Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’.
— Possibility

That's begging the question though. If war contributes greatly to suffering, is it "stopping evil"? — Echarmion

No - and yet ‘stopping evil’ is so often presented as a reason to go to war, or to hate, isolate, exclude, ignore, or otherwise act in a way that may cause suffering - isn’t it? The point is, we assume that because our intention is to ‘stop evil’, that we are doing something ‘good’ by definition. It’s usually only after the fact that we acknowledge it wasn’t good, after all.

:up:

If every event in the universe is caused either by past events OR by chance, we can only 'observe' both things that happen around us AND our own -or our brain's computing architecture's- reactions to them.
There is no room for choice or 'free will'.

We are not aware of any physical phenomenon that could give space to a different form of causation.

Can anyone even conceive a theoretical model where such thing, an event that's caused by something other than a past event or randomness, is possible? — philsterr

When you take an umbrella as you leave the house, are the causal conditions of that event entirely in the past, or is an awareness of - and significance attributed to - potential (future) events also informing your will (the faculty by which one determines and initiates action)?

The way I see it, the mind gives ‘space’ to a different (atemporal) form of causation.

Well put :clap:

2. Gratuitous evils should be stopped if they emit a positive good.
3. There is no evidence that stopping a gratuitous evil emits a positive good.
— LizNH

Stopping a gratuitous evil "emits" a good by definition. — Echarmion

Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’.

I cannot see how humanity could have developed to the point we’ve reached today without sprouting from a natural destructive inclination. Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? Or if you think it was an admixture which way would you say we leaned more? — I like sushi

That we have evolved from an ancestry with destructive, combative or conflict-avoiding inclinations seems obvious. That we have evolved with the potential to see through our destructive tendencies and heed a deeper, more fundamental tendency to cooperate (to be aware, connect and collaborate) is arguable.

I would definitely say that we have learned more from being aware, connected and collaborative than from being destructive (ignoring, isolating and excluding). In fact, I would argue that being aware, connected and collaborative is the ONLY way to learn - or to evolve, for that matter.

Wilful Ignorance, apathy and absolutism are forms of pure evil in my eyes. — Mark Dennis

Yes, this behaviour can be destructive, but I wouldn’t call it ‘pure evil’ - I would think that’s a form of absolutism. In my opinion, if our response to ‘pure evil’ is to fight it - to exclude, isolate or ignore it - then we cannot hope to reduce its impact on the world.

Wilful ignorance, apathy and absolutism are examples of fear manifesting as what we would call ‘evil’. Why would one ignore something that should be obvious? Because to acknowledge it is to face information about the world that requires effort, attention or adjustment (ie. energy) on their part in order to integrate it into their reality.

Sometimes what is required is simply to adjust one’s course, to halt momentum or change direction in a way that accomodates the new information. Other times, what we need to change is our whole perception of reality, which can not only be painful and humiliating, but involve a loss of what we value in our current perspective, and remind us of how much information we are still lacking about our world.

In refusing to initiate the required action, we show our fear - and then attempt to conceal it by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything in our world that draws attention to this information. If the information continues to present before us, and we continue to resist, that resistance can lead us to initiate acts of hatred, violence, oppression or despair - and then we are manifesting ‘evil’.

How do you answer people who would say this is incorrect and that there is no good and evil? Is this black and white thinking or just identifying that black and white exist in a colour/morality spectrum? — Mark Dennis

To be honest, I’d say they’re probably right - especially if they’re arguing against the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as described by @leo.

There’s a reason why I put ‘evil’ in scare quotes: I don’t believe what we commonly refer to as ‘evil’ is what we think it is.

I don’t agree that the universe is ‘a fight between good and evil’ - they don’t exist as external forces that we either align with or fight against. They’re a verbal convenience that enable us to talk about morality, to structure the value of our behaviour in relation to each other. Like ‘space’, they’re concepts: ideas, not entities. And the more we strive to understand these concepts, the less we need to fight.

In my view, actions of ignorance, isolation and exclusion at the sub-atomic level are responsible for the diversity of the universe - they’re the reason we have the different elements and the different species of plants and animals, the ‘forces of nature’, etc. It is where opportunities for interaction, for increased awareness, connection and collaboration have been met with a negative ‘response’ that distinguishes between, say, a hydrogen and a helium atom. That’s not ‘evil’ as we commonly understand it.

So how did ignorance, isolation and exclusion become this ‘evil’ we need to combat?

When I described ‘the most courageous’, who continue to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, I’m talking about life - and, more specifically, about humanity. This is what we’ve evolved to do best, what we’re physically and mentally built to do - not to survive as such.

But we’re still made up of elements and systems that have their limitations - that ignore, isolate and exclude in their own way, like everything else in the universe. We need to be aware of these limitations, and find ways to connect anyway and to collaborate with these systems and elements where they’re at: to work around and with their resistance.

It is when we add to that resistance, when we contribute to the ignorance, isolation and exclusion and even encourage it in others, when we act on this fear and then build on it to conceal it, that we manifest ‘evil’. In the end, it’s just fear - and if we treat it as such, rather than attack it as ‘evil’, then we can work around and with this ignorance, isolation and exclusion in others as well as in ourselves.

Good really exists and Evil really exist, and they manifest in various ways. They manifest through our will and what we believe and what we experience. It is a struggle between the two. — leo

Will is that which determines and initiates action, based on what is believed and what is experienced. ‘Good’ manifests when the actions initiated increase awareness, connection and collaboration. ‘Evil’ manifests whenever these actions increase ignorance, isolation and exclusion - and is concealed by further ignorance, isolation and exclusion...

In my view, this ‘evil’ is simply a manifestation of fear: a ‘no’ answer to the opportunities for awareness, connection and collaboration that present themselves with every interaction with the world. Because with each increase in awareness, connection and collaboration comes the painful, humiliating, overwhelming and temporary reality that is our existence. And it can be enough to make anyone but the most courageous run screaming for the hills or simply give up - ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that reveals this suffering in our experience.

Strangely enough, the only way to effectively alleviate the current experiences of pain, humility, loss and lack is to continually increase awareness, connection and collaboration - which then leads us to new experiences of pain, humility, loss and lack...

The trick is to understand the difference between suffering and evil, and to recognise that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ come down to the actions we initiate in every interaction with the world, despite the inevitable experiences of suffering.

That leads you to something as useless as "just do it" or worse, "do." — Artemis

Not if you want it to ensure ethical behaviour in every instance when followed.

Why should there be a limit? — Artemis

Because we’re talking about underlying ethical principles, not specific rules. I acknowledge that rule, law and principle are often employed as interchangeable terms for rhetorical effect, but the distinction is one of specificity.

While, sure, the kitten principle is a more specific version of "do no harm," that doesn't mean it's not a principle. Just like the law generally prohibits theft, but it also has more specific rules about specific kinds of theft. — Artemis

Yes, it does mean it’s not a principle. If it is a more specific version, then it is neither fundamental, nor can it serve as a foundation for a system of behaviour. ‘Do not steal’ is a statement of law referring to an ethical principle for cohabitation that values property ownership - the foundation from which specific rules regarding theft are derived.

A rule is referred to as a ‘principle’ only in reference to a specific area of activity. ‘Don’t drown kittens’ could be described as an ethical ‘principle’ only in specific relation to being in possession of kittens near water.

It may seem like I’m being pedantic here, but it’s important to make the distinction between rule, law and principle when we’re talking about the possible existence of ‘objective’ or ‘universal’ underlying ethical principles. This is as broad as one can get in terms of behaviour, so any suggestion of ethical principles in this sense must have an effect on behaviour in the broadest application.

If there is a more fundamental or general version of the so-called ‘principle’, or if adhering to it still allows unethical behaviour, then what you have is not a principle in this context, but a specific law or rule that derives from a principle.

I asked before and you evaded the question, but I'll ask again: how broad or narrow does an ethical principle have to be to fit your definition thereof? — Artemis

As broad as you can make it.

Principle: ‘a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.’

‘Do no harm’ is a common statement of ethical principle in the health profession. I personally don’t find it adequate on its own (some people do), but in concert with other ‘principles’ such as autonomy, fidelity, veracity, etc, they seem to suffice for behaviour within the profession, at least.

If you consider ‘don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ to serve as a foundation for a system of behaviour, even as one of a set of principles, just how many different principles do you think there are?

Ethics and math share this striking resemblance: it's of equal importance to figure out when something is wrong as it is to figure out when something is right. — Artemis

There is something here that you seem to be overlooking: 2+2=4 is NOT a mathematical principle. So as ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ as the statement may be in itself, it is not a principle but a specific example of the principle of addition, and is inadequate as a statement of the principle to which it refers - even though it is more useful than the statement ‘two plus two does not equal five’.

Likewise, as ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ as the statement ‘don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is in itself, it is only a specific example of a broader ethical principle. As a statement of whatever ethical principle you think it describes, it is not only inadequate, but is less useful than a positive statement in describing that principle.

I hope I have made my argument a little clearer.

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about? — Artemis

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises?

As for the kittens, you still haven't disproven the wrongness of drowning kittens in burlap sacks. All you're saying is that it can't be the only principle you follow. It's not exhaustive in scope. But neither is 2+2=4. — Artemis

I don’t have to disprove it - I agree with it as an instruction, but it’s not an ethical principle. An ethical principle is a foundation thought or idea that makes an ethical standard correct. Adhering to an ethical principle should provide sufficient guidelines to act correctly. All this statement does is prevent a specific action, while giving no indication of what a correct action would be in the situation.

I’m not saying it needs to be exhaustive in scope, and I acknowledge that ‘inaccurate’ is not the best term to describe why the statement is not an ethical principle. The statement ‘Don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is inadequate as an ethical principle. If you asked me what two plus two is, and I gave the answer ‘two plus two is NOT five’, the statement would be correct in itself, but its function as a statement of what two plus two is would be inadequate. Likewise with the statement I’m questioning above.

Thanks for the reference text. I’m thinking this may support what I have recently been arguing with Gnostic Christian Bishop and Coben here.

So "potentiality" denotes any necessary existing attributes present & unique to X (omnipotent being), correct? — Swan

I can’t say I agree with that interpretation. I don’t believe an ‘omnipotent being’ exists to present unique attributes, let alone necessary ones.

I disagree. Any thing 'possible' is not just 'possible' because we imagined them to be so. Any thing 'possible' is 'all things possible.' — Swan

You can’t clarify the meaning of a term by applying the term.

Even if you have to cause harm to an adult to stop them killing a child? Or a dog attempting to kill a baby or a kitten? — Mark Dennis

It would be rare that such an action would suddenly be my only option, and to find myself in such a position would suggest (to me) that I had chosen not to be aware, to connect or collaborate at some earlier point. Any harm that I initiate is my responsibility - the adult is responsible for their actions towards the child, but not for my actions towards them. I may very well choose to cause harm in these situations, but the adult or the dog are not to blame for that harm, and my actions are not justified by ‘objective’ ethical principles, even if they are deemed ‘justified’ by law or by anyone else.

Possible: anything we can imagine happening
Potential: anything that can happen
Probable: anything that is likely to happen

Most discussions like this fail to make the distinction between potentiality and possibility. To actually do something, one needs to be aware (although not necessarily conscious of that awareness) that the something can be done.

There are plenty of things we can think of that we say cannot be done, because we are unaware of any potential for it to be done. We often say these are ‘impossible’ - but sometimes what we once thought impossible we soon discover to be possible. So in reality it was always possible, but we were only unaware of the potential.

One doesn’t have to do anything to be considered omnipotent - it only requires the potential. And you can only prove potential after the fact, so one cannot actually be omnipotent until everything is already achieved. So the concept of an ‘omnipotent being’ is a subjective perception at best, and in my view can only refer to the potential of the unfolding universe itself, of which we are a part.

So let’s build a thought experiment; You are standing atop a cliff overlooking the bay. You have two remote detonators in your hand. One attached to a human swimming in the bay and the other to a shark swimming a short distance away and the detonators connect to explosives on each. Next to you on the cliff is someone else with the exact same setup and are connected to the same shark and human swimming in the bay.

This person tells you, “that if the shark attacks the human they will press the detonator attached to the shark, killing it. but not if you press the detonator for the human and kill them first or you could blow up the shark first and save the human.

So, if you do nothing then both the shark and the human will die. If you make a choice between the two only one will die. What do you do?

Is your answer going to be based on the identity of the individual human if they can be known or the species of shark if it can be known? What if it is an endangered species of shark and the human a serial killer? What if it’s a prolific shark species and a child? If we are taking into account all of these factors then we are morally considering all parties and are engaging in biocentrism no matter how we choose to act. If however we make it humans vs nature and we save the human every time then we are engaging in anthropocentrism — Mark Dennis

What I would do is attempt to convince the other person not to press any detonator at all - that punishing the shark would not bring the human back, and so would be a pointless act of hate towards an animal that is unaware of how important that human is to either of us. If the shark attacks the human, or the person next to me blows up the shark, these are not actions that I choose to initiate, and seeking to prevent harm by causing harm is not justifiable in my book.

If he could do anything at all - than how hasn't he done anything at all? — Swan

My point was that if you had a clear understanding of how X does things, of what is involved in the doing, then you could determine whether or not such a thing was done or could be done, regardless of whether you were aware that it has been done.

But we don’t have any idea how X would do anything at all, let alone do things that we are unaware of. All we can do is assume based on what we are aware of that has been done, and how we might do things that we are unaware of being done.

FWIW, I don’t think X exists either, but I do think the potential to do anything at all exists. It’s just not a being.

The problem I see with this approach is that, even if we profess to care about everything, our value judgements are necessarily anthropocentric. There is no way for us to actually judge the interests of a bacteria, and hence decide what counts as harm to then. What we'd actually do if we tried is to anthropomorphise the bacteria and assume it has human interests. This results not in a relationship of moral subjects, but in a kind of paternalism, where humans decide what they feel comfortable doing. — Echarmion

I would argue that they are not necessarily anthropocentric - it’s a preference that we would argue is justified. And we can approach an understanding of the general interests of bacteria, and of what counts as harm to them. Microbiologists do this as a matter of course. The difference is that there is a tendency to evaluate harm for bacteria as ‘good’ for humans - although probiotics is certainly changing that view to some extent.

But knowledge about the outside appearance of a (supposed) subject doesn't tell us anything about their internal perspective. Only with other humans can we confidently make conclusions about their internal perspective based on their external behaviour, and even that is fraught with errors (like the fundamental attribution error).

And technically, our understanding of other human's internal perspective is fake, too, since what we're actually doing is imagining ourselves in their shoes. This works well enough for people we share a lot of common cultural ground with, and with very basic emotions. But Modeling the internal perspective of a chimpanzee is going to be a lot less accurate, to say nothing of housecats, fish or bacteria. — Echarmion

Knowledge about how potential energy appears to behave doesn’t tell us anything about potential energy, either - but we make predictions and conclusions based on this behaviour anyway, and it turns out to be far less error-prone than human behaviour. I would argue that animals are somewhere between these two in terms of potential for error.

Our understanding of other human’s internal perspective isn’t ‘fake’ simply because we use our imagination. I’ve already explained why assuming the causal conditions behind human behaviour is prone to error. I disagree that it’s going to be less accurate for simpler organisms. It’s just that we don’t tend to care enough to find out.

You think it's okay to drown kittens??? :scream: — Artemis

I was waiting for that - it’s not what I’m saying at all, and I think you’re aware of that.

The statement ‘Don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ doesn’t say it’s not okay to drown kittens. Adhering to it as an ethical principle will prevent a particular behaviour, but the statement itself provides no information as to the rightness or wrongness of drowning kittens in general. Or drowning anyone. Or how we should treat kittens. So unless you also add quite a few more do and don’t statements, you won’t even come close to a faithful reflection of the ethical principles that govern behaviour in relation to drowning, kittens or burlap sacks. It’s only when a person actually drowns kittens in a burlap sack that we can apply the statement. If they drown kittens in a plastic bag, or even if they think about drowning kittens, the statement has no practical use in clarifying ‘good’ behaviour.

Allow me to suggest an alternative:

‘Increase awareness, connection and collaboration.’

This statement challenges much of what we consider to be ethical behaviour. Many people would reject this as a comprehensive statement of ethical principles, because it does nothing to protect the agent from pain, humiliation, lack or loss. To fully embrace this as an ethical principle is to face our fears - to recognise that we cannot ensure our survival, safety or stability without compromising our moral progress, and vice versa.

It’s not a perfect statement, but for me it is the closest I think we can come to an objective ethical principle.

Doesn't matter. Your definition of the word "inaccurate" should be applicable in both cases if it is to be... accurate (by both of our definitions of accuracy, mind you). — Artemis

I disagree. 2+2=4 is correct in all details, exact. The statement ‘Don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is not a faithful representation of an underlying ethical principle - which is what you are claiming the statement to be. As a specific command, it can be considered correct in all details and exact.

By your logic: 2+2=4 is inaccurate because it does not tell us that 3+5=8. — Artemis

2+2=4 is not an ethical principle, and doesn’t claim to be.

I think your definition of inaccurate is inaccurate. The wrongness of burlap sack drowning does not preclude the wrongness of plastic bag drowning. The wrongness of drowning does not preclude the rightness of giving them to a better home (though, please, don't carry kittens around in any kind of sack, even if you're giving them to a good home---that's still mean :( — Artemis

Exactly - as a statement of underlying ethical principles governing the behaviour, ‘don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is inaccurate, due to its incompleteness. If you were trying to prevent someone from doing the wrong thing to a bunch of kittens, could you change the wording of the statement to ensure that when they do act with respect to kittens, they won’t end up doing something wrong anyway, even if they follow this ethical principle precisely as stated?

Let’s look at the Decalogue as an example: 10 do or don’t statements that were intended as ethical principles. And yet the moment they were employed as such, they required clarification, qualification and interpretation in practice, which then proceeded to fill several books of Law. The ethical principles behind the statements may have been understood at the time, but the statements themselves are inaccurate accounts of those underlying ethical principles.

The point I’m trying to make is that we can discuss ethical principles all day, and even approach an agreement ‘in principle’ on how we should behave towards one another in particular circumstances. But I don’t believe there are any written statements, maxims or codes that would accurately communicate these ethical principles to cover ALL possible circumstances.

Yet if it came down to choosing between a human life and, say, a shark, then under what circumstances might the shark be the priority?

We value ‘non human parts of the biosphere’, but only insofar as they are of benefit to human survival, stability, security, etc. As I’ve said before - we need to be honest about the limits of our ‘symbiosis’.

Now we arrive at moral ecology which is the view that we have to manage our collective moral views as we would an ecosystem. There is some disagreement on moral ecology though, some think all views need to be represented and maintained while others (myself included) feel certain maladaptive and destructive moral views will always contribute to a negative moral judgement on humanity as a whole and don’t contribute to our survival, stability, security or moral progress. — Mark Dennis

Would you agree that ‘our survival, stability, security and moral progress’ constitutes an anthropocentric value system, rather than an attempt to approach an ‘objective good’?

I don't really understand why something like "don't drown kittens in a burlap sack" would be either inaccurate or motivated by fear.

And an ethics where all maxims/codes/whatever you want to call them are inaccurate is not really an ethics per se. I'm not saying it's an indefensible position on that basis, just that it doesn't count as an ethics. Like atheism is not a form of theism. — Artemis

That’s a specific statement about very specific behaviour, that doesn’t even come close to an ethical principle. Why is it bad to drown kittens in a burlap sack? Does that make it okay to drown kittens in a plastic bag instead? What if I just put the kittens in the sack and give it someone else - I’m not doing anything wrong then, am I?

This is what I mean by inaccurate. If that statement is an ethical principle, then it’s a highly inaccurate account of the principle, isn’t it? Is there a statement of ethical principle, either positive or negative, that doesn’t require further explanation in terms of what is or is not acceptable?

Wouldn't any positive statement imply a negative one? — Artemis

Only if you’re looking for one - ie. if you’re motivated by fear.

Any statement of ethical principle is inaccurate, whether it’s positive or negative.

I'd still have an issue with personally adopting a moral system that is entirely outcome oriented like that though. — Echarmion

Okay - how is it entirely outcome oriented, and what is the issue?

The way I see it, the common issue is fear, but most people are loathe to admit this about themselves - that they’re afraid and overwhelmed at the responsibility. And the ‘outcome’ is entirely open-ended, as far as I can see.

Sure, Trump's tweets and the bible are evidence. Not good evidence, but evidence nonetheless. We can say that a report is an expression of subjective experience. But subjective experience does indicate objective events, on average. — Echarmion

Not evidence of an event (certainly not of an objective event), but of an experience. ‘On average’ is hardly reliable as evidence.

I base a lot of my knowledge/predictions on things people have said, because a report of an event is evidence the event happened. — Echarmion

Like the bible? Like Trump’s tweets?

A report of an event is an expression of subjective experience.

Without a clear grounding of the moral significance of the future, this could be used to justify all manner of measures, including fairly draconian restrictions. This seems to reduce everyone to cogs in a machine, forced by posterity to provide a more of less specific outcome. — Echarmion

I understand these reservations. But I’m not advocating authoritative measures. I don’t see ethics as something dictated or enforced from above, nor from the future. We can’t control the actions of others - we can only have an effect on the world by increasing our own awareness, connection and collaboration.

I am not really sure what you're proposing here. Obviously all my information is restricted to my perspective. How could it be any other way? — Echarmion

It’s not as obvious as you seem to think. A good deal of what we learn about the world as human beings is from the perspective of others - even something as simple as a child being told ‘don’t touch that oven because it’s hot’. These words provide new information about the system based on their relationship to the person speaking and the words they’re using, rather than to the oven itself or any direct experience of touching the oven. An actual experience of touching the oven that would directly provide such information may have been from the perspective of the person speaking, or from their parents, or the information may have been a result of inductive reasoning on the part of the person speaking (or their parents), based on their observations. The point is that the experiential source of the information obtained is not the child’s direct perspective.

The same thing occurs, for example, in the use of sentinel species such as canaries in coalmines, or when we observe from someone’s facial expression that a particular person has just walked into the room. We don’t need to directly interact with something in order to obtain relevant information about it. We just need to understand and value/trust the relational structures that provide that information.

The point is that we can and do obtain information from other perspectives, from interacting with someone or something that interacts with something else (and so on) - when we have sufficient information from the result of past interactions to confidently rely on how we’ve mapped the causal structures. So when I suggest that a microbiologist, for example, has the capacity to understand the universe from the ‘perspective’ of a bacteria - at least to some small extent in their imagination (based on information obtained as a result of many past interactions with the same or similar bacteria) - that’s not as ridiculous as it might sound initially. They may even come to admire the behaviour of bacteria, or to align their value structures in some respects.

I wonder if you have been either a victim or a perpetrator in relation to this victim compensation system. There may not be many more than in other systems who would agree with your assessment that it ‘seems to work fine’.

The point of North’s thought exercise was to illustrate that a victim compensation system, while it may have some success, like all other ‘crime and punishment’ morality systems in effect, is not the solution - it does not ‘work’ in isolation, and is just as prone to corruption as any other.

You’ve demonstrated that the system ‘seems to work fine’ in tandem with both incarceration and forgiveness. Remove those options, and I dare say that the system won’t work so well.

Perhaps we can take punishment to be a stop-gap measure; an inconvenient truth we must live with until we comprehend the truth about morality if that is even possible. — TheMadFool

I’m with you on this point. I think morality as a set of ‘don’t do this or else’ laws or even as a ‘bill of rights’ will always be flawed.

But eradicating the fear-based logic from our view of morality is easier said than done - it runs deep, and conceals itself in our highest values: survival, civilisation, humanity, etc. Beyond these values is a more ‘objective’ view of morality, if we have the courage to seek it.

Have you read 84K by Claire North?

Yes this is very much a key part of my point. Even something as "natural-seeming" as procreation may be just culturally-derived but individually chosen preferences. — schopenhauer1

The capacity renders ALL ‘natural-seeming’ preferences as individually chosen, including to eat or drink, to have sex, to withstand a certain temperature, to breath...

Evidence that the majority of human beings prefer survival to death at any one moment may lead to the evaluative term ‘natural’, but it doesn’t preclude the fact that it can be individually chosen - or not. There are many elderly who reach a stage when they would prefer death and, given the opportunity to actualise their choice, do take that option. To refer to this preference as ‘unnatural’ is to disregard their choice and the reality of their subjective experience.

I always thought that ethics was not defined and it is undefineable. Because it is societal indoctrination, which does not even stick with everyone, and it can hugely differ from society to society, as it is culture-dependent. So how do you prepare to defend a thesis about something undefinable and undefendable?
— god must be atheist

Most people who do defend and define ethics just outright don't buy your initial premises.

Something is only then indoctrination when critical thinking is not allowed.

The answer to the problem of different cultural ethical norms is simply that different cultures are (or were at some point in history) wrong about different things.

And anywhere in the world you find the same underlying principles to ethics: don't cause unnecessary suffering, for example. — Artemis

The way I see it, the idea that there is an objective or universal sense of ethical principles is sound. That such principles can be stated, however, is inaccurate. A stated or defined ethical principle is going to be wrong about something from some perspective of the universe. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to approach a universal sense of ethics. But I don’t think it comes down to ‘DON’T’ statements, to be honest.

I agree with the epistemological stance here, but it's not just about whether or not we can reasonably predict future harm to future people. It's about what these future people are supposed to be. Moral rules concern the interactions between moral subjects. The problem I see is that future people aren't subjects at all. They're merely imaginations. Reasonable ones, sure, but that doesn't make them persons. — Echarmion

My issue is that before I can get into deliberations about how a given action might cause harm, I need to establish the moral standing of the affected subject(s). I don't worry about the effects my actions might have on various bacteria, for example, because bacteria aren't considered moral subjects (usually, anyways). — Echarmion

A moral subject is anything that can be harmed. You’re dismissive of bacteria as a moral subject, but I would argue that’s only because their value is considered to be negligible in relation to other moral subjects. This is not objective, but is an anthropocentric perspective.

When you’re trying to determine the ‘moral standing’ of subjects, you’re positioning your experience of these subjects in relation to value. And we can’t overlook the evidence that this priority we attribute to ‘personhood’ and our qualification of the term is a feature of morality that has not only contributed to much of the oppression, abuse and hatred in human history, but has also brought us to our current environmental crisis.

If an ‘objective’ moral standing is what you’re after, then you can’t restrict ‘relevant information’ only to that obtained from a person’s perspective. I recognise that this complicates our ability to establish any moral standing at all, given the lack of information we have about the perspective of future people or bacteria, for instance. But I think we need to be honest about these subjective limitations in relation to moral standing.

How do I go about doing this for potential future people? I cannot base it on some list of physical characteristics, or on some communicative act. I cannot engage in any form of reciprocal recognition process. — Echarmion

This is where we need to become reacquainted with uncertainty as a feature of reality, and recognise the limitations of a reductionist approach.

When we calculate potential energy, it’s in relation to a specific future action produced from specific causal conditions. The potential energy is an imagination - but it’s one that depends entirely on information we’ve acquired from past interactions with the system. We’re pretty confident in our calculations as long as the causal conditions are as calculated.

So the only real difference I see between being aware of the effects my actions might have on potential energy and the effects they might have on potential people, then, is the variability of causal conditions - but it’s a BIG difference. People are unpredictable (except on a macro scale), in that they have the capacity to internally create the causal conditions for their own actions.

We cannot reliably predict the effect of a specific action on our calculation of potential energy unless we can control or specify ALL other causal conditions. This is achievable in the science lab, but not often in reality. But we still have to worry about the effects of these actions outside of the control conditions of a science lab.

Just because it’s difficult and uncertain, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about it. We need to recognise first of all that we cannot expect to fully control or predict the causal conditions that contribute to effects on potential people, and then find another way to look at it.

How do we talk about how a specific action impacts on potential energy in general? We don’t, do we? And yet we can’t get away with not taking potential energy into account when determining our actions (even unconsciously), so it’s far from irrelevant. We don’t have to consciously think about or calculate potential energy as adults interacting with the world, because we’ve integrated this information about the universe into our automatic systems of operation, and we teach our children to recognise and take into account this relational aspect of reality without needing to explain what potential energy is or why it’s important.

Personally, I think we’re afraid to acknowledge the moral standing of future people, just as we’re afraid to acknowledge the moral standing of bacteria. Because to do so we would need to recognise that our own moral standing, objectively speaking, is not nearly as significant as we’ve been led to believe. And we’re just not willing to accept the discomfort of that reality. Ignorance is bliss.

When you take away your general intolerance, impatience and dismissive attitude toward fellow human beings, I do agree with a lot of what you’ve tried to articulate. But my basic question is: what do you intend to DO about it?

You’ve expressed an awareness and subsequent frustration at how everyone else seems to fall short of the capacity we have as human beings, but that’s only the first step. If all you can think to do in response is to declassify them as human beings or insult their intelligence, then you’re ignorant of your own capacity to effect change. If your rant is simply to make yourself feel superior despite your obvious ignorance, then all you’re doing is rejoining the ‘hive mind’ at a slightly more conscious level.