The Paradox of Objective Morality

[Werone]

Originally Posted by penlope

Hi !
my boss says I aint worth talkin to and so im going to try an lern a few things
here. Why dont you put an ad in the newspaper fur sombody that can walk on water or somethin?

then you could have a new comitee leader to start the ball rollin with the new religion. thats all your talkin about. Replacing a religion ,ike my boss threatin to replace me all the time.

the new commitee idea

no steelin
no meeny stuff
no thinkin you got somthin like you know what, thats not yurs.
no smakin people out unless there askin pretty good
no hurtin little critter
no messen up the air and water...sky too....thats why to make sure and don't furget now, the add in the newspaper fur the new committee leader can't have nothin to do with crackin the moon in half.

Thats funny. Why start from scratch again? The point is that we have rule by committee anyway, laws are made by committee and the writers of the bible had a committee, the interpreters of the bible from hebrew to whatever language had a committee. Just sayin'.

[Werone]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is not an either/or proposition . . . it is both. We have the problem of discerning the human purpose . . . THEN agreeing about it, and THEN evaluating morality against it. If as you believe, there is no human purpose . . . then it is a whimsy and fruitless enterprise of vain and foolish "accidents" . . . pretending it matters what they do or do not do.

Where in my quote did I write there is no human purpose? We are an extension of nature, we hold a long history of field tested biological processes. We are nothing more than data processors, we hold information, digest information, pass on information and we are doing what took biology hundreds of thousands of years in less and less time...

I have purpose, I see humanities collective purpose, and I don't need a divine being to be happy, purposeful and have love for my fellow man and life on earth. We are here to gather information and try to gain control of all the matter and energy of the universe.

[peter-1]

Originally Posted by Werone

Where in my quote did I write there is no human purpose? We are an extension of nature, we hold a long history of field tested biological processes. We are nothing more than data processors, we hold information, digest information, pass on information and we are doing what took biology hundreds of thousands of years in less and less time...

I have purpose, I see humanities collective purpose, and I don't need a divine being to be happy, purposeful and have love for my fellow man and life on earth. We are here to gather information and try to gain control of all the matter and energy of the universe.

This should be looked after quickly.Ignorance is only a lack of information which can be corrected .


You explain that you are happy with yours and society's collective purpose allowing for meaning. This is very good. I believe you also see the value in loving your fellow man, another good thing.

Above we have two ideas which are combined for your explained very good focus...however

1)The observations allowing for your particular focus in idea for meaning is not your resultant focus to begin with.

2) You did not choose to be born into this focus for meaning.

3) You also do not have anything to do with its inception, you simply participate and comply in your manner.

In order to be moved in a happy way by achievement, the properties in gaining that progress require consideration.

If all that is considered in achievement is your persevering manner in complying and participating in the realities of life, then you are in fact thieving attribute because, creation is not your idea, you had nothing to do with its inception, you did not choose to be involved with it and the appreciation in self attribute takes all consideration for achievement for self , leaving none for the allowable circumstance, a focus.....which you have already conceded in explanation.

Since there is no appreciation for the outcome in an allowable circumstance in a direct marked way such as Higher Power or whatever cosmic idea you like, the only appreciation which can be afforded to you is from others. ( also conceded

When effort fails society, society fails the individual and its philosophy for meaning. Therefore asserted meaning is only viable and true where society translates and obliges. Therefore the philosophy for meaning is not construed or in control by self, but society. A theiving puppet.

[Werone]

Originally Posted by peter-1

This should be looked after quickly.Ignorance is only a lack of information which can be corrected .


You explain that you are happy with yours and society's collective purpose allowing for meaning. This is very good. I believe you also see the value in loving your fellow man, another good thing..

Ok, it comes across as a patronizing statement, but ok.

Originally Posted by peter-1

Above we have two ideas which are combined for your explained very good focus...however..

Very good focus? I can follow your logic, i think, you may not be a native english speaker. I cannot draw conclusions as to why you have chosen those words, "for your explained very good focus." Its difficult to grasp what you mean by that other than maybe, I was focused on explaining my position?

Originally Posted by peter-1

1)The observations allowing for your particular focus in idea for meaning is not your resultant focus to begin with.

Wow. Very confusing statement. I do not follow. What is your native language? If you speak spanish or german, send me a private message.

Originally Posted by peter-1

2) You did not choose to be born into this focus for meaning.

Again I am lost. Your subjective reality needs further explanation. The beauty of language and the power of language is commensurate when we ensure comprehension not assume comprehension. That includes me.

Originally Posted by peter-1

3) You also do not have anything to do with its inception, you simply participate and comply in your manner.

What inception? What?

Originally Posted by peter-1

In order to be moved in a happy way by achievement, the properties in gaining that progress require consideration.

So now you are defining my happiness? What?

Originally Posted by peter-1

If all that is considered in achievement is your persevering manner in complying and participating in the realities of life, then you are in fact thieving attribute because, creation is not your idea, you had nothing to do with its inception, you did not choose to be involved with it and the appreciation in self attribute takes all consideration for achievement for self , leaving none for the allowable circumstance, a focus.....which you have already conceded in explanation.

Since there is no appreciation for the outcome in an allowable circumstance in a direct marked way such as Higher Power or whatever cosmic idea you like, the only appreciation which can be afforded to you is from others. ( also conceded

When effort fails society, society fails the individual and its philosophy for meaning. Therefore asserted meaning is only viable and true where society translates and obliges. Therefore the philosophy for meaning is not construed or in control by self, but society. A theiving puppet.

It's hard to say what you meant. Focus on what you do not agree on in my statement and stick to that. Thieving puppet? What do you mean by that? Since you learned all your behaviors from others are you a thieving puppet? Puppet? Your argument has no basis in objective reality. Perception is reality my friend, so try to test all your theories with a very wide circle of people, including those that do not agree with you, so that you make better decisions. Your thoughts and philosophy should always be in the beta phase, you should never be done with searching for the truth.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is not an either/or proposition . . . it is both. We have the problem of discerning the human purpose . . . THEN agreeing about it, and THEN evaluating morality against it. If as you believe, there is no human purpose . . . then it is a whimsy and fruitless enterprise of vain and foolish "accidents" . . . pretending it matters what they do or do not do.

Originally Posted by Werone

Where in my quote did I write there is no human purpose? We are an extension of nature, we hold a long history of field tested biological processes. We are nothing more than data processors, we hold information, digest information, pass on information and we are doing what took biology hundreds of thousands of years in less and less time...

I have purpose, I see humanities collective purpose, and I don't need a divine being to be happy, purposeful and have love for my fellow man and life on earth. We are here to gather information and try to gain control of all the matter and energy of the universe.

The focus is on your use of the word "objective" in the OP. It takes a consciousness to see a purpose . . . so in that sense it is always subjective because consciousness is subjective. The issue is two-fold . . . existence and discernment. The existence issue is a brute fact presumption . . . either there IS a human purpose that is objective and related to our existence itself (NOT individually determined by any one member). Or there isn't one at all.

The problematic issue is discernment and it requires the brute fact presumption of an objective purpose for our species existence. The task for our subjective consciousness is to try to discern and agree on what that objective purpose for existence is. Only from the existence of such an objective purpose can we derive objective morality . . . those things that are constructive (moral) to our reason for being and those that are destructive (immoral) to our reason for being.

The above is not to endorse the silly absolute prohibitions in religious codes that were subjectively interpreted (discerned) by our ignorant ancient ancestors using their superstitious and savage beliefs about God. It is to point out the arbitrariness of your formulation absent the brute fact presumption of an objective human purpose. There can be no objective morality if our reason for being does not exist. It is all subjective caprice and consensus based on whatever or whoever has the power to enforce it.

[Werone]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The focus is on your use of the word "objective" in the OP. It takes a consciousness to see a purpose . . . so in that sense it is always subjective because consciousness is subjective. The issue is two-fold . . . existence and discernment. The existence issue is a brute fact presumption . . . either there IS a human purpose that is objective and related to our existence itself (NOT individually determined by any one member). Or there isn't one at all.

Objective morality is a paradox to me. So I agree with you that it takes consciousness to see a purpose and define it, if not then your just a cog in a machine that does not recognize its purpose.

The argument of humanities purpose is very difficult because we would have to establish a purpose and agree on that purpose. If I see the nature of mass and energy as having an intrinsic affinity to self assemble information processes, under certain conditions, and you agree with me then possibly we can agree to a purpose of life. Purpose is subjective, if you want to argue there is no purpose well then maybe you should reject all your social benefits and give up existing.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The problematic issue is discernment and it requires the brute fact presumption of an objective purpose for our species existence. The task for our subjective consciousness is to try to discern and agree on what that objective purpose for existence is. Only from the existence of such an objective purpose can we derive objective morality . . . those things that are constructive (moral) to our reason for being and those that are destructive (immoral) to our reason for being.

If we agree on anything, then by the nature of that decision or agreement the word "objective" ceases to have meaning. Objective and subjective are great words to express human consciousness or the lack of human consciousness so objective does not lend itself to words like morality and decisions and agreements. If we allow the definition of that word to become ambiguous as in "objective morality", then we cease to become meaningful communicators.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The above is not to endorse the silly absolute prohibitions in religious codes that were subjectively interpreted (discerned) by our ignorant ancient ancestors using their superstitious and savage beliefs about God. It is to point out the arbitrariness of your formulation absent the brute fact presumption of an objective human purpose. There can be no objective morality if our reason for being does not exist. It is all subjective caprice and consensus based on whatever or whoever has the power to enforce it.

You are therefore arguing for objective morality. I say that the word is a paradox and does not exist in objective reality.

Our reason for being is purely subjective. Why does that bother people?

The cambrian explosion and the fossilized remains of those forms of life are proof of the nature of mass and energy, the fact that mass and energy have an affinity for forming information processes under certain conditions.

I have argued before that fundamentally you can call that phenomena GOD, or we can debate the purpose of life and maybe some day in the future a meme will be developed that can continuously improve and one day give life purpose. It would be a subjective purpose.