There might be just one possible future, or there might be several. If general relativity is to be believed, and if spacetime is asymptotically flat as satellite data seems to indicate, then there are an infinite number of future null infinities that one might choose from. Moreover, if one has the resources to undergo constant acceleration for arbitrary lengths of time (and if one is extremely patient), one can even in principle choose which future to attend for a concept of self that is purely material. In any event, if your experience is in any way like mine, then the 'you' that is 'you' now is now probably (not necessarily) encoded in photons that have already made their way past the moon, and are well on their way to one of those future null infinities.

"If you wish to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

May I ask a few questions? (Sorry in advance if these have already been discussed at length.)

1. How do we know that even our impressions of reality are in fact 'real impressions', rather than, say, 'simulated', or 'forgotten' ones, and not just a sort of habituated blend of neuro-electric (or <insert your favorite thought model>) stimuli?

2. Does partitioning ourselves from the rest of the universe draw us closer to where we wish to be, or could it also be psychologically damaging? Which argument or counterargument best serves the needs of our philosophical mission?

3. How do we know that anyone ever really escapes the Matrix, or that the Matrix is the sort of thing that can even be escaped? (Can robots really levitate that way without making a ton of noise? Is a super-intelligent AI necessarily more compassionate than any human being?)

Well, even assuming the universe is perfectly causal, who controls (or even knows) its initial conditions? What 'determines' them? Is it possible that the actions of a human being could in theory be interpreted by a qualified judge as willfully "writing" those initial conditions through their choices? People accept as much responsibility as they can personally tolerate. Our circumstances are largely beyond our control, but circumstance alone doesn't eliminate the possibility of freedom.

But isn't the world bigger than any one person? How does one decouple 'essence' from the rest of the universe, which includes conscious experience?

I believe it has to do with the capacity to help people live according to their their values, see things for what they are, and avoid falling victim to misconceptions. (Note: it is important to stress that I assume 'straightness' in this context is understood in mathematical terms. It may come as a surprise, but there seem to be some who think 'straightness' means 'heterosexuality'.)

There's a reason we call it philosophy.

Thanks for your answers. It sounds to me that morals are being discussed at several levels here (of an individual, between individuals, between communities, etc) and this raises a few additional questions. For example, is it possible to view the morals of a community as a sort of 'strongly recommended advice' to people who might wish to join that community without causing significant internal agitation or potentially upsetting another community?

Would it be OK to contribute to this discussion, or has it been moved elsewhere?

You raise great points. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could address a few questions.

• To what extent is there value in simply allowing that the behavior of others is morally motivated, or at least has potential to be morally motivated?
• Should one's response to the actions of another fully conscious human being depend on whether those actions were or weren't morally motivated? (Why or why not?)
• By what process does one infer, learn, or call to mind, the morals of oneself?

It seems to me that people generally don't try to be exactly like Jesus, they just accidentally stumble into his fate, like the convicts who were crucified with him (more 'Life of Brian' than New Testament.) That said, there are worse paths through life (not sure if Judas ever really enjoyed his 'earnings'.) Why do I shout 'crucify him! crucify him!' every year? Beyond my humble comprehension.

Just that, it may matter to a degree in some contexts, but probably 'ought' not to (or, the degree to which it matters should emerge from the axioms.) [I'm not sure if that counts as a full, valid paradox, however.]

I find the notion of ChimpPig profoundly unsettling, though I will try to approach it (the 'germ' of ChimpPig) with what love I can muster.

Is ChimpPig that which begets ChimpPig?

I (choose to) believe that something good can come from this discussion.

leo, it sounds to me that your concern stems from the same root as that which likely motivated mental health workers to enter their discipline. We should be grateful that people who chose to specialize in a mental health related profession have honed their interests over many years. An 'enthusiastic amateur' might develop moments of strong empathy for people who suffer from mental illness, but usually those moments are unpredictable and unreliable. Often, enthusiastic amateurs do more harm than good (this should be self-evident) unless there is sufficiently good reason to believe they can sustain their empathy long enough to help. The reason enthusiastic amateurs often fail is that many people instinctively seek reciprocation or compensation for help that they give, whether or not it was requested. It takes many years for Christians to cultivate a spirit of selfless generosity (the coin from a beggar is (in time) worth more than riches from a King. Also, to follow Jesus is to risk exposing profound injustices, which often involves a large amount of suffering. It's unfortunate when these injustices exist, but exposure is the first step toward eventually resolving and fixing them.)

Mental health professionals think about this topic far more than we do (assuming the majority of people in this thread are, like me, 'enthusiastic amateurs'.) One might define suffering as 'insult, injury, or psychological harm forced on an individual against their will', so it is recommended (as a first step in combating suffering) to avoid causing even more.

When someone is in a state where they suffer (or are at risk of suffering), it is up to them ultimately to find peace of mind if they can. The best anyone else can do is to try to create structure that helps them achieve this. That is precisely what mental health professionals are trained to do, and I worry that 'enthusiastic amateurs' would most likely cause far more harm than good (as evidenced by the current opioid crisis in the U.S..) This is not to say that certifiably concerned third parties (family, friends, loved ones, etc.) cannot provide a commensurate level of psychological support.

I suspect something is deeply amiss in this thread. (It sounds like a conversation that isn't entirely in good faith.)

I'm having trouble accepting (2) as self-evident. To my knowledge, there has been a significant body of philosophical work devoted to the cultivation of virtue. Are virtues not part of one's fundamental nature?

Because doing illegal drugs is dangerous for one reason or another, I would advise against their use.

People generally accept as much free will as they can tolerate.

It sounds to me that implicit in the discussion is how to avoid what one might call corruption of discourse, or in economic terms 'moral hazard'. There is always a risk of entering a relationship with another conscious entity where 'morals' are either imposed by an external agent or presumed to be followed, in a way that necessarily causes confusion and truncates meaning (such as when someone presumes to act one behalf of another person.) We often take for granted that language is minimally invasive, but in general this isn't always the case. [Hypothetically it would be difficult to have conversation with a person from a society of behemoths who communicated through lightning bolts, for example (you wouldn't get past 'Hi'.)]

Hmm.. how about this: morals are advice that is given out of concern for another. So morals originate from compassion, and are 'certified' through the nature of change they bring. (There's probably a better way of expressing that idea.)

"There are, however, quite a few Americans who believe in a divine-command theory of morality --- that is, a God must exist for us to have morality, and morality is whatever this God says it is."

True, but I strongly doubt that any practitioner of an Abrahamic faith would claim anything but incomplete, infinitesimal knowledge of what one might call 'the way.' Morals are the advice you give your kids and dependents, and you can only hope that what they understand from you is truly good. Ethics on the other hand are what you hope they will learn in time. In the U.S. it's easy to take freedom of self-determination (and personhood at an even more basic level) for granted: it's the uniquely American source of legitimacy that (at the very least) seems to free humanity from what probably seemed at one point in time to be an inescapable eternal sentence in Hobbesian statehood. Not everyone outside the U.S. feels the same way about freedom though, and the sentiment of those who claim special knowledge of good and evil (and aren't Jesus or a tried and true prophet, say) is reflected to some degree or another across borders, depending on what opportunities are overlooked.