to seek bodily pleasure. And much like the ID,Ego,Super EGO there was Plato's tripartite conception of ourselves. 1 to produce and seek pleasure. 2 to gently rule through the love of learning. 3 to obey the directions of 2 while ferociously defending the whole from external invasion and internal disorder. With all of this considered though, it still doesn't intrude on whether or not our reasoning has any iota of resemblance on ultimate truth or meaning if such a thing exists (but i feel it is somewhat self-evident).

The only only supreme authority on issues like these is the self and therefore the only objective meaning to life is the one you choose. — Nelson

I am so sick of people saying "You choose your owning meaning". What a crock of shit, that doesn't even make sense. Everything anyone ever does is always meaningless, and always will be. Sure, things have value to people (liked loved ones) but to say they are the meaning of your life is absurd. If i told you my toothbrush was the meaning of my life, would that make sense? If not then how is it different from a person? Because they have extra properties like communication or the capacity to elicit hormones in states of intimacy? Nay! To call a meaningless process meaningful is to put the cart before the horse.

After reading this thread the only idea that appeals to me is that of our lives being as meaningless as other animals including insects. Although I feel as if consciousness or self-awareness alone gives me reason enough to ask for a meaning, for we are the only animal with the self-awareness combined capacity to ask such a thing, therefore shouldn't i be justified in asking such a thing?

If I am not justified in doing that, then consciousness is a disease that clearly bears no identical representation on ultimate truth (which isn't the case because consciousness has built us great bridges,buildings, particle accelerators, plant gene alterations.) So if we can do all those things then we must have some bearing on ultimate truth (apriori, mathematical etc.) in order to work with concepts that allow us to change nature in such ways, if that wernt so then it wouldnt be possible for us to do those things... So then we must be somewhat justified in asking for a purpose to all of this, if we have come this far with our minds.

these are exactly threads that make me confused. I deal with thoughts of Why go on living? and everytime I decide there's no point not to go on, here comes along thread that makes me insecure and again gets me in endless cycle of thinking about rationality/irrationality of continuing my life... Seems like I don't believe myself or just need a definite reason what to do and just can't find one. — rossii

You have biological constraints place on you. IE if you want to leave this place you have to do something called "killing" your body somehow... and... if you want to do that you have to find a way to override the survival instinct somehow... The prime motive driving those actions would be the knowledge of how you understand life to exist and a dissatisfaction with how you perceive that knowledge. How can you know whether you can trust your own knowledge of that? Well, the same way you can trust your knowledge of whether it is worthwhile doing any other ordinary thing in life. I will give some examples to illustrate this and each example will get closer to the relevance of my argument:

• Is it worth waking up on saturday and going to my sons football game?
  
• Is it worth not putting my hand on that hot stove?
  
• Is my day worth getting up for today?
  
• Why do I work so hard and is the money worth what I spend it on?
  
• Why do I spend so much effort in surviving and is the experience worth what energy I spend on it?

So, with that being said. Reasoning is trustworthy... BUT ONLY to the truth of that which we perceive with the human mind. Suppose there is truth outside of the human mind and that the universe exists differently than to how we see it and that the constitution and value of a human life is different to how we SUBJECTIVELY perceive it... Why then, we could very wrong indeed. What arrogance we would have to assume we know the truth of such matters as death and consciousness as they pertain to objective existence, ESPECIALLY considering how complex the universe is. Nevertheless, if life's feels that bad, then just fricken leave maaaan.

There is a flaw. The universe may be meaningless, but you aren't meaningless, and your human environment isn't meaningless. Yes, you could go to bed and stay there until you die, which would be an act of self-destructive meaning.
As far as your experiences (your existence) disappearing when you die, that would only be so if everyone who had every had any contact with you in any way, shape, manner or form ALSO DIED when you died. Everyone who had read your posts here, for instance, would have to die with you. The web site would have to disappear too, so nobody else could read anything you said, in the future.

IF we all go together when we go, every Hottentot and every Eskimo, THEN your experiences will disappear FOREVER, because it is the human narrative that carries forward our contributions after we die. — Bitter Crank

It is the fact that there is no objective worth that makes my own construction of the value of my life seem pointless. What even is human constructed meaning? You speak of human contribution has if it has some value. What value is human life? We are just a bacteria growing on a ball with the arrogance to think our intelligence is worth something that necessitates that we ought to continue to exist because we are somehow "special" and should not be lost forever. As far as I can see human constructed meaning is just a farcical way for us to convince ourselves not kill ourselves.

Why the hell shouldn't I assume that kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity are the things that you should do before you die? Just guessing, but you probably do these things already, when the opportunity (like, for bravery and mercy) present themselves. — Bitter Crank

You can assume I do those things with validity, I agree. But assuming that those are the things that I want to live for is not accurate. It's not why I get out of bed in the morning, In fact I am so tired with the meaninglessness of those acts... Yes they are helpful and make others feel good, but WHY even do that? Where is it going? It's as if I need a great cosmic foundation of purpose underneath life in order for those gestures (generosity, mercy) to be somehow even worth something, otherwise they are just as meaningless as the waves breaking over sand.

Hurting others does not improve the lives of psychopaths. Where did you get the idea that psychopaths live to hurt others? Psychopaths aren't demons, they are people with an inability to feel guilt and be guided by fear of punishment. What would improve their (often unhappy) lives is to have normal responsiveness to feelings. — Bitter Crank

Psychopaths as I understand them are emotionless tyrants who just want to exploit others for their pleasure. The epitome of a serial killer.

You want to be part of the rat race, forever? If there is a hell, I could imagine that being it. — John Days

Its was a joke about how ridiculous it is that so many people think that way without a second glance. Something primitive speaks inside for us.

by some standards, (like JC's) a man who hates his brother is already a murderer, so by that measure, whether you wish to hurt someone for a short period of time or an eternity doesn't make much difference. — Bitter Crank

Yes it does, it makes ALL the difference. Is hurting someone for one second the same as hurting someone for 302039493904005930495450694059604596 years? Absolutely not!

If this wasn't the case then people would prefer to stay in hospital for months on end with multiple broken bones than just one... The amount of time you feel the pain for is relevant to how bad the experience is... Man o man, how on earth can you not even see that lol?

What is the wellspring of atrocities and beneficences? Isn't it whether your mind is driven by cruelty or love? Bitterness vs. sweetness? Resentment or acceptance?

I suppose you will do whatever catches your fancy at least some of the time. So will I. We do useful things, don't we, in order to obtain the results of utility, and because we have decided (for some odd reason) that useful things are better than things without any use whatsoever? — Bitter Crank

So are you saying that love,sweetness,acceptance is useful in the sense of utility? I wouldn't disagree about that. Society functions on those sort of principles so that we all get along and don't fuck each other over. But predicating it as a reason to exist? Maaaan, that's a whole different ballgame...

Like I am sure you know, the universe isn't implicitly good or bad. Therefore it makes no difference how you act in your life,that is "objectively". It only matters in how it improves you life in the direction you want it to. For a psychopath, hurting others improves their life so don't assume that kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity are the things that I had better do before i die. Why? well attack this argument coming up in the next paragraph:

It makes no difference if I just sit in my bed for the next 20 years than if I spent it helping people, being kind, loving and creative? Why? Because everyone dies in the end and the experiences are lost forever, everything is meaningless so there is no point guiding anything in any direction. We might as well just die right now. (Obviously there is a flaw in what I just said but you should be the smart one to pick it out, because I can't).

Is your judgement as to whether it is better to do atrocious things or good things affected by whether you have 1 day or an infinity of days to do them? I wouldn't think the time remaining on the clock would make any difference. — Bitter Crank

Oh really? So is hurting someone for one second the same as hurting someone for 302039493904005930495450694059604596 years? assuming they could live that long to feel that excruciating pain.

My point is... TIME MATTERS!

Some people here go on at considerable length about the imposition on beings that don't exist yet of conceiving them and bringing them to birth. without their consent — Bitter Crank

What does this have to do with the OP, or was this a dig at my other thread on people's desires/wishes continuing on after they die? Because in the OP I didnt posit any beings that don't exist...

Seems purely arbitrary. I actually agreed with everything you said in your OP other than this statement; the plague of posting on a philosophy forum: we focus on the negative. So, props on your OP, but...you said "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence", I asked how/why you know that: you said: "because you don't have to live forever in order for you to appreciate beauty". So, basically this sounds like...some kind of fallacy, I'm too rusty on all of them to call it out. But, the simple point I wanted to make was: You made no argument as to why "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence." — Noble Dust

Matters of fact are not fallacious unless you make them. If the appreciation of beauty does depend on eternal existence then that would be a fallacy because RIGHT NOW I am a mortal being and also RIGHT NOW I am appreciating beauty. Perhaps you were thinking of circular reasoning, begging the question, but it isn't.

This does not mean to say that appreciation of beauty can not depend on eternal existence, its just that if it does i know nothing about it because right now I am stuck in some kind of finitude called human existence.

Because you don't have to live forever in order for you to appreciate beauty.

I don't know the mind of all men but... I'm pretty sure that very few people would say — Bitter Crank

You must be living under a rock then. That question is incredibly popular. Just type into google "why live if you are going to die?" and see the immense amount of posts,articles, blogs etc. I have even seen it on this forum quite a bit.

The proper course for you is clear enough, and its the same for everyone else: whatever worthwhile, acts of kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity (and more) you are going to perform, you had better do it while you are here. — Bitter Crank

Why is kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity the prime motive of my life? Tbh all I wanna do is fuck bitches get money... forever...

Regarding Maslow, it is interesting to speculate on the path (or paths) to the pinnacle of "self actualization". Can just about anybody achieve it? Would it require some sort of special education? — Jake Tarragon

Expressing one's creativity, quest for spiritual enlightenment, pursuit of knowledge, and the desire to give to and/or positively transform society are examples of self-actualization. Obviously some are more talented than others, or at least have more insight than others.

The ugly truth is that we have the time and resources to do this now, but we still don't do it. Don't expect that some fairy tail AI will make this possible. — praxis

Very true but we do have pressure that is induced by family friends that make us ought to think we should attend university after school etc. I was saying it would be a more general, slight trend away from labour on to complex disciplines like computer science, physics, chem, biology. Think about, if we didn't need any manual labourers anymore because we had so many robots, what would all the imbeciles do?

Who determined the robot didn't want to harm anyone? does the robot has a sense of self preservation? Is it future goal oriented and if so, how does it moderate between achieving it's goals and not bothering people with it.

You make a caricature out of what morality actually comes down to. — Gooseone

Whether the robot wants to harm or has self preservation is irrelevant, because not wanting to cause harm and seeking self preservation IS NOT dependant on free-will. IT IS dependant on KNOWLEDGE. Like we are taught the golden rule in schools, it does not become our choice not to harm someone but rather fear conditioning from being punished AND combined with (later in life) the rational understanding of the value of not harming others. It has absolutely nothing to do with free will, just fear conditioning and good judgement. That is all morality is. That is why you can't train dogs to act morally and not poop inside, who by the way are apparently all instinct.

Free-will is about desire for outcomes, states of affairs, experience etc. some of which are in the face of morality (which once again is based on learnt paradigms via fear conditioning as well as sound judgement and understanding of knowledge).

Your unconscious mind is a part of who you are, for sure. This includes most of your cognitive habits and abilities as well as the source of most of your "raw" motivations. Harris indeed has been, as you note, influenced by his Buddhist meditation practice in viewing the "self" from the stance of a passive observer who introspects her own states of mind and ponders over the origins of her random "thoughts". This is just about the worst possible stance for inquiring about free agency (or about knowledge, for that matter), which involves active involvement of an agent in the world (including the social world) and not a voluntary retreat from it.

Freedom is not to be found in the passive contemplation of one's own navel. The observer and the actor aren't two different entities. They are two different stances taken up alternatively (and oftentimes simultaneously within the normal flow of life) by the very same embodied human being. Also, the observer no more than the actor can be absolved from responsibility for what she comes to believe since she can reflect critically about the deliveries of her senses and memory. Harris often seems to think that the role of the epistemic "observer" (which he equates with the "self") is limited to her passively witnessing random thoughts popping up in her conscious mind as a result of automatic "free" association. — Pierre-Normand

Incase you haven't missed it, it can't be claimed to be who you are because YOU have no OWNERSHIP over it. I mean, sure you can influence it's decisions but you can influence your girlfriend/boyfriends decisions too, does that mean that they are part of who you are? I think not, just a part of your life.

And so by definition, anything that you are unaware of and can not control is therefore not you. Like your heart, or your cells, they form part of your body but they are not you. All YOU are is an awareness, an observer riding around in a body that you so naively and arrogantly call your own. The driver of the car is not the car, remember that.

P.S. Meditation is perhaps the clearest sense of attaining insight on the matter as self-observation is primary. You can't claim physical activity anymore valuable in determining free will over self-observation. Self-observation is primary and comes before decision making, that's why babies need to learn to understand consciousness before they can make decisions. In anycase, it has already been observed by neurological studies that the unconscious mind makes the decisions.

And these testaments are derived through introspection and a direct 1st person experience.
See the contradiciton? How you can recall an experience of "no self" without a self to reflect back on to? — JupiterJess

I guess that's really just a problem with semantics. What the realization of no self is, is that the "self" you once thought you were basically isn't there at all. So people just call it "no self", when in actuality there is still an experience there which you could aptly call a self or more appropriately "higher self".

In simpler terms, the parameters of which you once defined yourself have been shown to you to be illusory but yet you still exist and are still aware of life (not you but SOMETHING is still aware of life, call it the observer).

So there is no contradiction, just the same term being thrown around twice to make it looks so.

If we (globally) agree to make a value judgement and decide that morality is worth keeping, we expect people to be able to discern between right and wrong to a degree, very clear guidelines are set in judicial systems across the world and things become more cloudy in social interactions yet we have peer pressure, culture, valuing the opinion of those we relate to, etc. The main thing most would agree on is that humans have the right of self-determination to a degree we don't let that right detract upon that same right we grant others.

To falsify "Free will is an illusion" you'd have to set up a practical exam for moral competence. We tend to go by the concept of innocent until proven guilty and I guess / hope most of us raise our children to be competent to engage the world socially (among other things), the proof expected here is in the pudding and I would feel it violates our right of self-determination to expect more in an empirical sense. Again we have judicial systems to impose the outer limits.

This is not to say that the incentives to behave better in the future should never be subject to criticism, just that anyone who claims free will doesn't exist yet still desires to keep some form of morality could easily start to suffer from trust issues ...unless they arrogantly rationalize their way out of it. — Gooseone

I don't see how knowledge of right/wrong is going to disprove free will. Think about a counter-example of a determined robot who doesn't want to harm anyone... they sure would pass your practical moral competence exam wouldn't they? Yet they are still a robot.

Yep, morality still exists even without free-will.

Harris is painting himself into a corner here. In his analogy, Atlantis stands for the crudest from of "contra-causal" libertarianism, which very few philosophers endorse; while Sicily stands for compatibilism, which a majority of philosophers endorse in one form of another. Harris then complains that it's as if Dennett were accusing him of denying the existence of Sicily. But arguing that compatibilism is incoherent and not worthy of any serious consideration also is something that Harris attempts to do in his book. So, in the analogy, it's as if Harris was arguing that there really isn't any such place as Sicily and that it is a mythical place as well. Dennett complaint therefore is on target. — Pierre-Normand

Ok cool thanks for breaking down that analogy further. So, what does Dennett have to say about unconscious choices dominating our free-will? Harris' has come from a background in buddhist meditation where it is observed through meditative practices that your sense of identity is basically an illusion. Tie this in with the neurological findings of unconscious decision making and it looks pretty solid, so how is Dennet refuting these findings with compatibilism?

Well, from my perspective it seems that the only way would be to say that you ARE your unconscious mind which makes decisions. Which, correct me if I am wrong, Dennett does. Well if you ARE your unconscious mind then why can't you account for why you chose one decision over another? Or why can't you just fall asleep at anytime in one second as you wish? This does not mean to say that people's actions shouldn't go unpunished or that they are not to blame, just that the observer is not to blame. Because the observer and the actor are somewhat segregated.

Short from showing that free will isn't an illusion, you can show that Harris's argument are unsound, inconsistent, and also that his conception of free will is some sort of a strawman. Daniel Dennett has written a devastating review of Harris's Free Will. Although I don't endorse fully Dennett's own brand of compatibilism, myself, I think his view is much more sensible and sophisticate than Harris's. And also, he is fairly successful in pointing out the most glaring flaws in Harris's arguments. — Pierre-Normand

Yeah, of which Harris' has replied and showed how Dennett has misunderstood and misconstrued his statements by equivocation. This is a great one:

[

From when I read Sam Harris' book Free Will it seemed that the only way free will could be proven is for the owner of the choices to account for why he made them (of which he can never do), mostly because a large majority of our decisions are made by the unconscious mind, in fact so much that experiments have found decisions made 0.4 milliseconds before we become aware of them and can be predicted up and over 7 seconds before we can make them. Also, proving whether the universe (and therefore human brains) are deterministic is problematic in physics, down at the quantum level things are probabilistic but how things behave at that level is also different to process in the macro world in that one event can cause another etc. and likewise in the brain, one thought pattern can cascade in to another (as seen in most anxiety disorders). But just because the universe isn't deterministic doesn't mean our brain aren't dictated by the unconscious mind of which we have the compelling experience that those decisions are made by us and that somehow we control or ARE our unconscious mind, when the reality is far that at all.

There's no such thing as "nihilist thinking", it's just thinking with an open-mind and only believing what you know is true. Then everything you know is true all fits neatly into place with no contradictions. Nihilism is the psychological effect. — daldai

Have you tried psychedelics at low & high doses? I feel it is well established in the psychonaut community that meaning can only be found beyond the reaches of reason, the very reason you use to establish yourself as "a nihilist". I don't care what you say you are or how you arrive at that conclusion because what you are doing is using terms/concepts to infer truth/probability about yourself or states of affairs in the world. These terms/concepts are inherently limited in a simultaneously linked formation with the limitations of the human brain, therefore there is no way to know for certain what concepts in themselves are or what they say about you or the world. This all becomes directly apparent on usually higher doses of psychedelics, but with some lower doses too. From aldous huxley's famous novel:

"To others again is revealed the glory, the infinite value and meaningfulness of naked existence, of the given, unconceptualized event. In the final stage of egolessness there is an "obscure knowledge" that All is in all - that All is actually each"

"Red books, like rubies; emerald books; books bound in white jade; books of agate; of aquamarine, of yellow topaz; lapis lazuli books whose color was so intense, so intrinsically meaningful, that they seemed to be on the point of leaving the shelves to thrust themselves more insistently on my attention"

Of course, from reading this. You seem like a stubborn type who would refuse this so that he can cherish the vicious cycle he likes to think he is in so that he can point the blame outwards away from himself without actually taking the courage to see outside of his pathetically confined thoughts.

If you jettison the third person point of view then you jettison the need of ethics altogether so there is not point in asking whether or not it's ethical. Who gives a fuck about ethics if only you exist (and the sexy corpse, with its spirit watching from the periphery.) — Nils Loc

that's a very good point Nils Loc. I guess it comes back to what I was saying earlier about their intention carrying forward. If everyone died on the planet right now except for you, then there would still be a system of ethics in place so long as you uphold it in your mind. So ethics exists in the mind alone without the need for other humans. You could live in a remote island and feel the need not to hurt any other creatures and just live off coconuts. Take away the other creatures and your point stands up to reason as there would be no interaction with "another" for the opportunity for good and bad to take place.

Let's pretend you have an opportunity open without the baggage of petty anti-necrophilia moralists.

What else guides your own decision to fuck corpses? Do you personally feel a compulsion to fuck dead people? — Nils Loc

Haha, I guess it isn't about the desire to fuck dead meat, but more an example for possible investigation in trying to see whether intention is somehow exterior to oneself. How? Well because you are a function of the universe, and because you are that... why then one process in time is linked to another time, no matter how distant. So my great grandmother wouldn't want any of her descendants to cheat on their girlfriends/boyfriends, and her intention still exists... as a product of HAVING EXISTED on the timeline of human existence/universal absolute time.

I'm not feeling too well — TheMadFool

Nor am I... If you by chance happen to die from this sickness, can I have sex with your body? :D :P

It doesn't follow that because a corpse has no intent that it is therefore ethical to engage in necrophilia. There are always third parties standing by to be offened, to penalize you, to signal to others the consequence of such acts and to shape social standards — Nils Loc

I thought we uncovered that what society deems appropriate or decent doesn't always hold ground in terms of the societies reasoning behind it.

We have clearly just seen that without a person to object then there once alive body becomes just a piece of flesh "objectively", REGARDLESS of what third parties standing by think or are waiting to do.

You know, it is almost as if society has absolutely no reasonable grounds for dismissing necrophilia as unethical but currently just do it out of pure distaste. Now if society were to take this standpoint on other matters... like, say banning the driving of cars because they think cars have consciousness. In this analogy, they have no grounds to say that cars are conscious but yet do so purely because of distaste for modern automobiles and there are always third parties standing by to be offended, to penalize, to signal to others the consequence of driving such despicable conscious cars.

That aside, I don't think it's necessary for any metaphysical continuation, á la soul, to legitimize the right of a dead person over the body. — TheMadFool

What right? I thought you just said there were no rights? :D "So, it seems quite natural to infer that death should render all rights null and void."

You're right that was interesting. But how is some 20th century african chicks immortal cancer cells relevant here? A person's mutated cells don't really count as that person's will do they? I was meaning intentionality carried forward through metaphysics of some kind, or a collective unconscious awareness of that intention in to which all humans form a part. Now as I said in the post above, if you deny that such a thing exist then necrophilia must be ethical.

If i was to have sex with a piece of fruit, would that be unethical?

But what a person will says on paper is different from an actual will that exists after death metaphysically or at least abstractly somehow in the world. If I can infer from your ludacris suggestions about ghosts that you are insinuating it is completely absurd to think that a person's will goes beyond their death APART from that in their legal documents, then you sir have indirectly just suggested that necrophilia is an ethical act. Now of course it is an unlawful act, but unlawful acts don't necessitate that they be unethical. For a dead person's body would be just as inanimate and unconscious as the rocks or the ocean water or the clouds or a piece of fruit. If i was to have sex with a piece of fruit, would that be unethical?

Whether or not we should respect the wishes of the deceased depends upon the law and culturally relative (normative) treatments for the deceased. — Nils Loc

I am not concerned about law or culturally appropriate treatments unless they have something to say upon the reasoning for thinking or not thinking a person's will continues past their death. In current culture it looks like people are in two minds simultaneously about it, as in, they do and do not have a will past their death.

A dead person has no intent really. It all comes down on how it affects the living who have to manage the deceased. — Nils Loc

You say a dead person has no intent but you offer no reasons as to why that is, even despite the original post being about that specifically. Why has a dead person no intent? And like I asked in my OP does a person intent not carry forward past their death?

That is similar to how we dress up bodies for an open casket funeral, but we aren't really analysing the thread subject now are we? Unless you are trying to say that because other cultures do it, it their rights may continue past death... but I don't think you are doing that.

Interesting Werner Herzog video tho thanks, however unrelated it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OL5bUHGsY

No, they're clearly not the same thing, and analogous (this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it?), and you acknowledge this yourself in the same post you are suggesting that they're analogous in. I don't really want to just try to explain everything I say, so if people are just going to respond to me to be confrontational, or for whatever reason, and don't really show any grasp of it, I don't feel compelled to respond. — Wosret

Your reply didn't address anything i said but just refuted it and said it is against common sense. Sorry Worset, not very good argumentation here mate.

I was expecting you to address how morals are not the same as knowledge in the way we come to understand and engage with it and how they are not the same in that respect of how we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals. Also how by using the verb "doing", as in, "Are we not doing the same with our morals?", it means to say... THE PROCESS by which we gain knowledge is the same as THE PROCESS by which we understand morality and does not mean to refer to an objective morality which you mistakenly thought.

? Is morality like physical? Made of parts, and facts that exist externally to agents, and can be laboriously quantified and mapped? Morality is analogous to the physical environment? — Wosret

No, just in the way we come to understand and engage with it. In that respect we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals.

I tried to make this explicit in the first sentence by using the verb "doing" in "Are we not doing the same with our morals?"

Nothing like that when it comes to morality. What the good is, and how to live one's life. Find anyone that doesn't suck, or says anything interesting that isn't just pointing at tradition, while claiming to be near/entirely perfected in character? — Wosret

Are we not doing the same with our morals? The detailed particular factual information about moral at all is surely overwhelmingly complex and particular, that no one's head could contain it. The idea is that morals are made of general principles, which we can gain access to through correlating actions with higher and higher levels of abstraction.

I see our moral dilemmas as secondary to our problems of epistemology and ontology. For you can't have morals without a human brain and if you have a human brain then you have some form of epistemology/ontology going on. In fact the definitions we use to think about morals stem from knowledge... but alas we are in agreement about the fact that people think they have a clue when they don't. a security blanket.