Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate

1: Maybe, but maybe you could rewrite those too. And if you can make it work you could just start with the assumption they're correct. I haven't tried it so I wouldn't know.

I don't believe this really addressed the problem, which is can a supposedly self-made logic be considered logical if it invalidates rules of inference like Modus Ponens or validates fallacies like No True Scotsman.

But even then if we are distinguishing between rational and irrational thinking we are utilizing a rational Disposition...that would just support the argument that something can be objective without being a Necessity.

OTOH, if the argument is a system of logic can be privately rational then it's not clear what "rationality" even means?

2: So? you still calculated it out that whatver you did was better than the alternatives even if it wasn't perfect.It depends how much you care about yourself vs society vs whatever goal you have etc. Self interest.

This doesn't really answer the question of morality, as we can still argue whether some kinds of self-interest are morally better than others.

3: What's the difference between acting morally vs any other mental calculation? Again, demonstrate morality even exists. Show that it's somehow distinct from every other form of decision.

Morality, like logic, cannot be demonstrated in the way you want. But if you want to reject morality on the basis of not "existing" as a demonstrable object open to verification by scientific means you have to reject Logic & Mathematics for the same reason.

One could try to make a case for the existence of the Universals of math and logic on different grounds, but it seems to me that any attempt to prove the reality of math based on our Intentionality, our Aboutness of Thought, invites the very kind of arguments used by groups like the Catholic Scholastics to argue for the existence of objective morality?

4: Platonic moralism could just as easily, if not more easily be explained via self interest, A tendency to do what you want to do. Achieve what you want to achieve, etc.

Again, we can then talk about the moral kinds of self-interest and the immoral kinds. Simply saying "it's all self-interest" doesn't work as an argument to say there is no morality.

5: you can' really have something be in between objective and subjective. It's eventually one or the other

Proof? Also seems to me can have objective dispositions within subjective contexts?

At best what you could argue is that when dealing with many other self interested parties, it's probably not great to do things directly against their self interest, since they will then resist what you're doing. From that you could garner that things like murder, theft, etc are bad. Not because of morality, because of practicality. That being said, theft, murder, etc may be the best actions to take to get what you want if you are able to do it in a way that avoids the consequences. so there's no clear cut, definitive actions or intentions that you can say are objectively good or evil. Just mixtures that are more or less effective at getting the person what they wanted.

Why can't we assign different moral values to the different things people want? There can be Good Selfishness and Evil Seflishness. If the argument is that all selfishness is equally bad...well that's a statement of objective morality...

I don't remember what number it was anymore but basically it was about some female humanoid entity that the staff had to rape and do horrible things to or else she'd give birth to some creature who's details and actions are redccted but implied to be incredibly dangerous resulting in lots of death. As a result lab staff had to be chosen for their sexual deviancy and genuine desire to perform these actions since otherwise it wouldn't suppress the birth. Albeit a fictional scenario, it's the type of thing that, if real, would really show how self interest trumps morality. the self interest of everyone not wanting to die horrifically.

Montauk I think it was called? Actually if you look at the HTML source the author hints that the very practice of doing this is actually opening the door to Evil. So at least that author suggested the commission of great evil on the one to save the many was in error.

I don't believe this really addressed the problem, which is can a supposedly self-made logic be considered logical if it invalidates rules of inference like Modus Ponens or validates fallacies like No True Scotsman.

But even then if we are distinguishing between rational and irrational thinking we are utilizing a rational Disposition...that would just support the argument that something can be objective without being a Necessity.

OTOH, if the argument is a system of logic can be privately rational then it's not clear what "rationality" even means?


This doesn't really answer the question of morality, as we can still argue whether some kinds of self-interest are morally better than others.



Morality, like logic, cannot be demonstrated in the way you want. But if you want to reject morality on the basis of not "existing" as a demonstrable object open to verification by scientific means you have to reject Logic & Mathematics for the same reason.

One could try to make a case for the existence of the Universals of math and logic on different grounds, but it seems to me that any attempt to prove the reality of math based on our Intentionality, our Aboutness of Thought, invites the very kind of arguments used by groups like the Catholic Scholastics to argue for the existence of objective morality?



Again, we can then talk about the moral kinds of self-interest and the immoral kinds. Simply saying "it's all self-interest" doesn't work as an argument to say there is no morality.


Proof? Also seems to me can have objective dispositions within subjective contexts?



Why can't we assign different moral values to the different things people want? There can be Good Selfishness and Evil Seflishness. If the argument is that all selfishness is equally bad...well that's a statement of objective morality...



Montauk I think it was called? Actually if you look at the HTML source the author hints that the very practice of doing this is actually opening the door to Evil. So at least that author suggested the commission of great evil on the one to save the many was in error.

Well then let's cut to the heart of the argument that underlies all of this. What's the advantage of there being an objective morality over subjective morality? Why should I or anyone else care and furthermore, why do believers in objective morality care? Because it seems to me that there is literally zero reason for me to change my way of thinking since every advantage seems squarely in the subjective/self interest corner. Certainly for me.

I have no interest following a set of rules I didn't create, so objective morality is something I'd need to overcome if it existed. Further limiting, supposedly, what I am able to do or not do on top of what physics already does. And it not being in my control means these limitations could be totally arbitrary and nonsensical just like physics is. If it's true then oh well, but I'd still never accept it, it would just be a pain to have to do that much more work to overcome.

Well then let's cut to the heart of the argument that underlies all of this. What's the advantage of there being an objective morality over subjective morality? Why should I or anyone else care and furthermore, why do believers in objective morality care? Because it seems to me that there is literally zero reason for me to change my way of thinking since every advantage seems squarely in the subjective/self interest corner. Certainly for me.

I have no interest following a set of rules I didn't create, so objective morality is something I'd need to overcome if it existed. Further limiting, supposedly, what I am able to do or not do on top of what physics already does. And it not being in my control means these limitations could be totally arbitrary and nonsensical just like physics is. If it's true then oh well, but I'd still never accept it, it would just be a pain to have to do that much more work to overcome.

Well I am not arguing for objective morality as in there are specific rules, rather I think one could base objective morality on dispositions. Rules can follow from these dispositions but the underlying support is the Final Cause toward the Good.

One example, drawn from the (admittedly selective) message from NDEs would be how would you act if you genuinely loved someone? So Love could be the dispositional force. This just a preliminary idea, I've not developed this in detail. I know Ian Thompson has done more in his work Beginning Theistic Science to bring Love into an objective depiction of reality but I haven't (yet?) talked to him about this stuff.


As for why I care, I'd paraphrase the writer Matthew Stover - Morality at the extreme is what you feel comfortabl[e] denying others from doing. So naturally I wouldn't want people to rape, molest children, etc even if there is no way they'd caught. (They may also be opening themselves up to Hell if such a place exists by engaging in this action.)

Self interest has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the "Self". Yes self likely is built partially from physical evolutionary processes but there's no reason it has to stop there. Reincarnation and the like would throw many other variable into the mix. Souls with lots of experience could provide a body and the genes it contains with an incredible survival advantage. But at the same time it might be a total disadvantage.

For example, someone who remembers many lives may not have as strong of a survival instinct since they know death isn't that bad. Such a thing could be maladaptive to the body so you might expect interesting countermeasures to evolve, Maybe supressing past life memories. Likewise someone who remembers other lives or between lives may end up having a very different view on what's "important" in life, since obviously physical survival is irrelevant. In the same way that genetic survival in humans depends on an interplay between males and females for reproduction, where both have to compete for the others affections. The body may also have to win the affections of a host soul to make it play the genetic survival game. Since otherwise, the soul has nothing to gain from it. I'm intending on doing a whole write up about this idea sometime.

Regardless, you still haven't demonstrated morality or anything else can actually objectively exist so it really doesn't matter what you're saying here.

Evolutionary psychology does contend it is all about self interest. This is supposedly because what neurologically has been favored in evolution is the propensity for behavior that promotes individual and group fitness and resulting promulgation of genes, and self interest in the drive towards pleasure is the main mechanism used by evolution of animals to change behavior. What supposedly has actually evolved is a neurological mechanism where certain behaviors trigger a pleasure response, so the human and other animals tend to follow that evolutionarily molded behavior pattern. It is naturally in the self interest of the animal to behave in ways that produce pleasure. That supposedly is the underlying mechanism to cause altruism, for instance. The pleasurable feeling that the behavior is good is the way the selfish gene influences the human. This of course can also be actual physical pleasure. Of course there are also higher level mechanisms, involving guilt for instance. 

Anyway, we know by experiencing them in our consciousness that the qualities and aspects of human mental and emotional life are real - have some sort of real existence. But they are immaterial. This starts with the basic qualia of perception and awareness (like for instance the experience of the color red) and extends to things like appreciation of beauty and feelings of the goodness of certain things, along to love. We know that these things have a certain reality because they are actual properties of and objects in our conscious awareness, and we can't reasonably doubt our own existence. But they are in a different and higher existential category entirely than whatever physical neurological structures are activated, and the data processing of these neural nets. It is a category error to equate the one with the other. All that can be shown is a certain degree of correlation.

This is called the "hard problem" in consciousness studies. Do you love your mate? If so, can you prove it scientifically? You might try to use FMRI imaging to show activation of certain regions in your brain, but this wouldn't be any sort of proof of the existence of the immaterial element of love. So since you can't scientifically prove its existence do you (perhaps reluctantly) conclude that it doesn't really exist? That the essence of it is merely behavior? Similarly, the materialist faith is to assume that truth, beauty and goodness are not things in themselves, but are merely signals that allow us to make good evolutionary choices in favor of gene propagation. 

Since the perception and experience of beauty and goodness are real it is reasonable to conclude that their objects (whatever it is that engenders them in consciousness) must also be real in some existential sense. Of course, the materialist faith is that none of this, including the qualia of perception and awareness, have any real existence - that they are somehow just illusions. 

This is self-contradictory, since the question then naturally arises, what is it that is experiencing this illusion?

Evolutionary psychology does contend it is all about self interest. This is supposedly because what neurologically has been favored in evolution is the propensity for behavior that promotes individual and group fitness and resulting promulgation of genes, and self interest in the drive towards pleasure is the main mechanism used by evolution of animals to change behavior. What supposedly has actually evolved is a neurological mechanism where certain behaviors trigger a pleasure response, so the human and other animals tend to follow that evolutionarily molded behavior pattern. It is naturally in the self interest of the animal to behave in ways that produce pleasure. That supposedly is the underlying mechanism to cause altruism, for instance. The pleasurable feeling that the behavior is good is the way the selfish gene influences the human. This of course can also be actual physical pleasure. Of course there also higher level mechanisms, involving guilt for instance. 

Anyway, we know by experiencing them in our consciousness that the qualities and aspects of human mental and emotional life are real - have some sort of real existence. But they are immaterial. This starts with the basic qualia of perception and awareness (like for instance the experience of the color red) and extends to things like appreciation of beauty and feelings of the goodness of certain things, along to love. We know that these things have a certain reality because they are actual properties of and objects in our conscious awareness, and we can't reasonably doubt our own existence. But they are in a different and higher existential category entirely than whatever physical neurological structures are activated, and the data processing of these neural nets. It is a category error to equate the one with the other. All that can be shown is a certain degree of correlation.

This is called the "hard problem" in consciousness studies. Do you love your mate? If so, can you prove it scientifically? You might try to use FMRI imaging to show activation of certain regions in your brain, but this wouldn't be any sort of proof of the existence of the immaterial element of love. So since you can't scientifically prove its existence do you (perhaps reluctantly) conclude that it doesn't really exist? That the essence of it is merely behavior? Similarly, the materialist faith is to assume that truth, beauty and goodness are not things in themselves, but are merely signals that allow us to make good evolutionary choices in favor of gene propagation. 

Since the perception and experience of beauty and goodness are real it is reasonable to conclude that their objects (whatever it is that engenders them in consciousness) must also be real in some existential sense. Of course, the materialist faith is that none of this, including the qualia of perception and awareness, have any real existence - that they are somehow just illusions. 

This is self-contradictory, since the question then naturally arises, what is it that is experiencing this illusion?

Then the argument shifts to the next stage like with Sci which is, why should I or anyone care? What's the advantage of it being that way/me believing it's that way over any other way? Like, I could believe that truth and beauty are immaterial but that's not going to change what I see as true or beautiful or how I live. It's not going to get me any closer to anything I want, nothing happens at all.

I do think that it's mostly survival based. I don't think my view of women or good friends has much more behind it than mate selection and group bonding, That being said, I also choose not to leave it that way. It's happening regardless of what I think of it so I might as well make use of it so it doesn't make use of me.

::EDIT::

One of the reasons I think it's evolution comes from past life memories of being different genders. One of my favourite memories that really illustrated this was one where I was female but through various circumstances, remembered earlier male lives. One day I found myself feeling a sort of deep compassion for a guy I'd never really felt before and couldn't understand until it hit me that I was attracted to them and really cared about them. Because of all the male memories I freaked out in my mind and started wondering if that meant I was gay. So, being in a female body despite having far more experience and far more memories of being male was all it took for me to feel physically and emotionally attracted to a male. I'd say that's grounds to believe the brain was calculating and then feeding "me" those feelings.

One of the reasons I think it's evolution comes from past life memories of being different genders. One of my favourite memories that really illustrated this was one where I was female but through various circumstances, remembered earlier male lives. One day I found myself feeling a sort of deep compassion for a guy I'd never really felt before and couldn't understand until it hit me that I was attracted to them and really cared about them. Because of all the male memories I freaked out in my mind and started wondering if that meant I was gay. So, being in a female body despite having far more experience and far more memories of being male was all it took for me to feel physically and emotionally attracted to a male. I'd say that's grounds to believe the brain was calculating and then feeding "me" those feelings.

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to morality?

And what was the brain calculating?

Finally this anecdote+interpretation seems to make your experiential interpretation the right one, because it comes from your self-report...but doesn't this also apply to people who felt they acted out of moral responsibility? To then say it's self interest is a secondary interpretation...just as my [hypothetical] interpretation might be you simply are gay or bisexual rather than experiencing feelings from any past life?

Then the argument shifts to the next stage like with Sci which is, why should I or anyone care? What's the advantage of it being that way/me believing it's that way over any other way? Like, I could believe that truth and beauty are immaterial but that's not going to change what I see as true or beautiful or how I live. It's not going to get me any closer to anything I want, nothing happens at all.

I do think that it's mostly survival based. I don't think my view of women or good friends has much more behind it than mate selection and group bonding, That being said, I also choose not to leave it that way. It's happening regardless of what I think of it so I might as well make use of it so it doesn't make use of me.

::EDIT::

One of the reasons I think it's evolution comes from past life memories of being different genders. One of my favourite memories that really illustrated this was one where I was female but through various circumstances, remembered earlier male lives. One day I found myself feeling a sort of deep compassion for a guy I'd never really felt before and couldn't understand until it hit me that I was attracted to them and really cared about them. Because of all the male memories I freaked out in my mind and started wondering if that meant I was gay. So, being in a female body despite having far more experience and far more memories of being male was all it took for me to feel physically and emotionally attracted to a male. I'd say that's grounds to believe the brain was calculating and then feeding "me" those feelings.

Your question of why should you or anyone care about this issue would apply to most all of the threads in this forum. Of course it is an end-around play to trivialize the issue we have been discussing. The reality or unreality and truth or falsity of these things matter to some people for reasons that mostly have nothing to do with practical advantages in life. Whether or not there really is meaning and purpose to life, for instance, or whether or not there is a human spirit independent of the physical body (however hard it is to understand its nature), or the linked issue of whether the purposeless random variation-driven mechanism of Darwinism explains all of life including our own existence, are important to some people even though they are not practical issues that they can do anything about.

Your point of view does seem to me to be somewhat incoherent. You invoke reincarnation of some personal spiritual essence as being real while at the same time you seem to espouse some major elements of the belief system of evolutionary psychology, which holds that we are nothing but smart animals, all that makes us human evolved (by a Darwinistic mechanism), and consequently that there is absolutely no such thing as a spirit or soul. It seems to me that you only can have it one way or the other - you can't have both. Perhaps I misinterpret, however.

The reality or unreality and truth or falsity of these things matter to some people for reasons that mostly have nothing to do with practical advantages in life.

Good point, we could be quizzed about right or wrong of things divorced from our well being, even to the point of assigning morality to fictional characters.

This could arguably tie into some evolutionary concern...but one only has to look at the some of the things that happen in Nature that seem morally reprehensible to us if they were to be done by sentient beings...

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to morality?

Because it shows how fragile feelings are, how easy they are to manipulate and change with a little contet shift. Much like the feelings of morality.

And what was the brain calculating? 

Clearly something closely related because all I had to do was become a woman to suddenly have an attraction to men. It was almost like the body was the primary thing involved in that process isn't it?

Finally this anecdote+interpretation seems to make your experiential interpretation the right one, because it comes from your self-report...but doesn't this also apply to people who felt they acted out of moral responsibility? To then say it's self interest is a secondary interpretation...just as my [hypothetical] interpretation might be you simply are gay or bisexual rather than experiencing feelings from any past life?

Well in this life I have zero attraction to men, period. Likewise  in that life I had zero attraction to women, the only reason I got shocked was because of the memories. Had they not been there I would've just gone with it. Which I still did, I just use it as an example because it was funny how I mused about if I was gay, as a woman, attracted to a man. It's far from isolated. Different genders, different species in some cases. Even different bodies of the same species and gender show differences in their feelings and how they're triggered. The whole feeling thing seems largely out of my control most of the time.

As for the feeling of morality, well, all it takes is two people looking at the same actions while seeing them on different sides of the moral spectrum to put that to bed. Honour killings being a good example, The muslim thinks it's good and moral to do, others not so much, boom, not objective. clearly the feeling is triggered from something else even if they think it's "morality."

Feelings on their own mean nothing, it's only when they're coorelated with something else that they can be used as evidence of that thing. And even then, contet changes all that, people suffering heat stroke feel cold for example. I've had so many premonition feelings that felt so certain that never ended up being true that I just ignore the feeling now. I don't know or care what causes it since it's never done anything for me.

At this point I have thoroughly squashed the idea that morality can even possibly be objective and have no interest in continuing. There's no logical evidence for it, it is in fact it's own logical fallacy:

http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...ic-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...ic-Fallacy

So it's dead in the water anyways. There's no empirical evidence for it, not even a shred, and there isn't even an advantage to believing it, in fact moralists are the ones who cause most of the problems in the world, they are the ones these days calling for the death of all white men for example. That's typically why I argue against it, it's verifiably them who pave the road to hell with their good intentions, not people like me. You don't need to look too far past or present to learn that. I''d rather not be swept up in that again.

So it's dead in the water anyways. There's no empirical evidence for it, not even a shred, and there isn't even an advantage to believing it, in fact moralists are the ones who cause most of the problems in the world, they are the ones these days calling for the death of all white men for example. That's typically why I argue against it, it's verifiably them who pave the road to hell with their good intentions, not people like me. You don't need to look too far past or present to learn that. I''d rather not be swept up in that again.

So...moralists have caused things or espoused ideas you consider to be objectively bad morally?