Consequence could just as well be self-conceit, or an over abundance of personal happiness, as self-destruction. The subjective moral maxim is thus regulated in its form, by its attribution to a universal law, such that both being overly happy from egotism about an action and overly dead by suicide, is tempered by practical reason.

My use of “consequence to himself” was in response to a condition correct in principle but not in reasonable possibility. In reality, *every* moral volition has a consequence of some kind and degree, which is why consequence itself should never ground the principle from which the volition follows. — Mww

I would put it like this: Kantian moral philosophy is concerned with the consequences a given maxim would have if implemented as a general law. It is not concerned with the consequences of any specific act following that maxim.

So, consequences matter, but only in determining the moral imperative, not in applying it.

I think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that. — Benkei

Since the parties are shying away from even a second referendum for fear of being branded enemies of the people in the next election, I'd say that analysis is right on.

Really shows the folly of holding a referendum with no provision on how the decision is going to be implemented or how binding it is for how long.

Can the British vote to rejoin the EU immediately after Brexit? On the face of it, this would not be contrary to the earlier vote, but that won't stop people from claiming it's antidemocratic.

I disagree. If you avoid a moral judgment based upon the negative consequences, you're not Kantian. — Hanover

According to Kant, the morality of an action is based on the maxim behind that action. Also according to Kant, if you intend an end, you also intend the means, which includes consequences that are not directly the end of your intent. Since a maxim is the principle according to which an end is selected, it follows that it also includes the consequences of that intention. Therefore, consequences do matter.

This is my understanding as well. Kant believed that morality resided in the act itself. An unjust killing could never be justified no matter the consequence. While the calculations of Utilitarianism may seem cold, they at least allow for wiggle room in extreme circumstances. That's not to say that Utilitarianism isn't without its flaws, at some point you might find yourself putting a dollar value on human life and weighing it against all sorts of things you might find distasteful. — Taneras

Not in the act, but in the intention that governed the act. For Kant, what makes a killing unjust is an unjust intention. If the intention cannot be justified, then neither can the outcome because it just so happens to have a "positive" outcome (whatever that may be). Kant does not say that consequences don't matter, since intentions are nothing if not intended consequences. What makes Kant's philosophy seen "unconcerned with consequences" is that it does not account for the suffering of any one individual.

I think your basic idea is correct. A Kantian, because he considers himself, first, a deontologist, and second, affiliated with the moral, or categorical, imperative, certainly would accord with the volition the duty to his moral obligation demands, regardless of the consequences to himself, recognizing that a Roasted Universe is merely a metaphor for an extreme circumstance with vanishing probability. — Mww

Unless the rule that this consequence to oneself should be avoided can be made a general rule. Kant argued that suicide is immoral, for example, which is clearly a "consequence to oneself".

Americans, don't you know, wish to be left alone to their own devices, permitted to do whatever they want? The offensiveness of seeing a boy clothed in pink is dwarfed by the offensiveness that the schools, the government, or any APA "expert" knows better how to raise my kids and thinks he or she has the right to weigh in on it. — Hanover

Americans seem to sometimes exhibit a particular psychosis concerning government involvement, but the APA is not a government agency. So I wonder what the issue is with a group of private citizens providing their view?

They are circumspect, but I can afford to name names. https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/comment-on-the-apa-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-boys-and-men/ — unenlightened

I thought Jordan Peterson ideology was that everything bad in the world is due to postmodernist cultural Marxists (who, according to this piece, sometimes disguise themselves as psychologists).

The problem is there's just no reason to think so. U.S. conservatism in particular has a long history of endlessly saying that any attempt to change things at all is an "attack" on their traditionalist ways. It has the merit of being trivially true in the sense that if by "attack" or bias one means "not staying the same" then sure, it's an "attack. At the same time, it seems to be besides the point. As another example of this behavior, this was and is exactly the claim made against allowing homosexual marriages, that it represents an attack on the traditional concept of marriage, interracial marriage, women in the workplace, and so on. — MindForged

This seems like a general indictment of conservatism to an extend. I don't disagree with you, but might a conservative not say that keeping things slow to avoid too rapid social changes is the point? One legitimate reason for a conservative position is to wait for more data when the consequences of a change may be far reaching.

From OP's Sweden example it certainly doesn't appear that there are any issues regarding peer pressure against overt displays of gender expression (whatever exactly 'overt' means in this context). I'm not saying you're agreeing with the conservative view on this, but I confess I find it very irritating to see an identical argument made for repressive views repackaged for every perceived sleight and then having to give any real consideration to the people making the argument. It's a boy who cried wolf situation. Eventually, at least when made by the group in question, it can't be taken to seriously on their word alone. An actual analysis of potential issues in practice would need to be done. — MindForged

Actually analyzing what a "gender neutral" education looks like and pointing out specific problems is certainly the rational approach. One can come up with possible problems, but all of those depend on the practical implementation. It also depends on just how much common problems that are statistically linked to gender/sex are actually linked only to biological sex.

To the extent that gender differences are biologically rather than culturally conditioned, gender neutrality in education and wider society will have no effect on personality or identity. To the extent that such differences are culturally conditioned, they are distorting constraints on human freedom, barriers to equality, and potential causes of psychological conflict and trauma. — unenlightened

This of course assumes that gender neutrality policies are executed in such a manner as to not turn into distorting constraints themselves. The argument, as far as I understand it, of the "conservative" faction is that gender "neutrality" is biased against traditional gender roles, aiming to suppress them. In a gender neutral environment, there might be peer pressure not to overtly display attributes traditionally expressed with your biological sex.

I think the question is not "Does not everything live inside our minds...?" but "Can we even know?". How do we know that we aren't in a simulated reality? How do we know that we aren't something else having a dream of our existence? It reminds me of a part of the Cthulu mythos about the father of all the gods who sleeps and dreams of our existence. In the event that that is true, would our brains be real at all? Is there a way to reach outside of our tiny perspective of the universe and see what is true? — TogetherTurtle

Well we cannot know any specifics because, as you say, we cannot leave our own perspective. Since we are affected by things that are not out selves, there must be something that's not identical to our minds. Even if we are all dreams of a god, that god is still not us, it is more than us, and thus (partially) outside of us. I think therefore something thinks.

It took 100 years for gravitational waves to be observed after being discovered in the theory of general relativity. 50 years for entanglement to be observed, and 50 years for the Higgs boson. Scientific theories certainly do a great deal more than account for observations.

I'm not even sure you can claim that scientific theories are based on observations, rather they are solutions to problems. Special relativity came about through the problem of unifying electrodynamics with Newtonian mechanics for example. — Evola

Sure, theories also include predictions for future observations, that is the point of making them after all. But that prediction is based on accounting for past observations. If a theory cannot account for current observations, whatever it predicts for future observations is already beside the point.

Doesn't the fact that noumena have been proposed directly contradict that restriction? If reason can arrive at the existence of something, be it quantum fields or noumena, then why can't reason be employed to discover something else about these things? — Evola

For "reason" to discover information, that information must be there. It must be accessible to reason. Quantum fields are observable via their effects, they are possible to experience. Noumena are not, because experience necessarily makes that which is experienced subjective.

Except there is no noumenon behind "Vulcan". Though, presumably there is one behind Neptune.

Explaining phenomena in terms of unobserved, unseen aspects of reality, is not easy. We make mistakes all the time. Currently we have perhaps three major theories that explain reality in terms of spacetime, quantum fields, and replicators subject to variation and selection.

Gaining knowledge of phenomena is hard for various reasons, why is gaining knowledge of noumena impossible? — Evola

Do we explain phenomena in terms of "unobserved" aspects of reality? The way I see it, all scientific theories do is account for observations. Our theories on spacetime, quantum fields and replicators (?) are all based on the observations they account for.

Gaining knowledge of noumena would mean gaining information that has not been processed by a human mind. This is impossible for a human mind to do.

I'm trying to come up with an example of where an increase in knowledge causes harm, or more harm than good. Can you help? — Evola

We can debate on whether knowledge in and if itself can ever do harm. This is why I was talking about consequences in general. It is possible that we might one day discover a doomsday device that is so easy to construct and so destructive that the risk of some lunatic setting it off is too high.

Edit: if you want to be technical, there is the notion of a technology trap, a technology that looks incredibly useful and seems save, but nevertheless ends up wiping you out. This might be a case where knowledge itself does harm.

Note your use of the phrase "followers of science". Speaks for itself, I need say no more. — Jake

This thread really is a treasure trove for absurd responses. Yes my usage of your term proves your point. Well done.

And yet you are fighting tooth and nail for the group consensus just as a 12th century Catholic would faithfully defend the Church. — Jake

More equivocation. I am arguing with you. If you cannot defend your point, and instead resort to ad hominem, I think we're done here.

Its a thought experiment, similar to the trolley dilemma, which, at least in my opinion, digs at the question "from where does morality reside?". Does it reside in the act itself or the consequences of the act? — Taneras

I always felt this was a false dilemma, or at least the wrong name for the actual dilemma. Acts are about consequences. An act is designed to bring about some change, how could it's morality ever be divorced from the those changes? At the same time, it's impossible to judge the entirety of the consequences of an act. So far as we know, all acts lead toward the heat death of the universe. Where are we supposed to draw the line and judge?

The actual dilemma the question hints at is whether consequences for individuals can be relative to the consequences of other individuals, or whether they are always absolute. That is what the Trolley dilemma is about.

You mention a distinction between metaphysical free will and a legal free will. Are you saying that the latter is being constrained and not the former? What exactly do you hope to achieve through this? — TheMadFool

Yes. The cop is under duress, but still has the theoretical freedom of will. What I am trying to achieve is, ultimately, to show how the notion of free will interacts with a deterministic universe.

Are you saying that despite the gang’s influence the cop still has freedom to choose? — TheMadFool

He technically has, as there is more than one way to resolve the situation. His hand is not literally forced.

In my opinion the situation is such that free will, even the metaphysical free will you mention, is absent in the calculus. The cop simply has no choice but to do as told. — TheMadFool

I would argue that this position necessarily leads to the conclusion that metaphysical free will is "absent in the calculus" for every possible situation, since outside influences are deterministic.

If I remember correctly only the top Nazi members were executed for the Holocaust; the soldiers who actually did the killing were pardoned or their sentences commuted because they were just “following orders”. — TheMadFool

You remember the Nuremberg trials, but individual soldiers could be prosecuted. Germany has recently put one of the last surviving KZ guards on trial. "Following orders" is not a legal defense under German law. But either way, that is a statement about law, not morality.

Well, the spot on the photographic plate is Mercury, where the spot happens to be was purported to be due to the existence of Vulcan.

Vulcan does not exist, so the phenomenon cannot be due to the thing-in-itself, or the noumenon that is Vulcan.

So, we need theories to connect phenomena to noumena, and these theories are fallible. Other examples might be the existence of the ether, or flogiston. Presumably the phenomena they purported to exhibit (which is why we thought they existed) were due to their noumena? — Evola

Neither Mercury nor the purported "Vulcan" are noumena though. As I said, Mercury is a collection of phenomena, as are all physical objects. There are noumena behind these phenomena, but we have no idea what they are, and they cannot meaningfully be called "Mercury".

"Vulcan" was presumably the name of a collection of phenomena as well, but the concept or theory of a planet Vulcan fell out of favor as new phenomena were added that the old theory could not account for.

Wouldn’t Kant have to explain why the noumena is inaccessible? What’s Kant’s criteria for accessing the noumena?

He seems to be saying phenomena are an indirect means of getting to the noumena but what would satisfy Kant if direct knowing of the noumena is the issue?

I ask because if he’s asking the impossible then it seems quite futile to make the distinction noumena-phenomena. — TheMadFool

Kant did, of course, explain. I don't know if I can do that explanation justice, but I can try.

So the noumena are that which exists outside our self. They cannot be known by thinking alone, because that would require them to already be within the thinking subject. So they can only be known by the ways they affect us. Everything that affects us is filtered through our senses and our minds though. It is subjective. Therefore, objective or "direct" knowledge of noumena is impossible to humans. It would only be possible to a subject that knows noumena by thinking them.

This distinction is important because it tells us something about the nature of empirical knowledge, which has implications for the interpretation of certain apparent dilemmas like the first cause or free will.

The man in the street 12th century Catholic believed in his Church much in the same way the man in the street 21st century person believes in the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. There's unquestioning obedience to authority and the group think etc. — Jake

According to you. I don't see much unquestioning obedience to the idea that science must always progress. There is no shortage of media that warns of science unchecked, and I don't see much evidence the average citizen is all glassy-eyed about the singularity.

Do you believe that the powers available to children should be limited? If yes, all I'm doing is applying this common sense principle to adults as well. Once you make that one tiny little step it immediately becomes obvious that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is problematic. — Jake

Sure, I believe parents should set boundaries to children. I see no justification to erect similar boundaries with respect to adults. Adults should be bound by law, and guided by morality, not by what some authority considers best for them.

I agree though that a scientist should optimally consider the possible harm a publication might do. But I don't see how we can put the genie back into the box without resorting to outright tyrannical measures.

What's confusing you is that for thousands of years when we basically knew almost nothing, in that situation, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge was a reasonable position. We aren't in that situation any more. — Jake

People still die of "natural", which is to say preventable, causes. That is certainly a reason to strive for more knowledge. As are various other social and environmental problems. So how do you suggest we balance the risk of annihilation with the promise of incrementally better lifes?

I'm not following you here. What is it that I'm assuming? — Jake

You're admonishing the followers of science for being "like a religion". Your argument is that they are missing the very obvious indications that they have crossed the line and should no longer pursue knowledge without restriction. The problem is, the indications are obvious to you. They are not necessarily obvious to anyone else. So for all you know, their behavior might habe nothing to do with religious adherence to the "more is better" approach.

This seems a bit difficult to swallow. If someone were to force you to do something i.e. you have no choice in the matter, as is the case in the OP, would you hold yourself responsible for your actions?

Before you answer that question you have to remember that what you're doing is not your wish but someone else. You are used only as a means to an end, like a weapon as it were. — TheMadFool

But would not resisting that outside influence be the epitome of freedom, proving that you are indeed not just a means to an end, but an actor with free will?

In the real world, outside influences abound. The thief might steal because they are hungry, or addicted to drugs. Their decisions might be constrained by a difficult childhood, poverty, or their peers. Where does freedom end and coercion begin? The law sets somewhat arbitrary boundaries, but it has the advantage of being able to tailor those boundaries to a specific purpose. The ability to engage in contracts, for example, is not the same standard as criminal responsibility. Morality, though, would need a general line to be drawn. But in a deterministic world, how can you draw such a line? Is not everything part of the same causality?

But that particular dot in that particular place was taken to be a phenomenon of the planet Vulcan. If we have direct access to phenomena, how can we be so wrong about them?

It seems more like we have only access to our theories of phenomena. — Evola

That objection makes no sense to me. In what way is calling the dot "Vulcan" insetad of "Mercury" wrong? The world of the phenomena is a collection of experiences. If additional experiences are registered, that world changes. This doesn't make the old phenomena "wrong", it just makes the old theories about the entirety of phenomena incomplete.

I suspected as much. Is Ockham's razor applicable? — TheMadFool

Ockham's razor is applicable as part of the scientific method, i.e. within phenomena. I don't think it's a general principle of epistemology.

Which scientists have publicly declared in front of their peers that we should NOT learn X, Y or Z? And if they did, what then happened to their career?

There are millions of scientists so I'm sure there are some rare exceptions, but generally speaking, yes, the scientific community has a simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus, with power. It's not a religion, but is better described as being "religion-like", a non-questioning faith based belief built upon authority that holds that the more knowledge and power humans have the better.

I say "faith based" because this "more is better" belief is in direct contradiction to readily available widely known and agreed upon evidence, thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats threatening to erase modern civilization at the push of a button at any moment without warning. That is, the "more is better" belief is not a product of reason, but instead bears a closer resemblance to the relationship we used to have with clergy and religion etc. Our modern relationship with science can be usefully compared to the relationship 12th century Catholics had with their Church. — Jake

I have significant issues with the equivocation of our relationship with science with the relationship a person living in 12th century Europe had with the Catholic church. To wit, I haven't heard of anyone denying climate change being forced to recant, or flat-earthers being executed for blasphemy.

Be that as it may though, your argument for the out of control nature of science is flawed. Even granting your position that scientists have a duty to limit their inquiries in case additional knowledge is harmful, you are assuming that scientists, and the public at large must share this belief. Given the disagreement apparent on this forum alone, that doesn't appear warranted. If that position is not shared, then your argument that science is religion-like because it ignores this position doesn't follow.

But, do humans really have access to phenomena? — Evola

Phenomena are our observations and experience of things outside of our awareness of self. As such, we have "access" to them by experiencing them.

A scientist might notice a dark spot on a photographic plate, in one place rather than another, and conclude that the orbit of Mercury does not apparently obey Newton's laws. The phenomenon she has access to is just a dot in a particular place. — Evola

The dot is not the only phenomenon. There is a whole range of phenomena that, taken together, we call "Mercury".

While it is reasonable to suppose a freely acting person’s moral credo would not prohibit some gang related atrocities, in the interest of an objectively greater good, it is hardly moral in any case to arbitrarily extinguish a human life. Under the conditions of ignorance of an expectation for the officer having to take a life in order to save his own, he is necessarily obligated by his duty to his moral law, to self-sacrifice. — Mww

But the officer's self sacrifice, by the terms of the dilemma, accomplishes nothing. Sacrificing a life for no gain seems contrary to preservation of life being the primary marker.

I don't think that merely the fact that the officer pulls the trigger, rather than allows others to kill the victim, should change the outcome of the moral judgement.

(Again, prarifrasing Kant) all human deserve to be treated as an individual person with there what's and needs.

To lie to someone undermines there judgment.
Is there job wrong, yes because lie is part of the job.
I prefer to say nothing than to lie.

I understand you point.

So a try to understand this when a cop lies it sends a message saying sometimes liying is ok. If living is sometimes ok, but when is that sometimes. To people like me is like saying liying is not a big deal, wich I think is not true. — hachit

I don't think that is an entirely accurate application of Kant's philosophy. Kant accepts e.g. self defense as part of the general rule on killing. Kant states that moral judgements must be applicable in general, but not that they must have the simplest possible form.

A private world then, this noumena...

I can't see how noumena can be talked of though. Did Kant simply posit noumena and then say nothing about it? — TheMadFool

The argument for noumena is that there must be something that creates the phenomena. That is, our minds are affected by something outside of themselves. This is the noumena. Kant's point, and this is one of the major cornerstones of his philosophy, is that all that can be said about the noumena is that they *are* in some way. What they are or how they are cannot be determined by humans, as humans only have access to phenomena.

What is odd is Kant's proposal of a noumena is unobservable and therefore unscientific. — TheMadFool

Well Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist in the strict sense. Noumena are a metaphysical concept.

What about the fact that the cop is under duress? He's no longer a free agency and so his actions can't be morally judged. I think to be morally responsible one must be free to exercise a choice. This agrees with the common understanding of a moral agent as one fully in control of his faculties and therefore responsible for his/her actions. In this situation the cop is no longer a free agency - he's being coerced to act. If this scenario has any moral dimension it must apply to the gang members who are, apparently, free agencies and therefore responsible for the death of the victim. — TheMadFool

I think we need to differentiate freedom in a legal sense, that is freedom from duress, full control of faculties etc, from metaphysical freedom of will. The former is used to determine whether actions are legally binding or carry consequences. The latter is the basis of morality.

From the standpoint of morality, you always have a choice. It's making a choice that demonstrates your free will, not the other way around. Choosing to refuse is still a choice, even it it gets you killed.

Of course the gang members are also responsible, but responsibility is not a zero-sum game. It can rest with many people simultaneously, or just with one.

If we excluded situations of duress from moral judgement entirely, morality would no longer be a general rule for conduct, and the definition of duress would turn into a subject of moral philosophy, where I do not think it belongs.

I think that is my problem. I don't think any meaningful change happens at all. It's my belief at least that life doesn't have any meaning besides what we give it, so therefore, if we give the person the value that another once had, they might as well be that person. Same with the ship. The value or identity given to the ship has everything to do with what we think and nothing to do with inherent value in the real world. That changes when you have belief in a god or deities, but I don't. I do, however, acknowledge that there is no way to 100% prove god either way, so I think that it is an opinion, but that's just my opinion. — TogetherTurtle

But you did say you don't think it's the same person so far as the individual is concerned. But I don't see why I would not consider a copy "me" as well. So I wonder what your initial perspective was and where it came from.

It's all interconnected in a way, but none of it has anything to do with the outside world other than how we interpret it. Identity lives inside our minds unless god is real is essentially my viewpoint. — TogetherTurtle

Does not everything live inside our minds, with the exception of the mind itself, and whatever is it's object?

I would say it is moral, since the act would follow the maxim that, if an act can either save one life or none, one should save the one life. That it's your own life you're saving doesn't change the morality of the act.

My point is, when scientists run experiments, they have to rely on observations of others, rather than their own observations. How many scientists experiment on themselves? — bogdan9310

And this is a problem, why?

Then how do we know them? How can they be thought? — Mww

Several options are possible. They might be hardwired into our minds. They might form during early infancy, before conscious experience is possible.

So, the answer to your speculative question is:
A fictional transporter can kill fictional people, if there is a problem with said transporter.

Scotty is not a murderer. How very dare you :naughty: — Amity

I am beginning to think I shot myself in the foot by making the Star Trek references so overt :wink:.

The implications of this debate for something like mind uploading might someday be relevant though.

The aforementioned premise also applies to a beginning, or an origin concerning existence. — daniel j lavender

No disagreement here. I should have said "no beginning or end". It has no spatial or temporal border.

I am arguing that objectively existence is infinite. Existence could be viewed as infinite subjectively as well, however, I am asserting that our limited perspective (the fact that we, as individuals, are born, then die -- we are limited in duration; that we cannot simply reach out and touch Mars or Saturn -- we are limited in our range of interaction; that we can only see so far out into the universe, even with technologies [we can't even see through hillsides or through the palms of our hands] -- we are limited in perspective, etc.) creates an inclination to measure, or limit, existence. — daniel j lavender

If existence is based on observation, then the limits of observation are also the limits of existence. These limits are not imposed on existence by us, they are intrinsic to it.

If existence is not based on observation, I.e. it is " objective", then we would need a way to gain information about it that is not observation. What is this method?

Actually, the very idea of being able to view existence as infinite, or being able to view existence as finite, subjectively, further alludes to the objective fact that existence itself is infinite, as all aspects are accounted for and none are excluded (it is unlimited, unrestricted). — daniel j lavender

This sounds reasonable, but it does not follow. It is not more likely that "objective reality" is infinite because observed reality has no borders. That would imply that observed reality is a part of objective reality, rather than, say, an illusion caused by it. Since we don't know, we cannot draw any inference.

So in a sense, you agree. — daniel j lavender

We agree that it has no end, for the reaons stated.

The promise is what makes it a moral state of affairs. — creativesoul

But that means that you have a rule that says "promises turn the act that is promised into a moral state of affairs". I think it's a sensible rule, I just don't understand your approach.

Certain things must be discussed, they must be argued, as actual measurement or observation would not be feasible. — daniel j lavender

Yes, that is what philosophy is about. But what are we arguing about, exactly? Existence, as constructed by us through observations, or objective reality?

Tell me, where does existence end? How would existence end? — daniel j lavender

Existence, as constructed by observations, has no end. It cannot have an end.

Is the smallest thing (to us) really the smallest thing? Or does it appear to be the smallest thing due to our limited abilities and our limited range of interaction? — daniel j lavender

That is impossible to answer, since by your own terms an answer would imply knowledge beyond our abilities.

Is existence really limited, or are we limiting it ourselves? — daniel j lavender

Existence, as observations, is not limited, it's indefinite.

Hence my statement in the original essay:

"Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation. From this perspective we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable."

We may not be able to entirely observe that which is infinite, but that doesn't mean it is not infinite. — daniel j lavender

It also does not mean that it is infinite though. The only logical position is agnosticism. To call it an illusion presupposes that you know existence is infinite, or more accurately based on some infinite objective reality. But you do not know that.

On my view, facts are 'states' of affairs, events, what has happened and/or is happening, the case at hand, the world, etc.

Making a promise is the moral fact of the matter. — creativesoul

But only the promise is part of the state of affairs. Neither the act which is being promised, nor a rule linking the one to the other are something that has happened.

"Origin" is often viewed as "beginning" or a "source". Of which I contend there was no origin, there was no beginning, there was no source concerning existence therefore such an inquiry would be erroneous to begin with. As your statements seem to imply. — daniel j lavender

That is true. The problem is it doesn't follow that existence is infinite, becasue that is similarly impossible. An infinite existence would require infinite observations. It could never be observed in it's entirety, and hence would always be limited to a finite amount of observations. Existence is neither finite nor infinite, it's indefinite. It expands ad indefinitum.

Ultimately, I think this is up to opinion. The idea of self is too abstract to really put in objective terms. I personally don't think it is the same person as far as the individual who is teleported is concerned, but to everyone else, you would be the same person. So the teleported individual dies and doesn't come back but the cloned individual has all of the dead person's memories and therefore is indistinguishable from the original to their friends, family, and colleagues. I believe they say over every seven years, every cell in your body is replaced. Are you the same person you were seven years ago? Everyone else seems to think so, you in the present seem to think so, and you in the past would probably say so. — TogetherTurtle

Arguably, what you consider your self is down to opinion. Nevertheless, it should be possible, given your personal opinions of what "self" is, to identify the meaningful change that happens. Or in other words, to point out, or try to describe, what is missing from the "copy" that was present in the "original". Several other people have expressed the same position that you have to me, but I was never able to figure out what the actual difference between my view and theirs was. People don't usually think that they die and are reborn everytime they go to sleep. It's a possible position to take, but then it ought to be possible to point to the differences between the "dead" and the "reborn" you.

It's like the ship of Theseus in a way. A ship is docked, and every so often a storm comes in and damages a part of the said ship. If every part is replaced, is it still the same ship?

I believe the answer is in the general consensus. If everyone thinks that it is the same ship, then it is the same ship. Really, everything in the universe is comprised of matter and energy, and therefore everything that isn't defined as "microwaves" or "Helium" (as examples) has been given an identity by us. Everything we define is also comprised of these things. So "Dogs" or "Chairs" don't exist unless a human mind classifies them as such, but the carbon in a dog's body or the iron used to make the chair will exist regardless. — TogetherTurtle

I think the answer to the "Ship of Theseus" dilemma is not consensus but just context. To answer the question, you have to know why the question is being asked. Do you ask because you want to cross the sea? Then the origin of the planks if of no interest to you. Do you ask becasue you want to touch the same wood Theseus has touched? Then the origin of the planks is all that matters, and whether or not the planks even come in the shape of a ship is irrelevant.

Which leads me back to my point: in what context is being "teleported" or "uploaded" a kind of death?

To accept that existence is, or that being is, or that things exist, leads to the question concerning where things, or where existence, originate from, in which I assert there was no origin to "things", or no origin to "existence", as such an origin would imply a state of nonexistence and nonexistence does not exist by definition. — daniel j lavender

What is an "origin"? Things originating from other things is a human concept. Only things within existence can originate, because, as you correctly state, for existance to originate it would have to originate from something, but that something could only be nothing, which is a contradiction.

It's a contradiction of human thinking however, not of existence itself. It all boils down to the tautology that that which cannot be observed cannot be observed.

"There ought be a rose garden" is true if one promised to plant a rose garden. — creativesoul

Can you elaborate on this notion of promises as moral fact? In itself, a promise is communication about my intent. How does it turn into a sort of fact?

They can claim that their moral view is subjectively true. True for them and anyone who agrees with their position (whatever that may be). Seems like subjectivism taken to the extreme must privilege the right to be different. — emancipate

The issue is that moral judgements are about what should be done. They're not speculative and individual like the question what a person would do, given a set of circumstances. A partial truth cannot support an general statement, so how can the subjectivist make any moral statements?

Following the line of reason Wallows begat, instead of looking at moral actions as deducible from a set of universal tenets, we could look at it as an endeavor to negotiate and compromise through the conflict that naturally emerges from those varied and sometimes conflicting premises.

If we can agree on premises as interacting-individuals, or interacting-groups, then we can at least ensure the validity of or moral acts. Where we disagree or run into conflict, we're left to compromise (or not) in whatever way we think best serves our goals. In these cases, moral arguments tend to take an inductive form where they're strong or weak depending on how well they appeal to existing values.

Rather than wonder what kind of metaphysical setup might give rise to objectively true moral propositions, I prefer to stop the buck and just accept the values that we do have. If we assume morality ought to serve human values, we can still derive appropriate actions even in the face of conflict/variation, it's just a whole lot messier (i.e: probabilistic). — VagabondSpectre

I agree with you that "deducing" moral actions is not possible. That would imply that there is a list of every possible moral act somewhere which we have access to. For the same reason, expecting morality to be "objective" also makes no sense, since we are not trying to figure out an object.

I think Kant correctly stated that morality is practical. It only exists where subjects actually interact. A lone subject in an empty universe has no need for morality. So I think the process by which we figure out whether or not an act is moral is similar to induction, as you say, but it is not quite the same. I'd rather call it subsumption. That is the same process one uses to apply a law to a case.

Subsumption is often described as a process of constant back and forth that both interprets the rule and classifies the circumstances. It's just that in law, you start out with a rule that's already refined to a specific area of interest, while in morality you have just the most general rule.

A legal judgement is not true or false in relation to some objective reality. Instead, it's "truth" is based on the proper method of justification being used. A judge may arrive at a verdict for purely emotive reasons, but he will have to justify that verdict using the proper form of arguments. I think that morality requires a similar approach.

If that's all I were saying - that's what I would have said. I've explained why your claim that scientific understanding can only apply to ideas laid out in physics is wrong. — karl stone

I have made no such claim. I have never even used the term "scientific understanding" and I do not know what - precisely - it's supposed to mean.

It's because science is several things:

it's an epistemology: a philosophy of knowledge.
it's a method: the scientific method of testing hypotheses with reference to evidence.
it's a practice: conducting scientific experiments.
and it's a conception of reality: an increasingly valid and coherent worldview.

You argue that the last, 'an increasing valid and coherent worldview" is not science - but metaphysics. That follows from the mistake of suppressing science as an understanding of reality for 400 years — karl stone

Look I am not interested in discussing semantics. If you want to use different definitions from the ones I use, fine. But definitions are not arguments.

If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge - the broad picture it paints, then there's sufficient justification for a God hypothesis - but not proof, either for or against. Hence, agnosticism with regard to the God hypothesis. — karl stone

Can you tell me what law of physics either includes or at least allows for a God? Failing that, can you explain to me how attributes such as "omnipotence" would manifest in the physical world?

Metaphysics is an insult. Any valid philosophy begins with epistemology - either explicitly, or implicitly. Heidegger's random obsession with the concept of 'being' for example, is metaphysics, and there's no systematic method to that madness. He adduces observations at random intervals - about hammers and bicycles, to support an equally random line of reasoning - toward a prejudiced conclusion. — karl stone

This is not the most absurd statement I have read on this forum, but it certainly comes close. What is your definitions of metaphysics? Because it sure as hell is not the commonly used one.

Your atheism is similar. You cannot know that "God does not exist as a physical entity." It's 'the problem of induction' described by Karl Popper. You cannot prove the negative. Your epistemology is wrong. — karl stone

If I cannot know what does not exist, should I consequently be agnostic about unicorns and leprechauns as well? According to Karl Popper, scientific theories must be falsifiable. That means that, since you cannot prove a negative using induction, you are not allowed to ask people to prove a negative. If you want to use Popper's philosophy as the basis for your agnosticism, you will have to establish how it could be falsified.

Anything that is not strictly necessary to explain our observations is not part of physical reality. Physical existence is contingent on the observations that it accounts for. You don't prove that X Y Z do not exist, you prove that you can account for all observations without needing X, Y or Z.

You have faith God does not exist - and I cannot truly understand why you would want to believe that. Maybe you're disenchanted - you were taught religion as a child, only to reject it in adulthood, and are left feeling bitter about it. Push past it. Religion is not God. Religion is primitive political philosophy - that occurred in the course of human evolutionary development, at the point where hunter gatherer tribes joined together. They adopted God as an objective authority for social and political values that applied equally to all, regardless of tribal affiliation. — karl stone

Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but if I want counseling, I will consult a professional.

Perhaps you don't understand the term 'hypothesis' - or how that relates to agnosticism. There are hypotheses that can be ruled out. Geocentrism - for example. It's the theory based on simple observations that the earth is stationary, and the entire universe revolves around us. This idea persisted for a very long time, but was eventually falsified by Galileo, who made the first formal statement of scientific method. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - forced him to recant his claims, and prohibited his works.

This had the effect of divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. Subsequently, science was used to drive the industrial revolution, but to achieve ends described by the religious and political ideology - rather than, in a manner responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. This was a mistake, and it explains why, now - science can destroy the world but cannot save it. To my mind, you - and indeed, the entire cannon of western philosophy follows in the course of this mistake. — karl stone

These are a lot of words to say "I think you're wrong". It would help if you explained to me what exactly I get wrong about hypotheses and agnosticism.

Dismissing first cause and fine tuning by saying "Kant and utter nonsense" is both a redundant repetition and an unwarranted claim to authority. — karl stone

It's not an argument, certainly. But this thread isn't about either the problem of first cause or the fine tuning argument. We can discuss both, if you like, but I think that those discussions warrant their own thread, or at least in a thread about agnosticism. Not that I want to tell you what to do though.

As stated above, science is many things - so saying, 'in purely physical terms' is to seek to put science in a box defined by scientific method, thus to allow free range to all kinds of unscientific ideas. — karl stone

No, saying what I mean when I say "science" is seeking to establish definitions in order to more effectively communicate.

We have suppressed science as a general understanding of reality in favour of religious and political ideology for 400 years, and it's a mistake. Do nation states 'exist'? Is money 'a real thing'? No, yet it's in relation these ideas we apply science and technology. So it's not metaphysics to have a general scientific understanding of reality, or at least, it shouldn't be. — karl stone

This sounds like you consider "metaphysics" to be some kind of insult. It is not, it's merely the name of a subset of philosophy. We can even call it a "science", if you want. There is a reason I always qualify "empirical science" when I want to talk only about physics. All I am saying is that God does not exist as a physical entity.

What this means is that the universe has no logical genesis and we have to consider it as magical or miraculous and that science will never explain where it came from using the scientific method. — albie

This is true, but science, as in empirical science, is not supposed to explain the origin of the world. That's the realm of metaphysics, of interpreting the pyhsical world and figuring out what it means.

If you're interested in this particular dilemma, I found Kant's take on it convincing. He essentially argues that the dilemma is a result of the limits, or the form, of our experience. There cannot be a first cause because we cannot experience the absence of experience. There cannot be infinity because we cannot experience infinity. Instead, as a physical object, the universe simply goes on ad indefinitum in both time and space. Which is to say an arbitrarily large amount, but not an infinite amount, of time has passed.