A proponent of panpsychism argues moral truth is inherent in consciousness

So is the Good defined by this Source Entity, or does the Good exist eternally but is a part of the Source Entity?

It seems for morality to have weight it would have to be the latter?

I don't think we can know. It seems to me that the Source Entity is the mysterious uncreated Creator and must incorporate all things. Presumably the buck stops there, and whether Good was defined by choice of this Entity or it is an integral part of this uncreated Source Entity, we must accept it as the grounding moral principle. This area goes past any possibility of penetration by Man's logic and reason.

Got it.  Thanks.

Seems harder to square notion that Good (and by definition Evil?) just a priori exists and presupposes the Source; doesn't it?  Where did Good/Evil come from?

Well the Source could hold knowledge of Good/Evil, just not the arbiter of Goodness. I guess it'd be similar to the ancients thought of "God" holding mathematical/logical truths in Its head.

So the Source is a being of Goodness and Reason, with Source/Goodness/Reason all existing eternally. 

It does, admittedly, make some sense that Mathematical and Moral truths should be held in some Divine Mind as both concern consciousness. It's easier to think of it this way than trying to explain where Platonic Math objects [let alone moral knowledge] are in relation to the part of the world that's non-mental. (Of course Idealists can skip all that.)

I don't think we can know. It seems to me that the Source Entity is the mysterious uncreated Creator and must incorporate all things. Presumably the buck stops there, and whether Good was defined by choice of this Entity or it is an integral part of this uncreated Source Entity, we must accept it as the grounding moral principle. This area goes past any possibility of penetration by Man's logic and reason.

If it's conceivable that acts we think of as Evil could've been Good, I would say we've reduced morality to preference.

Admittedly the preference of That Who is the Ground of Being, but nevertheless I think this renders moral truths illusory. Similarly I don't think there's any other way for mathematical truths or logical syllogisms to be.

.........................................
I think the sense in which positive experiences have a moral dimension in the form of an "ought" is the sense in which they are the objective of moral choices/acts (they are what we "ought" to be intending morally). The whole point of acts of kindness, compassion, and love, after all, is to cause positive experiences (in both giver and receiver). Do you disagree with that? And if you do, then can you suggest what the point of kindness, compassion, and love is if not to cause positive experiences?

[1] Titus Rivas helped to convince me of that, in part through his page Is noetic monism tenable? (which I've referenced before), and in part via personal communication. See also this shorter article of Titus's which I've just found: Cogito plus Noetic Monism leads to Solipsism.

Not that I particularly believe it, but there is a line of thought in New Age philosophy where suffering is greatly demoted in importance because it is supposedly always "temporary" in the life of the soul. To use a hypothetical extreme example, this could lead to a soul choice of an upcoming life as a paraplegic mentally deficient person who has to be cared for by his parents over all his life. The soul to be incarnated as the paraplegic agrees to do this as a spiritual gift to the souls of the parents, who have decided they need this experience of extensive care-giving in order to develop an appreciation for the depths of sacrifice that love should impel a person. Of course, this scenario is somewhat repellent to most people and I certainly don't agree that it is a right decision by these souls, at least from the human standpoint.

In this example the purpose of the souls of the parents is to develop kindness, compassion and love, not to give pleasure, positive experiences, to their disabled offspring. In fact, the disabled offspring was created for that moral developmental purpose. To develop the expression of kindness, compassion and love is itself the goal set up by the creators of the system and is the embodiment of their grounding moral principles, not the giving of positive experiences to the recipient. The suffering and limitations experienced by the paraplegic over his life were considered by these souls to be well worth it. Of course the paraplegic human self would have a different opinion.

In that case, you seem to be a moral relativist in at least two senses:

1. The sense in which morality is grounded by ("relative" to) whatever the creator(s) of reality decide(s).
   
2. The sense in which humans have their own ("relative") morality which differs from that of the creator(s).
   

Here's a question to get better clarity on your position:

Are you contending that even if both we humans and "the powers that be" had access to exactly the same set of facts about reality, it could still be the case that we as humans (rightly, by our definition) judge their system as immoral, and they (rightly, by their definition) judge that same system as moral?

......................................................

I don't think we can really know. My view is that the answer to this hypothetical question is probably No, but there is no way given the nature of both the physical system and the spiritual order of reality created by these "powers that be", that humans can know the same facts (the true ultimate nature of reality) as the creators know. Humans are under a deliberate veil of ignorance established by these creators. Unfortunately, as I have explained, in fact all the evidence observable by human beings seems to be in the direction of a Yes answer. Maybe it is a deliberate test.

[Laird]

Not that I particularly believe it, but there is a line of thought in New Age philosophy where suffering is greatly demoted in importance because it is supposedly always "temporary" in the life of the soul. To use a hypothetical extreme example, this could lead to a soul choice of an upcoming life as a paraplegic mentally deficient person who has to be cared for by his parents over all his life. The soul to be incarnated as the paraplegic agrees to do this as a spiritual gift to the souls of the parents, who have decided they need this experience of extensive care-giving in order to develop an appreciation for the depths of sacrifice that love should impel a person. Of course, this scenario is somewhat repellent to most people and I certainly don't agree that it is a right decision by these souls, at least from the human standpoint.

In this example the purpose of the souls of the parents is to develop kindness, compassion and love, not to give pleasure, positive experiences, to their disabled offspring. In fact, the disabled offspring was created for that moral developmental purpose. To develop the expression of kindness, compassion and love is itself the goal set up by the creators of the system and is the embodiment of their grounding moral principles, not the giving of positive experiences to the recipient. The suffering and limitations experienced by the paraplegic over his life were considered by these souls to be well worth it. Of course the paraplegic human self would have a different opinion.

OK, but all of that is consistent with my contention: that the point of (developing) kindness, compassion, and love is that they lead to (or cause or consist in) positive experiences (for all involved). I am not even sure why you'd want to contest that as it seems patently obvious!

Re the suffering of the disabled offspring: again, "temporary pain for long-term gain" (of self or others) is a moral choice with which we're all familiar, and which is totally consistent with my view of morality.

[Laird]

Are you contending that even if both we humans and "the powers that be" had access to exactly the same set of facts about reality, it could still be the case that we as humans (rightly, by our definition) judge their system as immoral, and they (rightly, by their definition) judge that same system as moral?

[snipping the preceding context] Unfortunately, as I have explained, in fact all the evidence observable by human beings seems to be in the direction of a Yes answer.

The fact that you think it is logically possible for the answer to be "Yes" tells us all we need to know, I think.

A "Yes" answer would imply that humans and "the powers that be" define morality in fundamentally incompatible ways. That which you refer to "up there" as the "ultimate" morality then would not really be morality - it would simply (and mistakenly) bear the same name. It would be a "morality" in which it is "moral" to submit another to intense suffering from which s/he does not benefit in the slightest, but which benefits the one who submits him/her. The only way that that could be referred to as "moral" is by redefining the word!

Maybe it is a deliberate test.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

The fact that you think it is logically possible for the answer to be "Yes" tells us all we need to know, I think.

A "Yes" answer would imply that humans and "the powers that be" define morality in fundamentally incompatible ways. That which you refer to "up there" as the "ultimate" morality then would not really be morality - it would simply (and mistakenly) bear the same name. It would be a "morality" in which it is "moral" to submit another to intense suffering from which s/he does not benefit in the slightest, but which benefits the one who submits him/her. The only way that that could be referred to as "moral" is by redefining the word!


Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I think it is obvious that this is logically possible. Very many things are logically possible, like there being 10,000 invisible angels on the head of that pin over there. As I already remarked, I don't think we can ever really know for certain because of our inherent limitations as human beings. Given that, I don't really believe your statement (posed as a hypothetical) is the case. I think reality is probably much more friendly to humans (in ways we might not be able to understand), but that this is probably being deliberately kept from us, perhaps as a test or a learning tool, that logic and reason are not the only ways to wisdom. We already know that likely for certain reasons decided upon by higher beings and also perhaps our own souls, we are severely limited in the degree we can exercise and benefit from the senses and powers (dormant in physical humans in the body) that are native and natural in the spiritual realms. These are closely related to what we know as PSI, ESP and psychokinesis.

OK, but all of that is consistent with my contention: that the point of (developing) kindness, compassion, and love is that they lead to (or cause or consist in) positive experiences (for all involved). I am not even sure why you'd want to contest that as it seems patently obvious!

It doesn't seem consistent to me. My contention is that the expression of kindness, compassion and love is itself the moral goodness being sought to be developed by the souls of the parents. It would still be the case even if in the example all this caregiving resulted only in misery and resentment on the part of the disabled offspring. In this example, kindness, compassion and love are their own goal, being one of the foundational grounds of morality in reality.

[Laird]

I think it is obvious that this is logically possible.

The only way it is logically possible is if the word (ETA: I mean "morality") is given a second, and contradictory, meaning. Are conversations in which a term is used with two different - and contradictory - meanings particularly helpful or useful? I don't think so.