I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids. — NOS4A2

Ha ha! I don't think its too strange. While we could look at it as 'paternalistic', we can also look at it as 'serving a community'. I viewed it as a duty to help ensure the most order with the least disturbance. Not for myself, but for the kids. However, I did meet teachers who definitely got a kick out of lording over kids. I think kids tend to know. One evidence for myself is I was able to handle 'trouble makers' in my class without issues. Its because I didn't yell at them, single them out, or hold any grudges. It was the rules, and you always had a clean slate the next day.

But really what we're touching on is, "Status". What is it and who deserves it. Status at its most basic is the idea that there are certain individuals who are so good at a particular need or want of humanity that we look to them for guidance in those areas.

Good status is when it is purely based on this mindset. The person of high status does their best to serve the person who knows less, and the person of low status is polite, pays for, and listens to the person who has those skills. Bad status is when a person is motivated by their own ego to be in a position of power. When it isn't about serving the other person, but themselves.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. — NOS4A2

Too true, and I agree. But I believe this is an incidence of bad status, not the good kind. The existence of abusive status individuals is always a concern, but we don't want to eliminate the ability for good status individuals to flourish as well because we're so afraid of the poor ones. To prevent this, we need to give those of lower status the ability to either leave the relationship with the higher status individual, or replace them. Thus in governance we have elections, and we let people regardless of status vote. This forces anyone who wants to stay in a position of power to serve the majority of their people, or at least the one's who vote. We also allow recalls, and have rights to block certain decisions from those in power.

Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily. — NOS4A2

In most cases, I agree. But governance is something that we cannot withdraw from once a population reaches a certain size. Governance is about the resolution of all those difference conflicts over resources and culture. If governance was not there, history demonstrates that crime and war will be used by one side or the other to obtain what they want. Proper governance is the avenue by which we may obtain compromise without bloodshed or crime.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it? — NOS4A2

First, we of course keep the jurisprudence that has worked over centuries. Innocent until proven guilty, and burden beyond a reasonable doubt. One very simple way to determine it is to go after citations. If I say an article is one thing, when it clearly isn't, its either negligence or malfeasance. Fairly cut and dry. If a politicians claims they were under sniper fire in a helicopter, when all the military reports prior to this claim showed no snipers in that area, we have a clear contradiction between facts and statements.

At the least, this will incentivize people to think carefully about statements of fact before noting them. A short pause or a political candidate or social media entertainer can sometimes be enough to alter a culture which sees lies as highly beneficial with little potential cost if caught. Thus we let the courts handle it, and allow a prosecution and defense to hash it out in court. The prosecutor would provide the documentation of both the original source, and the improper citation, and have to convince the judge/jury that this was intention by the defense.

Anyway, been a lovely conversation, but I have to head out for the day. Stay well Nos, and good points.

Firstly, the phenomena are a result of the cognition of sensations and not things-in-themselves; and those sensations are limited by our sensibility — Bob Ross

Correct. A 'thing in itself' is a logical limit. If we observe some 'thing', there has to be something to observe. But if we are observing it, we realize we are observing it by interpreting things like light, sound, touch, and nerve firings. Logically, we cannot see the thing as it is 'in itself' because we are always observing it through another medium, and then creating one or many identities or discrete experiences out off it.

Even though I'm seeing a red ball in front of me, I'm really seeing the light and interpreting it. The light is bouncing off the ball, so something is there. But I can't understand what its like to see a ball without light bouncing off of it. I can't understand the feel of the ball without my nerves firing a sensation of touch in my brain. If I remove all of my senses, there is no way I can 'observe' the ball. And I cannot myself 'be' the ball.

But, despite my lack of observation, the ball is still there. Light still bounces. If someone throws it at me when I'm not aware, it will hit me and cause me to stumble. So the representation is not merely a dream or will, it is an attempt to grasp and understand. This is why what ever we attempt to represent must be applied or tested to see if what we represent is at the least, not contradicted by the underlying reality.

To sum it up very simply: We observe something. We interpret that observation as a representation of that something. Because we can only know that something through observation and interpretation, we cannot know that something as if it were unobserved and uninterpreted. Thus the placeholder for this logical determination is a 'thing in itself'. And there is nothing more to know about them then that.

Secondly, any given phenomena stripped of the a prior means of intuiting and cognizing it is left perfectly unintelligible (viz., remove all spatial, temporal, mathematical, logical, etc. properties from the phenomena and you have nothing left to conceptually work with other than a giant '?'); so whatever the thing-in-itself is will be exactly what is unintelligible: it is the 'thing' stripped of the a priori means of cognizing it. — Bob Ross

I do not believe in apriori knowledge apart from instinct. What some might call apriori, I call, 'intellectual capacity'. But the idea that we know something without being or analysis has never really logically worked for me. Regardless of your view on it, I do not believe a 'thing in itself' is known apriori, but only after logical analysis and experience.

Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to? — Shawn

Because people mistakenly think that language represents reality. When the real key is we have to prove our language represents reality. That's a lot harder to do, and its much easier to come up with a solution using language alone then testing. This is of course necessary to discovery, but people who get befuddled by language tend to forget that such craft is a hypothesis of reality, not an actual discovery of it.

If we do trust our conscious experience to tell us about the things-in-themselves to some extent (as a necessity and way out), then how do we determine the limits of what we can know about the things-in-themselves? — Bob Ross

Nice post Bob. This is essentially the question, "What is knowledge?" I wouldn't call it a paradox per say, just incomplete. If you recall from my knowledge theory, reality is the undercurrent to anything we define and believe. We have evidence that there are things in themselves, because we have identities and beliefs that are often contradicted by something outside of our control. If I see a rotten apple and think, "That looks good, I'll eat that and won't get sick", the reality of food poisoning will invalidate your representation soon after you consume it.

Reality is, "The thing in itself". The limits of our representations of things in themselves is based on what is contradicted, and what can stand concurrently. Even then, we don't know if we're even interpreting what to do with the contradiction correctly. For example, it could be that a rotten apple is actually an infestation of undetectable aliens. However, its impossible to claim something like that from the representations we have. So we call it, "Rotten" or "A food state of decay that will make a person sick if they eat it." No matter how we represent the rotten apple, eating it will make us sick, and any other representation that it will not is contradicted by "reality".

So in sum, we are limited to knowing there are things in themselves by contradictions to our representations by experience. That's it.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. — NOS4A2

I understand possibly more than you think. I grew up to a very different drummer. I had my own way of doing things and generally never favored group conformity. Not rebelliousness, just simply viewed the world differently then most. I don't mind being told what to do as long as its not for someone's personal gain at my expense. My personal value above all else is freedom. I genuinely believe in allowing as much freedom in a society as possible. But it is freedom within a society, not freedom from a society.

I was a high school math teacher for about 5 years in my past. As such, I was in a situation in which I had to manage anywhere from 1 to sometimes hundreds of kids at a time. You get to really understand people dynamics in larger populations. When I only had to manage one or two kids, rules were generally very lax. But as more and more kids enter into the picture, you can't be. Its like heating up a pot of water. More energy gets concentrated and if you don't put some type of lid on it, it bubbles over. You need clear, consistent, and fair rules. And you might think that the kids would be happier with lax rules in larger groups. They aren't. Nothing gets done. It becomes chaos.

Now, was I teaching math to lord it over kids and enjoy power? Hardly. I don't like putting people in a position where they have to listen to 'me'. But it was necessary that they listen to something, "the rules". To an individual, "the rules" may seem personal or restricting at times. But for a group, they're necessary. I had a strict no tardy policy. If you were late, you went to the office. Many kids hated it, but they all stopped being late within about two weeks. If I didn't have that? I would get tardy kids all year disrupting class.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. — NOS4A2

I think your input would be invaluable. True, we don't have the power to do so, but why be on these forums at all then? We have almost no power to do anything we come up with. Plato's "Republic" is a book about what the ideal Republic would entail, and he was no politician.

And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy. — NOS4A2

I had to look that up, and you are largely right. Its never been overruled, it was just an analogy that was a non-binding dictum. In truth, it would only be a crime if the attempt to invoke panic succeeded and damages happened. Yet a theater that did not kick this person out would lose business overall, so there is some measure of culpability for the individual.

The issue we're currently having in society, is that is oftentimes profitable to peddle false information. There is little societal recourse for your father not getting the Covid Vaccine because they were told "Studies show you don't need it," and they die. Even if you can get monetary compensation after years of litigation, it doesn't bring your father back.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

More often or not this leads to some sort of penalty for the deceiver, for instance the loss of credibility, and as a result, the social and economical fruits that come with it. — NOS4A2

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

Recall what Jaspers said. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. — NOS4A2

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. — NOS4A2

Is that what the book is including? Misinformation in such broad terms should of course not be prohibited. Generally when this subject comes up, its about actively conveying information to people that are lies, when the subject knows they are lies. So, not satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, or miscalculation.

To that, do you see an issue with creating laws that prevent outright deception and lies to people on public platforms? Or should we allow people to deceive others without any risk? The law already forbids revenge, violence, and other forms of 'community regulation'. Can the community properly regulate purposefully deceptive facts with less harm then careful laws and the courts?

I think worrying about misinformation is obvious. Lies are intended to distort reality for a particular individual's gain. A distorted perception of reality means more mistakes, missteps, abuse, etc. People die. Covid misinformation caused the death of thousands of people for example.

What you're really concerned with is, "Can government handle misinformation?" Of course. It already does today. Libel, slander, and outright intent to deceive for monetary gain are already handled fairly well under the law. There are a few keys that need to be in place if we were to expand the laws to other things such as "Misinformation to voters".

1. Innocent until proven guilty. This one I'm sure is obvious to you.
2. A high burden of proof. An individual must have clear evidence that they knowingly lied. It must be clear that the person did not imply that it was an opinion. "I think Ivermectin will help Covid" is different from, "Ivermectin has been proven to help Covid and is better than all the other medications out there."
3. A chance at remission. Sentencing or fees can be lowered or eliminated if the person in the wrong publicly comes out and admits guilt, and presents the evidence of what is actually true. The point is not to punish, the point is to ensure the public has access to the truth.
4. Harsh penalties on the campaign trail. This ensures it is more difficult for people who would deceive the American people to get elected.

Again, careful law crafting and jurisprudence can ensure misinformation is handled well without stepping on the first amendment.

But, the point with this thread is to imagine CFD in logical space, where in logical space everything is simply necessary. — Shawn

Logical space to my knowledge is the space of all possibilities, not necessities. Its a possible world logic, where anything that is not impossible can happen.

Modality in counterfactual definitiveness preserves unitary values. By doing CFD in modal logic preserves unity in outcomes as defined by the counterfactuals in logic alone. — Shawn

Can you go into more detail in how this applies to your idea? I'm not understanding how this addresses the point I made. Perhaps you're only noting what Wittgenstein said, which if that's all you wanted to explore, then to my understanding of the man, "Yes". If you want to discuss whether this is a practical way of thinking about knowledge, then it doesn't matter if we have a logical space in which all counterfactuals are open to us. To ascertain that one knows a fact, one would have to go through every single possible counterfactual, opposed to another person simply pointing out, "That's an apple because of X, Y, and Z"

The world cannot be made up of counterfactuals just by the numbers alone.

If it is the case that what is in front of me is an apple, then that is one out of an uncountably high number of other things I would have to tick through if I were to define that merely in terms of counterfactuals.

What is more pertinent, is we compare what is within the realm of plausible, possible, and probable to narrow down the amount of counterfactuals we cycle though. Thus we don't even consider the possibility that the apple is actually a hologram disguising a small grape. We don't consider that its an elephant that has been transformed into what looks like an apple. We use both the assertion that is is an apple, and a limited number of counterfactuals to what that assertion could also apply to with higher probability in the situation we're presented with.

If you genuinely care about the issue, read here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There's a fantastic summary the post after if needed. It is the combination of objectivity and subjectivity that allows us to have knowledge.

That is knowledge of some things is hard-wired. It comes with the animal. This is not the thinking you described. It is more like the caterpillar reacting as though it were being attacked. — Athena

Correct, this is instinct or innate capabilities.

I think it is important to understand not all thinking is rational and thank you for your example of the caterpillar. It is also a baby's reaction to the change in the number of things. This is the stimulus, this is the reaction. Not rational thinking. — Athena

Absolutely I agree that not all thinking is rational. But back to the crow. If the crow had experimented with different things to get the food, and stumbled upon the branch, then remembered the branch, would that be rational thinking?

There is a problem with inductive reasoning. Scholasticism used Aristotle and the Bible as the foundation of education. — Athena

A person who is using a screw to fix a pipe also has a problem. Inductive reasoning is a tool. It has its proper applications, and improper applications. But no one throws away their screwdriver entirely just because it can't fix a pipe.

We did not come to the modern age until much later and there was a terrible fight and strong backlash to Aristotle's inductive reasoning. — Athena

Right, because someone asked the question, "What if Aristotle is wrong?" To explore that, that particular person had to explore several inductive reasons too. Rational thinking is not, "I have the right answer". Rational thinking is a process of working through a problem to a solution. And that requires both inductive reasoning to figure out different possibilities, and deductive reasoning to narrow it down to necessary conclusions.

Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction”.

If you are interested, I have essentially solved that problem here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There is a nice summary on the next immediate post. Essentially there is a hierarchy of inductions. The close they are to the process to gain knowledge, the more cogent they are. Inductions are absolutely necessary tools in rational thinking and discovery. We just have to understand them and use them correctly.

Manuel said "I suppose a bare minimum has to be symbolic representation akin to something that arises with language use. Animals do not have language, if by "language" one has in mind propositional knowledge." — Athena

This is defining the term to exclude animals without debate then. This is also an incredibly narrow term that historically has not required language use. I would not agree this is a requirement for rational thinking, just a requirement for linguistic thinking.

Perhaps we can focus on logic. — Athena

Logic may also be too strong. Rational thinking is the ability to piece premises together and come up with potential solutions. Those solutions may be wrong. A rational thinker can then eliminate that wrong answer and try another route. Logic often implies deductive reasoning, but many would argue that inductive reasoning is also necessary for rational beings.

Here is a clear example of thinking which is not rational. If you poke a caterpillar with a leaf in a way that doesn't harm it, it will squirm like its being attacked. Every time, it never stops. Its a purely reactionary mind, with no forethought, adaptability, or ability to react to memory. Whereas we have a monkey using a tool. How many tests did the monkey have to do to get the right stick? What did they try before sticks? Rational thinking is a process which requires memory, adaptation, and often times proactive and not reactive.

Intuition is defined as the ability to acquire knowledge without the use of reason [1]. Some liken intuition to a gut feeling, or to unconscious thinking.

The problem with this definition is it does not describe whether the person's intuitive thinking was the result of previous rational thoughts that one has subconsciously accepted, or instinct. One can have an intuitive behavior driven by instinct, previous rational thought, or trained habit.

So in the case of the crow, while we see they search through the branch and pick a twig of the correct size, we never saw if the crow had ever toyed around with the branch before. Maybe earlier they tried other materials, saw certain ones did not work, and finally found that a small branch did.

Working through a process to find what works, and does not work, seems like rational thought. It does not mean a being has to use math, language, or any higher level tools or processes that humans do. Can it reason through a novel problem and come up with a solution? That's really the question.

We know humans can be aware of some of that thinking in a way we call rational thinking. Rushing out to hang someone for committing an offense with other men dressed in white sheets, is not rational thinking even if the men are aware of their reasoning. Their reason is not the careful reasoning of science. — Athena

This is why the definition and meaning of the phrase "Rational thinking" needs to be clearly listed and agreed upon first. If we all have different viewpoints of what the phrase "Rational thinking" means, we're never going to come to an agreement. as to whether an instance of a crow using a tool is an instance of rational thinking.

Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.
— Philosophim
Didn't you want to use it in order to explain something about gloves? — Banno

No. The gloves are simply a thought experiment they used to explain the idea. The idea is what is being explained, the gloves are just a starting point to make the idea less abstract.

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all.
— Philosophim
I don't understand how. — Banno

If everything is constructed by the mind, and there is no 'thing in itself' that we are interpreting, then all of reality would be in our mind. A thing in itself is a logical note that there is a reality that exists even if we aren't around to interpret it.

And once you represent it, it is the thing...

I've never been able to see the point. It seems to me to conceal more than reveal. — Banno

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all. There is something underneath our representations which we cannot fully understands that is real and affects us. There's nothing else to really explore with it, so that's really where it lies.

Nor, while we are at it, is it clear how it applies to gloves. Is the supposition that a glove-in-itself, about which we can say nothing, is neither left nor right handed? — Banno

This is old philosophy we're dissecting. From an era before WWI, computers, and Netflix. Its a historical study about a thought experiment that was used as nothing more as a medium to bounce the idea around that there are some things that we can ascribe to reality, and arguably some things we can't. Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.

Why not drop the thing-in-itself in favour of the thing? At least then we can say something. — Banno

I agree that is the end take out of all of this. A "thing in itself" is a logical consequence that should not be considered anymore than its base logical necessity. As long as 'the thing in itself' does not contradict our representations (IE, cutting my hand off means it doesn't work anymore, no matter how I try to represent it otherwise) we can hold them.

Trying to figure anything more out about the thing in itself is pointless. You can't, you can only represent it.

We need something 'in itself' to represent.
— Philosophim

Why? — Banno

How do you represent something unless that 'something' is there?

But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use.
— Philosophim
This looks to be a play on "use". Only conscious beings construct. But that tells us nothing about space.

If the conclusion here is supposed to be that space cannot exist without conscious beings, and hence that some form of antirealism must be true, then it is very unconvincing. — Banno

No, that would be stupid. The point I've been making through the thread is the separation of representation vs 'things in themselves'. We need something 'in itself' to represent. The question is really about whether 'left' and 'right' as representations are things in themselves, or simply representations of direction through conscious origin. As I noted earlier, there not being a 'left' and 'right' in itself doesn't mean that there isn't the existence of two hands in particular points in space.

If the crow questioned if the stick would work, and proposed an experiment and then explained the results, the stick must be this long and have this strength to work, and we tested his experiment and found it to be true, then we have rational thinking. — Athena

So then if we took a human, and they did the same thing as the crow without saying any words, we would think that wasn't rational thinking? How did the crow arrive at that conclusion to do what it did to begin with?

Help, my thoughts may not be in the proper order or maybe I am not using the right words? I think I destroyed my argument. :chin: — Athena

Not a worry! We're here to think, and ideas can shift and flow. Honesty, questions, and exploring possibilities are all part of a good philosophical mind.

I don’t see why we need to imagine the glove floating in an empty container. Nor would the addition of a human spectator answer the question of whether it is a left or right glove – it is neither. — cherryorchard

Its a thought experiment used to convey an underlying idea. You're making an innocent mistake of focusing too much on the specifics of the thought experiment, and not what its trying to get at. The specifics of the thought experiment are irrelevant as long as you understand the main idea its trying to convey.

The point is that sometimes the existence of a thing does not innately imply things we ascribe to it. We ascribe direction based on points of origin, or use. But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use. Do left and right describe things in themselves, or are they purely constructs of an intelligent observer?

Ok, so the glove can fit a right hand or left hand
— Philosophim

I'm not sure I follow. As Banno says:

If the gloves have palm and back, then you can certainly tell which is left and which is right. — cherryorchard

Because the authors were not talking about gloves with palms and backs. They were specifically providing examples of gloves that had no distinct indicators that they were for left or right hands. Think of disposable plastic gloves that medical providers use if that helps.

If the question is whether 'left' and 'right' exist independently of any specific spatial observation point, I can't imagine how they could. — cherryorchard

This is the important part. But does that mean a right and left hand don't exist? No. The issue is in trying to describe 'things in themselves'. You really can't. Any descriptor or knowledge of a thing in itself is going to be a representation. So we can know there is reality, just not know what it is if we could not interpret and represent it in some way that relates to us.

Adding more objects doesn't fix that. So there is no "up" in itself. — frank

There is a distance between a set point in itself, and another set point in itself. "Up" is an interpreted relation between our observation view point, and that relation. So yes, "Up" does not exist in itself, but the Earth, and the distance to space for example, does exist in itself.

Yes, some animals can think rationally. It depends on how you define 'rationally' of course. If you define it as, 'the brain processing humans do', then its not. I don't ascribe to this definition, but many do implicitly.

Here is a crow using a stick to get food. Do you think this is rational?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfrxkEpfX8

This is about "Things in themselves" a concept which is easy to misunderstand. Let me see if I can do it justice.

A "Thing in itself" is 'reality'. It is "What is". What we do as people is observe light, air vibrations, etc, then piece together a coherent assessment of "That thing in itself" that we can process and make sense of. But if you think about it, the "Thing in itself" is not the light bouncing off. The falling tree does not make sound, the air from the crash does. As such, it is impossible to know what "A thing in itself" is. Its that upon which we represent with our definitions, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge.

Generally, the debate is, "Can we know what a thing in itself is?" Can we know what reality is, apart from our interpretations of that reality? And the answer is "No". What we call "space" has no directionality, as directionality is related to our interpretation. It doesn't mean that space doesn't exist or that something like "up" doesn't exist 'in itself'. It just means that our interpretation of what is, that exists without contradiction, still isn't "what is".

And this makes sense right? If you can only interpret something, you can't know what the something is without interpretation. In a more relatable sense, you can't actually 'be' another consciousness than yourself. You can interpret another human being, make beliefs about them, assessments, etc., but you can never understand what it is like to be "That person in themselves". And to really make sure this is understood, it does not mean that "That person in themselves" does not exist. It just means you're ability to understand and know about it is limited by the aspects of information and interpretation.

So ok, lets see if we can make the above conversation make more sense then a late night edible conversation.

this basic argument in the 1768 essay is that Leibniz’s view does not enable one to distinguish between a left handed glove and a right handed glove, insofar as the relations of all the parts to one another are the same in both cases. — SEP on Leibniz

Ok, so the glove can fit a right hand or left hand. That's the thing in itself (which we shouldn't be able to know). We ascribe to that glove, "Its a right handed/left handed glove", but because there is nothing innate in the glove itself that would necessitate that its right or left handed, we can make a belief, but not a solid claim of "that's what it is in itself".

Yet if God had created just one glove, it would have been one or the other. — SEP on Leibniz

What he's doing here is noting that the glove was made with intention. So the design does not convey the intent of the glove, but the designer had an intent for the glove. This is pulling the idea that 'things in themselves' are of course intelligently designed. And if you understand the what I noted above, you get into some absurd logic. Essentially even though we interpret reality, God actually understands and knows reality as it is 'itself'. How? Magic. And continuing to create a reasonable argument with magic ends in nonsense.

Another way to look at it is that God is another stand in for 'conscious intelligent being'. And its Gods interpretation that the glove be used for right hands only, so therefore its a right handed glove. But God would still need the concept of right and left handed that does not exist in 'the thing in itself'. Generally when you pull God into a conversation, it gets weird. I'll try to leave that aspect out to make it more intelligible.

Right-handedness and left-handedness are not merely anthropic concepts since nature itself insists on handedness in twining plants and the shells of snails. But which direction is right and which is left can only be established by a conscious, embodied being. As he expresses it in the Prolegomena, “The difference between similar and equal things which are not congruent…cannot be made intelligible by any concept, but only by the relation to the right and left hands, which immediately refers to intuition” — SEP on Leibniz

In other words if there were no hands, we would not be able to ascribe that a glove was for a right or left hand. But since there are hands created by nature, we know there are right and left hands in themselves. Nature doesn't ascribe to it that, "This is the right hand", but it there are hands that exist on each side of the body. Our interpretation or 'intuition' is to know them as right and left hands. Nature doesn't know them as that, as nature does not ascribe to them anything more than they are. The mistake here is to think that there is another concept 'in itself', or as God would ascribe. A thing in itself has no concept, it just 'is'.

It is not clear whether this orientational analysis implies that wherever there is space there must also be sentient beings with pairs of incongruent parts, as well as top-bottom and back-front asymmetry. — SEP on Leibniz

So again, to know something is 'right or left' is a human concept based on relation. "Right" is what we call 'that horizontal direction' in relation to left which is 'the complete opposite direction' from a particular origin viewpoint. "Right" and "left" do not exist, according to the above, as 'things in themselves'. They are pure concepts based off of relations of our interpretations of things in themselves.

So that being the case, if right and left are conceptual relations, doesn't that mean that top, back, depth, height, and space in general is just a concept based on the relations that a cognizant being creates? Yes. But does that mean the things in themselves are not related to other things in themselves, as they are? No. Does putting God or Forms into the mix make it more confusing then it needs to be? Yes. :)

Ok, so now to finally answer your question!

On what basis do you make this distinction? Is it a matter of experiencing the world through a human body? Or is there something objective about it? — frank

The objective basis is 'the thing itself'. We have 'hands' in themselves. How we interpret them is up to us. We could call them "quack and bark" hands if we wanted. We could say that hands involve the forearm. We part and parcel our interpretation of reality as we wish. As long as our interpretation is not contradicted by the thing in itself's existence (I can cut my hands off and they will still work does NOT match reality) then we're good.

I like your points except the need for religion. I believe at this point in life that religion is a mental construct we use to deal with things in life that have no alternative solution. Just like "everyone thinks they're above average". Of course not everyone is above average, that's not how math works. But thinking that you are helps you make it through the world.

I do think religion can be very helpful to people, but not for this particular solution. As you noted,

words [...] have reached such a pernicious level of influence that they have no real or useful clinical meaning. — Abdul

Exactly. I see it on social media and culture. "I have OCD". No you don't. OCD is a crippling compulsion that is in no way reasonable. Do you wash your hands 10 minutes every day on the dot to the point your hands are bleeding and raw? Then you don't have OCD. You have an attention to detail, order, and habit, which is part of the human spectrum.

The problem is medicalized terms that represent crippling deficiencies, have been relegated to personality differences that people are uncomfortable with. The psychology industry makes bank off of it, and well meaning psychologists are trying to make people's lives better. Being sad is not depression. Not moving from your bed for hours after you wake up is. Popular culture looks for what is wrong with us, when it should be celebrating our differences.

Compound this with a for-profit medicalized industry, and we're marketing pills to people who are quite healthy, have no problems working and taking care of themselves, but are sold a magic pill to "make life better". This especially hits the youth hard. You have teenagers dealing with normal stresses and fears and thinking its "anxiety". A diagnosis becomes an excuse for poor behavior that you could easily overcome. Its definitely a problem.

The psychology industry has people who understand this as well. They want psychology to emphasize less what is wrong with people, and more what is right. As long as there is money to be made however, and people are more willing to look for an excuse for what's wrong with them instead of accepting that life is going to have struggles you have to overcome yourself, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Because capitalism adapted to serve people. 40 hour work weeks, paid time off, Osha, and fantastic government regulation make life pretty good and generally healthy for its citizens. Communism was a product of tremendous income inequality and the rise of corporate power. People wanted government to fix that, and communism seemed a good way to do so. If you have its pretty good in society, or at least aren't miserable, why bother changing the system?

Why? So you can feel particularly righteous? — wonderer1

No, because Bob is constructing something important to them, an ethical theory. They are trying to get to the underlying logic of ethics, which is in my opinion, one of the last areas where true philosophy is still desperately needed. We do things all the time in our life that we cannot explain intellectually, as Bob noted. I've spoken with Bob many times, and he is not a self-righteous individual. They are passionate, curious, polite, and in my opinion, a true philosopher that is open to critique and changing their mind.

This is what philosophers endeavor to do. It is to construct a set of definitions and principles and come to a logical set of rules that help humanity understand and explain things beyond a surface level. When you encounter a person like Bob, who is a rare jewel on these forums, understand that this is their motivation. Bob can of course defend themself, but I can vouch for their reputation and intent on this forum.

I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward!

Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I agree. Its only a start. Maybe one day it will be more.

If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.

If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure. — Caerulea-Lawrence

You as well Caerulea! You have been a wonderful person to chat with, and I'm glad to have met you. Please continue on your path and feel free to share it with others here. I'll see you around the forums. :)

I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Unvarnished truth is better than couched and unclear communication. I took no offense. :) I also understand where you're coming from completely. Let me explain.

I came up with the knowledge theory and then the moral theory years ago. When I first came up with the moral theory, I was terrified and put it down. The problem was if I didn't use it correctly, or set it up in a way where someone could manipulate it as a half truth as some people in power are want to do, it could be horribly misused.

Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I do. Its why I put it down so long. So what made me change my mind?

1. I wanted to know if I was wrong.
2. I have more experience in philosophy and a better sense of the big picture.
3. I've learned to trust humanity more.
4. AI is coming.
5. The standard for proof is high.

Generally humanity advances whether we want to or not. It is only by those who are careful, care about the outcomes, and have a vested interest in humanities prosperity over profit and exploitation that these advances are most beneficial. If I don't try, I'm leaving it in the hands of some who potentially does not have those considerations at heart.

I also believe in the human spirit more. There are evil people yes, but I would say the majority of us are neutral to good. Humanity always struggles with a new set of knowledge or technology, but ultimately benefits if they are willing to tackle it in the right way.

AI is also a real danger. I believe if AI advances without us having established an objective morality, we'll have the same situation that you fear. AI has no intuitions, no loyalty to humanity or life, and it may determine that if morality is subjective, it can be bent for its own benefit. If it has to reason though an objective consideration, in almost no scenario would it conclude that humanity, animals, or life on this Earth should ever be wiped out.

Finally, if I'm careful in the specifics, and continually expect a high bar to claim, "This is more moral", with it being open to being challenged with new information at any time, I believe the theory avoids easy manipulation. Once could manipulate it by 'lowering the bar', but people do that even with subjective moralities.

Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. The moral theory is about existence being good. Meaning a person's existence is put into the equation. You can't say, "All people must do X", because not all people are the same. Its more about, "If you're X in this situation Y, and you have a choice between A and B, do B'.

Well, reading that, how do you feel? — Caerulea-Lawrence

I have no problem with it, except that I 'mostly' commit to those ideals. We are not perfect, nor should we expect to be.

By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I am measuring morals to the absolute reality of the situation. And in my experience, there is no other way. An absolute 'in every instance, do this' situation exists more rarely then you would think. We are part of existence, and thus we are part of morality. Morality does not have to be separate from us, but can be with us.

But I'm speaking in abstracts and feelings now. All I ask is for you to read the second part. If you read it and you don't like it, understood. But try to see what I'm doing first instead of fearing the unknown.

I am glad to discuss things with an open-minded person like you. — MoK

Thank you, I try.

But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?"
— Philosophim
No. Good and evil are fundamental and they are both necessary. Think of evolution for example. The weak agents are eliminated in the process of evolution so room is left for the stronger to survive since the resources are finite. Evolution is evil since weaker agents are eliminated for the sake of stronger ones. — MoK

Taken in that limited context, is that really evil then? Preferably, we would like there to be infinite resources. Then there would be no need for evolution. But if there are finite resources, and also threats that could potentially prevent beings from getting them, isn't evolution the best to handle a situation? Because if there wasn't evolution, wouldn't it all just die out?

Evil is not, "What is inconvenient". What is preferable, having a world with evolution, or no world at all? What should be is what is good, and what should not be is what is bad. Sometimes we might want something, but its not possible to obtain. We all want a world with no sickness or death. That would be a better world if it were possible. But since its not, does that automatically make our world evil?

I have to first answer what good and evil are before discussing morality. Good and evil as I mentioned are two categories of psychological states. I cannot define good and evil but I can give examples
of psychological states in which a set of psychological states are good and others are evil. Good like love, happiness, pleasure, and the like. Evil like hate, sadness, pain, and the like. — MoK

Are those things that we do not want in excess, or are they evil innately?

If someone comes into your home to murder you and your family, hate can be the motivation that lets you fight them off. Sadness over the death of a loved one is a beautiful thing. Can you imagine someone close to you dying and not being sad? Pain lets you know when your body is injured. There are people who can't feel pain, and they often die young. Here's an article to ease into the concept. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain

Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?
— Philosophim
Apparently, we cannot. We have to accept the reality as it is. Think of mental or physical exercises for a moment. Without physical activity which is tiresome and painful, therefore evil, you cannot have a body in good shape. The same applies to mental exercise. — MoK

So you see where I'm going with this. My goal here is to get to the very foundation of the words. At its very foundation I see good as "What should be" and evil as "What should not be". It keeps it clear, distinct, and allows clear identification. Because as you've noted, things that seem 'evil' in some circumstances, aren't.

And how do we know what is a right action?
— Philosophim
This is a tricky part so I have to give examples of a few situations to make things clear. Think of a situation that you have you have a nasty kid who breaks things and messes up your house. You don't reward him for what he does instead you punish him. The first act, rewarding, is good and the second act, punishing, is evil. Therefore, evil is right depending on the situation. Think of a person who is terminally ill. The act of killing any person is evil since it causes sadness to friends or relatives. But the act of killing a person who is terminally ill is right if she or he wants it. Here, I just gave a couple of examples of the situations in which evil acts are right. I am sure you can come up with situations in which a good act is the right choice. — MoK

It is tricky. And all of your examples I would intuitively think are examples of good. Good and evil are both about intention and outcome. Punishments done to teach and discipline are good. Punishments done as revenge and to simply cause hurt are evil. But why? That's what I'm trying to do here. Set up a foundation and work to the point I can say, "This is why punishing your child as a form of teaching can be good." I believe my analysis can show depending on the situation, why that would be greater good then a child who did not learn their lesson because they were not punished.

The issue I have with this, Philosophim, is that I find the whole concept revolting. The idea that existence is good and objectively moral - is abhorrent. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Ah, I see. First, let me tell you that I understand. Morality is arguably the underpinnings of everything we do. I can tell you right now, it is scary to delve into it. If I did uncover a foundation for morality, it is both potentially wonderful, and terrifying. People may not be logical enough for morality, and at the end of the day will twist anything to suit what they want. Present company not excluded!

I take your criticisms well, and am not offended. Thank you for being honest instead of trying to hide it under a poor argument. If it bothers you, I take no offense in the discussion ending, and you do not lose any respect from my end. If you disagree with what I write, you are not looked down on in any way. But for me, I have to look. I have to think about it. That's the nature of myself.

If you make 'moral statements' like this, apply your moral sense to them.
This isn't a logical claim. When you are making ANY kind of claim that has ANY kind of moral implications, it is a personal expression of your moral truths. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Its just a summary of the conclusion from the OP. The OP is the logical claim. If you are vehemently against it, and you can stomach it, examine it, and see if you can prove it wrong. I might be wrong after all, and this is an honest statement, not some lie of false humbleness. I take the idea of constructing a moral theory seriously, and I would not want to put anything out there that had a flaw at its core that I had not considered. I am interested in what works Caerulea, not that "I'm right". So trust me when I've come up with this as a genuine look at finding an objective foundation for morality, and would love feedback on the logic and premises.

And if what 'Should be' to you is an objective morality, which legitimized all the horrors of our existence, and dissolves all the complexities of our existence into being 'objectively good', then I am rejecting it with my whole moral self. — Caerulea-Lawrence

What may set your mind more at ease, is that this has nothing to do with quantified good. Let me see if I can explain. There's existence, and there are existences. Existence is a quality. Existences are quantities. Quantities can be compared and measured. Some can be larger or smaller than another. Intuitively, not logically, do you feel a slum of poor people who are sick and hungry is better than a town full of happy and well off people? I'm going to assume no. And as I continue my moral theory, I'll be able to show why that is.

You are thinking that my notion is quantity on my initial argument, when it is an argument of quality. I have not yet pointed out how to quantize good. But I have to build that from a logical start. Maybe reading my second post may give you more insight into what I'm doing if you're concerned, as that's where I begin to discuss quantity. My conclusions from the entirety of the theory is that our general sense of morality that holds across cultures makes sense because it creates more existences then not. Only instead of this being an opinion, I can arguably give a reason why backed by logic from the ground up. And it may not be right, my logic might be flawed here and there. But I feel its a start.

Take your moral theory and see if it alleviates any suffering, any grief or helps make sense of our helplessness and lack of understanding of the world. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes. That's the point. If the theory as built up works, at least to its underlying core, I could communicate across cultures what good and evil is. I can show generally how we should use knowledge and push as a species. I can explain the value and good of the various plants and animals we live with. How mutual cooperative existence is almost always better on the calculus then the elimination of competition, and the elimination of difference. And most importantly of all, this would not be an opinion. Culture would be considered, but the moral theory itself would not be a culture, but a physics. Requiring careful proof, open to be challenged at any time, and steps from A to Z.

What your concern is, is where you think I'm going to go with it. You've prejudged, and this is normal when confronted with opening the machine of morality. I think its a good thing that people defend morals so closely, and are careful to have them questioned. As you said, an irresponsible person or bad actor could cause a lot of damage. I don't want to be that person.

Logic isn't morality, morality is the faculty of you that make moral Choices. It isn't theory, it is your values.
Any moral statements have moral implications, and potentially intense emotional, physical and relational consequences - whereas logic does not. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Logic that does not consider this, is incomplete logic. All of that is part of existence, and any moral theory that did not consider it would be bereft in my opinion. Which is why I need discussion from other people. Its too big for one person to take on themself. Its not owned by anyone. Its an uniting force of the human race.

It has nothing to do with jumping ahead or reading anything into this; moral statements and logical arguments are simply incompatible, like the sun and an ice-cream. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I would consider myself a fairly moral person. I donate to charity. I moved to a different city to help my sister when she was diagnosed as bipolar. I believe in the goodness of the human race. I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many. So i do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages.

So if you are willing, I would like you to stick with it a bit more. I only ask you because I think you have fantastic insight, and a great mind. Maybe it is trash, but I don't see that yet. Only in conversing with good people can I figure out if his is right or wrong. I leave it in your court and will respect whatever decision you make.

Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good' — Caerulea-Lawrence

As of now, I'm not claiming that. All I've claimed at this point is that there is a fundamental logical truth to any objective morality. When presented with the idea of existence vs total non-existence, "existence being good" is necessary if an objective morality exists. In no way am I measuring good relatively among existence itself. I start building that in the next post.

If you start to believe in an unprovable and unsensible Objective morality, you start off with an indirect contradiction of your own belief by reality. What is then the applicable use of the rest of the 'Knowledge' you create, when it is indirectly contradicted to begin with? — Caerulea-Lawrence

I'm not saying, "I have found and proven an objective morality". What I am noting is if (means its not necessarily true) that an objective morality exists, logically, the answer to "some existence vs non-existence" must result that "existence should be". So at a very basic level, existence is good, complete non-existence is not. There is nothing else more being stated than this at this time.

The argument being presented above is a logical argument. It demonstrates that any claim of objective morality which claims non-existence is what should be, indicates that the objective morality itself should not be. And if that objective morality should not be, then we should not follow it. In other words, it contradicts itself. Therefore the only objective morality that does not contradict itself, is one that concludes existence is preferable to non-existence.

In no way does this claim that God or anything dictated that existence is good. It is simply a logical consequence if an objective morality exists. It is not even a claim that an objective morality actually exists. It states, "If it exists, this logically must be."

We can take this with a more common knowledge setup to compare. "The definition of a bowling ball is that it is spherical, and matches what we would call a ball. Because a cube is not spherical, it cannot be a bowling ball" If an object is a cube, it cannot be a sphere, is a logical conclusion. Claiming a cube is a sphere is a contradiction in properties, therefore we know its wrong to do so."

Thus the argument above is a reducto ad absurdum argument based on the definitions we have. There are a few ways to counter it. We could change the definitions. We could demonstrate that an objective morality does not exist. But because we can neither confirm or deny an objective morality exists, we can
at least start with what is necessary for an objective morality to exist. And this basic foundation is essential to any objective morality.

Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. But when we do not have proof of the fundamentals, we can take what we do know and conclude logical limits. Logical limits are starting points to build working theories of reality. That is all I'm doing here. The starting limit does not prove an objective morality. The starting limit does not prove that what I build further is true. But it does allow us to explore plausibilities. At one time, we could not travel deep under the sea. But logical allowed us to determine things on land such as "pressurized hulls". So in theory we could send something under the sea. We based it off of the things we logically knew, and adjusted as we went along.

The foundation here is that starting base. Its to say, "Hey, we can go under the ocean. I don't have all the details, and we might need to adjust as we descend, but logically, we can start with this as to why we should be able to."

Without the human element, any practical and useful understanding of 'what is good' breaks down completely, as you simultaneously argue that we don't need humans to evaluate morals, and that we as humans can understand fundamental morals. This is contradictory. — Caerulea-Lawrence

What breaks down is the language and process to prove X exists. If X is real, it exists whether we are here to understand it or not. We need humans to understand the process to prove an objective morality, but it would exist (if it does) whether we did or not. Our language construction and applied knowledge to the world would not exist, but the world still exists.

We don't know if we can mold the universe or not, and believing we can, just because we believe in Objective Morality, seems no different from any other fundamental beliefs that start off indirectly contradicted by reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

We mold the universe today. Our understanding of physics has allowed us to create the combustion engine for example. So let us imagine that we have a moral situation. "If a river if not diverted, will destroy a village. But if it is diverted, it will tear up a nearby road." The idea isn't meant to be complex or tricky, but note that we already do moral evaluations, and shape the world based on those moral evaluations. A road is nothing compared to an entire town, so we divert the river. The question then is can we build an objective morality from the foundation that I've laid out that gives us a clear answer as to why we should divert the river besides, "Its obvious, people are more valuable for subjective reasons, and so on"

If we could construct a morality that would objectively lay out why saving the village was more valuable, then we could indicate this across cultures and even species. That's invaluable. Does it exist? Maybe. But if it does, it should follow this foundation, so from this foundation we can see if other logical conclusions necessarily occur. Thus beginning to build a morality that we can debate, and of course test.

If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections — Caerulea-Lawrence

I surely didn't mean to dismiss your objections! If you think I haven't addressed or dismissed an objection, please point it out. Having read your response, I believe you think I'm stating much more than I am here. I am not saying an objective morality exists. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm very open to that. I am only saying, if I'm correct, and an objective morality does, this logically follows. Don't jump too far ahead to where you think I'm going, just re-read the argument very carefully and see if what I'm noting leads to the conclusion I've made. I look forward to hearing any critiques or questions.

Good - what should be
— Philosophim
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Good and evil are psychological states of affairs and are features of reality. — MoK

It is fine to disagree. But I'm going to ask, "Is it better to have good states of reality or evil states of reality?" Can you escape the notion that good is what should be, while evil is what should not be?

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
— Philosophim
Morality is about releasing what is a right action, good or evil, in a situation. — MoK

And how do we know what is a right action? Doesn't that require us to evaluate the situation? I do agree that we can also use morality in a sense that we have already determined what is good or evil. But this is the conclusion after evaluation. I do not mind either use.

What do you think about the logic of the rest of the post?

I’ll start with the connection between objective morality, and existence being good. Wouldn’t your argument work even if you changed ‘objective morality’ with ‘objective amorality/immorality/‘? Adding to this, there might be inherent conflict between the various objective moralities pertaining to the necessity for existence. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Morality is simply about evaluating what 'ought to be', so immorality would be its opposite or, evaluating "What not ought to be". Considering that we proved that the removal of all existence would be the removal of morality, we can know that if there was no existence, that would be immoral.

Adding to the inherent conflicts of other objective moralities...there are no other objective moralities. None. Its an area of philosophy, like knowledge, that still has a lot to explore and contribute. The problem until now is there has been nothing but a subjective foundation to all moral theories (that I know of).

Secondly, ‘objective’ and ‘Fundamental’. These words can mean very different things in this context. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, a good question for clarification. Objective in this case is 'What can logically be deduced apart from a singular viewpoint." And deduced is "A set of premises that lead to a logically necessary conclusion". So what I'm noting is that the premises do not require any one particular viewpoint. It is not an argument of opinion that requires any particular lived experience. There is no murky foundation such as, "We've always done it this way, common sense, or edict from God". It is a clear laying out of defined concepts, and a logical conclusion from those concepts.

To contrast, most moral theories' foundations are subjective inductions. They rely on rationalized feelings, cultural pressures, or myth and edicts. There comes a point in drilling into their foundation in which it begins to break down. "Why are our feelings an indicator of what is moral? Does that mean our feelings are moral themselves? So if I feel a particular way that is immoral, but act in a way that is moral, how did I know how to do that?" Just a loose example, nothing we need to drill into. :)

Secondly, the connection between objective morality and existence. This simplifies what I see as a rather complicated line of connected assumptions. — Caerulea-Lawrence

To clarify, this is not a complete moral system, this is an objective foundation. While I later build upon it as a proposal, here I am just laying groundwork. I have no illusions that what I've built upon this groundwork is anymore than a well reasoned rough draft, but I feel the groundwork here is solid. My hope is for people to understand the foundation, look at what I've built upon it, and add their own viewpoints, critiques, and possibly their own theories.

The question you are asking; «Should there be existence at all?» doesn’t seem to be the one you are answering. The question seems to be «Does ‘conscious and moral’ existences contribute to the «moral» impetus of the Universe? — Caerulea-Lawrence

The answer is, "Yes, consciousness and moral existences contribute", but I build to the reason why that is yes in the later posts. What I'm trying to do here at this point is ask the question, "Is there a possible objective foundation to build a moral theory off of? If so, what is it?" I can't prove that "Existence is good" based on pointing to a God or some law of nature that we've discovered. I only note that if an objective morality exists, any objective morality must logically include 'existence vs nothing' as 'good'. I also note that if an objective morality does not exist, then the argument would fail as well. But if an objective morality exists, this foundation I've pointed out is one logical conclusion that must be true.

The possibility that this universe, and life, operate on different morals altogether. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, we can always consider that possibility. Again, I am not claiming the entirety of the moral theory is sound, but I am claiming that logically, the foundation that "existence vs nothing" is good, is logically necessary, even if how we think the universe morally behaves as a total is different then we might think it is today.

However, arguing that since ‘conscious and moral’ entities contribute, it must be moral, is definitely a possibility, but not the most prudent one. — Caerulea-Lawrence

To be clear, I am not stating this. The moral foundation I've established does not require people. It would be a logical conclusion whether we exist or not. Just like the laws of physics would still exist without us.

Firstly, I don’t find it objectionable to say that ‘within’ the confines of this Universe that there are certain possibilities that are infinitely more ‘moral’ to life than others. However, I find it very hard to argue that the Universe is moral. My hard stance on this is that the rules of the Universe are Amoral — Caerulea-Lawrence

Without an objective foundation, we cannot claim that the rules of the universe are moral or immoral, so the assertion that they are amoral is correct in this case. But if we have an objective foundation, "Existence is good", then we can look at the universe and see if certain rules and setups are more moral than others. But I'm not going that far in the foundation at this point. Building from that into a new theory is where I try that, which you'll see in the other posts. What we can conclude here is that compared to nothing, the universe is moral.

And is our moral relationship with the Universe any different from the one children have with abusive parents? 

If anything, Existence the way it is structured, is inherently immoral to us. — Caerulea-Lawrence

True, without a moral foundation, we cannot judge. But with a moral foundation, we can. And if that moral foundation is sound, we can shape the universe around us to be better than it is as a non-conscious force. Just like we take rocks and turn them into statues, we can take the universe as it is and mold it into something greater than its mere existence.

I hope this helps to limit the scope of thinking at this moment to only the foundation. Once we come to a consensus on whether the foundation works, then we can build upon it to hit more of the issues you're thinking of.

I am unsure how to progress the conversation: I keep trying to get you to define what a choice and an action simpliciter are; and you seemed to just accept that you don’t have any—or don’t need to provide them. — Bob Ross

I had to think for a while whether I would continue this conversation or not. I think its been clear that I've been engaging with you fairly and trying to define and redefine on every post so far. I don't mind if you don't want to use my definitions, but I think at this point if you still believe I'm not engaging with you in good faith, its best to stop. I think this has morphed from a fun conversation, and that's all this was meant to be. I have a lot of respect for you Bob, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck with the other discussions here, I'll see around in another thread.

Your usage of the concept of a choice and the act of choosing are incoherent with the definition you have provided; as you defined a choice as necessarily about an intent to act, while also claiming that it is not necessarily about an intent to act. — Bob Ross

Sure, I've been mentioning in the discussion that yes, choice cannot involve action in particular circumstances like an opinion. But in your case of moral discussion, we are talking about actions, not opinions. You're not saying, "I choose that its better not to pull the lever." I would have no debate over you making a choice such as that. But when you say, "I choose not to pull the lever" you are bringing this into the context of action, or what you 'do' vs 'not do'. And as I've mentioned several times, if the choice is an actionable one, some type of action happens at X time. It is unavoidable.

Basically, actionable choices vs inactionable choices. I can say, "My favorite color is blue", but in an actionable choice choose a shirt that is purple instead of blue. The action doesn't change my opinion. For my view, what you need to do is demonstrate how when faced with actionable choices, you can take no action at all.

You’ve agreed with me that an action is a volition of will; but then incoherently claim that not all actions are volitions of will. — Bob Ross

I will spell out clearly so there's no confusion. I agreed with you that one type of action is an act of volition. I already defined action, then the verb of 'to act', and noted there were two types of actions. An action of volition, and an autonomous action. I even linked a science article noting there are involuntary actions. When I say "autonomous", I mean involuntary if there was any confusion.

Surely Bob if there are voluntary actions, there are involuntary actions right? Otherwise the term 'voluntary' loses its meaning entirely.

For me, willing is ‘the exercised power of determining according to one’s will’; ‘a will’ is ‘the dispositions of an agent taken as a whole’; ‘an intention’ is ‘an end an agent has for something’; ‘intending’ is ‘acting’: ‘a volition of will [with an intention—which is implied given my definitions]’; and by ‘volition’ I mean ‘willing’ (viz., ‘a volition of will’ is the same as saying ‘an instance of willing’). — Bob Ross

Ok, so "will" is a noun. And the noun is, the disposition of a person. By disposition do you mean:

a: prevailing tendency, mood, or inclination
b: temperamental makeup
c: the tendency of something to act in a certain manner under given circumstances

If so, you're just using the term disposition instead of will. And if that is the case, you and I agree. Both actions of agency and autonomy are part of a person's disposition. But a person's disposition is not will. They are not synonyms.

1: the desire, inclination, or choice of a person or group
2: the faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending

As you can see a will is a type of disposition. Just like being pliant, sad, unconscious, conscious, etc. I see no justification for changing the term 'will' to include all dispositions, when the term disposition will suffice.

For me, willing is ‘the exercised power of determining according to one’s will’ — Bob Ross

What does the "exercised power of determining" mean? Isn't that an action? Isn't the verb basically "Acting on one's will?" Considering that volition is "the faculty or power of using one's will" "Willing" would be 'an act of volition'' right?

‘an intention’ is ‘an end an agent has for something’; ‘intending’ is ‘acting’: — Bob Ross

I agree with the first part, but intending can also mean something like, "I intend to mow the lawn today". Its usually a less forceful promise of future action, opposed to, "I will mow the lawn today". The former has the possibility that something might get in the way, while the second indicates that you forsee nothing getting in the way.

and by ‘volition’ I mean ‘willing’ (viz., ‘a volition of will’ is the same as saying ‘an instance of willing’). — Bob Ross

Ok, we just need to clarify 'exercised power of determining' then. What does this mean to you?

I completely agree that, in colloquial speech and legal speech, we would not say “I willed to sleep walk”; but this is because the terms are not robust, nor do they need to be, for their application. The average person has absolutely no robust account of what they mean by “I” nor what it means ‘to will’. — Bob Ross

This is not an argument. We are not separate from people who do not study philosophy. Our language is not our own. Our job is to take the language that is commonly used, process it to be more accurate, clear up issues, etc. and put it back into the language of everyone else. What good are we otherwise if we construct our own language in an ivory tower? Anybody can do that and be 'right'. We have the challenge of working within a system to refine. Not that we can't create a new system or subsystem, but we need a good reason to.

Specifically, what is the problem with will as commonly defined? Is there some implicit use of will that its current definition ignores or is unaware of? You know I have no problem with amending words, but there must be a good reason to do so beyond the convenience of our own arguments. Pointing out where you feel the general use of will is lacking, and what your redefinition solves will help the discussion greatly.

In this sense, it is very clear that “I willed to sleep walk”—in the event that one did sleep walk—is (1) true (because the agent as a whole, comprised of the judging faculties of the brain, did will it), (2) an action (because it is an instance of willing), and (3) is not an instance of willing with the full capacities of that agent (taken as whole). — Bob Ross

If the person is unconscious and sleeping, how is that at their full capacities? What example can you give of a person not at their full capacities, and why? If they aren't at their full capacities, but interacting with the world somehow, is that will or not will? Again, the word 'disposition' agrees with what you are noting, but will is a very particular type of disposition that entails awareness, consciousness, and agency.

Again, this distinction between voluntariness and choosing does not exist in colloquial speech: people say “I chose to do X” and “I did X voluntarily” interchangeably (because they have no robust analysis of these concepts). — Bob Ross

This is an excellent example of where we can come in as philosophers. Why do people use it interchangeably? In what sense is it logical to do so, and in what sense is it logically not to? Notice how I defined 'choice' in this case as "a choice of action". In which case we can see where the interchange makes sense. When people refer to choice as 'an action I took', they're referring to an actionable choice that took place in the past tense. The idea in philosophy is to define words that clarify reasons of use in a logical manner, not to outright contradict or redefine the word against the use that people use.

The problem is that we cannot make headway on this if you cannot provide a clear and robust alternative schema to what I have put forth here; and so far I have demonstrated (above) that your definitions are still internally incoherent. — Bob Ross

I would like to think we're having a discussion here and trying to refine both of our terms. I agree, the point is to get to a set of terms that make sense and are logically consistent and useful. But Bob, you have to do that with your own terms as well. Your set has problems with ignoring involuntary actions, just as I was ignoring choices that do not require actions. You have a problem in using definitions that seem very at odds with common use, and have not given a good logical reason why. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but these things should be addressed better before they can be accepted as right.

NO. That’s what I am trying to get you to see: if you are using a ‘consciousness’ vs. ‘unconsciousness’ schema (and omitting ‘subconsciousness’), then sleep walking is a conscious act. Normally sleep walking is a subconscious act—if it were an unconscious act, then there would be no walking whatsoever (as someone would is unconscious — Bob Ross

This seems irrelevant to the point about voluntary vs involuntary actions. I don't care what you want to label sleep walking as, except for the fact that no one would say a person sleep walking has the mental faculties to make choices of agency, rationality, or will. You need to give a good reason why we should change this outlook, and not simply because it fits your argument.

It may be the case that I am forcing my body to stay how it is, contrary to what it would be doing otherwise, through willing. — Bob Ross

If your body does something against your will then, isn't that an involuntary action? But according to your earlier definition of will as being synonymous with disposition, wouldn't this be a disposition and an act of will? What do you call your body doing an action without your will?

Continuing to pull the lever is a part of the action which you are still performing; and one can make decisions while still acting; so, yes, me choosing to continue to perform action X does not create a new action Y. — Bob Ross

You just noted exactly what I pointed out. "Choosing to continue to perform action x", or "Continuing to act" is a choice. Actions are performed over time. How I act at time X vs how I act at time Y. As you noted, "You can continue to make decisions while acting," Meaning as time ticks on, you can continue to do action X, or do another action. I'm not seeing in your point how I'm 'not acting' at all.

Again, the reason you are failing to understand this is because you have no robust nor internally coherent account of what an action vs. a choice is; nor how acting simpliciter relates to acting qua choosing. — Bob Ross

Or perhaps your own set of definitions isn't internally consistent or robust? If it was Bob, why would I feel the need to introduce a counter? :) I'm not being contrary, just pointing out I see some problems and trying to point out what I see with possible fixes. That's why we chat right? Your criticisms have helped refine my words, but look to your own as well.

Finally, what is 'acting simpliciter'? Is that acting without thinking? Is that acting with will, or without will? Alright, this one has gone on far enough, let me know what you think Bob.

While I hear this argument as strong, it is actually not all that clear and decisive imo. Your analogy between radiowaves and consciousness(waves?) doesn't hold very well at all. — AmadeusD

I did not mean to state it as a fact, just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating.

It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh. — AmadeusD

I appreciate it, I was unsure myself.