(2020-10-20, 03:14 AM)Laird Wrote: [Edited to better reflect that your sentence is conjectural.]
So, what it would come down to on that conjecture then is that there is no (ultimate) objective grounding for morality: morality would be (ultimately) grounded in "whatever those guys up there say it is".
Right?
It seems to me that the nature and definition of what is the moral ground of reality would naturally, inherently be whatever the creator or creators of that reality decided it should be. Like the laws of physics, apparently very finely tuned by intellignce to foster and allow carbon-based life as we know it to develop in the Universe.
Quote:In that case, for you to say that a soul is "yours" is like saying that your husband or wife is "yours" - it merely indicates a relationship between two conscious beings, rather than one of selfhood. On the other hand, when I say that a soul is "yours" I mean that it is the core of your self. So, you are working with a different definition, and, apparently, by my definition, you do not believe that humans have a soul.
Right?
I agree there is this problem with my view of the matter - but this view is based on observation. What about the evidence I cited? I'm not sure how to resolve this. Actually I think the issue must be rather complicated in that what can seem to be a separation of two different beings could be instead two greatly different levels of consciousness in a single overall being, where the higher level of consciousness can even be active simultaneously with that of the other lower one, and can make choices that would never be made by the other lower consciousness. We don't have the least idea of the ultimate depths of consciousness. Just one example would be multiple personality disorder, where the apparently separate pesonalities can be quite aware of each other but have radically different points of view and personalities even with certain different bodily characteristics like allergies.
By the way I notice you don't dispute my examples of apparent evidence that the soul and the human self are in some sense quite separate. Do you dispute these examples of such apparent evidence?
Quote:I think you're onto something here which needs a little clarification, so here goes in my own words:
I think we need to distinguish between (morally) good choices/acts and good outcomes (in a morally relevant sense). Here's my view on this distinction: positive experiences are always good outcomes in a morally relevant sense, even if they are not the result of morally good choices or acts (i.e., even if they are accidents like stumbling on a 20 dollar bill). Morally good choices or acts are those which are intended to cause good outcomes in a morally relevant sense (i.e., positive experiences) and can reasonably be expected to do so (even if they accidentally and unintentionally don't, such as when money given generously is used to buy whiskey).
So, when we talk about "the ultimate good", we can talk about ultimately good choices/acts, or ultimately good outcomes... or we can talk about both, in which case, we could suggest that, unqualified, "the ultimate good" is when an ultimately good choice or act leads to an ultimately good outcome. That is to say that it is ultimately "better" when the act of generosity of giving away money leads to the outcome of hunger satiation rather than inebriation.
I think the ultimately morally good is simply an act of kindness, compassion and love to another; there is not a moral dimension to just positive experience since positive experiences can be defined simply as some form of pleasure whether bodily pleasure or emotional or both. This could be higher or lower, but it still is just pleasure - getting a heroin fix or eating a great meal or enjoying reading a great novel or listening to a Beethoven symphony. In my view these are still all positive experiences but with no moral dimension, no "ought".