Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Apologies for the long delay.

I currently don’t subscribe to the idea of cause and effect precisely because of the problem of how a cause influences an effect, therefore there are no things in my conception, but a continuum wherein borders and divisions join rather than separate. I believe “affectance” is an antiquated term relegated to the “cause and effect” era of philosophical progress. So rather than defining a thing to exist if it affects another thing, I’ll say an arbitrarily delineated aspect of the one thing (the universe) exists if it’s part of the continuum, which is saying the same thing really, but eliminating some of the semantic obstacles and conceptual objections with a dual-pronged approach (similar to classical and QM physics)

Atomos means un-cut-able. The universe is the only atom and there are no abstractions that could possibly interact with it or they would simply be included as part of the universe in the first place and therefore would not be considered abstractions.

So to bring it all together, something exists if it affects another thing which is another way of saying something exists if it is not really an abstract thing, but an aspect of the one thing and continuous with it. Observation and affectance are therefore synonymous with “continuous” in this context.

That raises an interesting question of how an All can exist if there is nothing outside the All in which to relate. How can there be an inside with no outside? There are many of those paradoxes, such as: it’s objective truth that there is no objective truth; it’s bad to think in terms of good and bad; we shouldn’t think in terms of ought and should and so on. The lone object both cannot and must exist.

I believe an infinite regression is underpinning reality which is a result of a circularity of the dimensionless point-source of observation struggling to also be the object of observation (like a camera observing its own monitor). These paradoxes are a side-effect of the necessary conditions enabling existence. Self-observation seems logically impossible and therefore endeavors into reality are very much an exercise in chasing one’s own tail… and that experience of the eternally-unknown is conditional to existence of a “now” and a “self” which are centered between the known and unknown.

Well, what is consciousness? An organism and environment are each part of the organism-environment continuum. A nervous system is not a system at all without the interacting environment. So the “things” that exist are the “things” that are part of that continuum.

Being hit is not a discrete event. The balls do not actually touch, but the atomic forces interact in a smooth and continuous fashion as the ball approaches the other ball. There is no point in time where one could say the event of being hit started.

Yes true. I probably didn’t think when I typed, but certainly “can” supersedes “does” because it’s important that an event be possible before supposing if it actually happened. So to answer the question… I don’t think it matters because if something can interact, then it’s part of the continuum of interactions. “Can” and “does” are synonymous in this context. Good catch though.

Here I think you’re confusing abstract ideas to actual abstractions. Abstract ideas exist, but abstractions do not.

I think machinations still implies things affecting other things. Growing or flowing have better connotations.

What’s a moment? It’s an arbitrary abstraction of a continuum and abstractions do not exist, so there is nothing to bind together.

Yes I agree with the cycles determination since existence is contingent upon nonexistence.

I can’t think of a better way to experience reality. The past is what’s known and the future is what’s to be discovered.

Yes an observation must have an observer.

But to take an objective view of the universe, you must be outside of the universe and not a part of it. You can’t be part of the thing that you’re observing or the thing you’re observing will change due to the observation, consequently obscuring your view of what it would have looked like if you had not been a part of it.

This is hard to articulate.

I could ask you for an objective view of my life since I’m too close to it and can’t see the forest for the trees. However, you can’t give me a genuine objective view, but instead only a view through your subjective lens. You say “here is your problem as I see it.” You cannot authoritatively say “Here is your problem.”

There is no way to say what is good or bad because it would require a non-subjective view which is just not possible.

So someone could win a wad of money and you’d say “that’s good.”
Then they develop an opioid addiction ultimately resulting in death and you’d say “that’s bad.”

So was winning the money bad because they died because of it? Or was early death good because it was a fun ride? What does “good” even mean? Is it synonymous with longevity? Whoever lives the longest, wins? Concepts of good and bad are just abstractions fabricated by culture and bestowed with virtue, but intrinsically having none.

Inferior virtue is so obsessed with virtuousness that it’s not virtue. Superior virtue isn’t aware of itself, so it’s virtue. Confucius or Lao Tzu some famous asian dude said that.

Right and that’s what we do: project and create a virtual point of observation. Physicists talk about the universe being smaller than an atom which means the point of observation is either outside the universe where “size” has no definition or the point of observation is inside the universe where the wavelength of light would be larger than the whole universe and couldn’t possibly be observed. So, as Goethe said, we observe by deduction through virtual observation (I embellished the last bit).

I like what Dionysius the Areopagite said: if anyone had seen God and understood what they had seen, what they had seen could not have been God, but some creature less than God. God can only be realized through agnosia - the non-conceptual knowledge. Obviously I can’t say I know for sure, but I doubt God is anything that could be observed empirically or deductively.

Cool I like questions!

What self? You are not separate from everything else.

Without eyes, there is no light. Eyes are tuned to a small band of radiation and that band is what we call light.

If you want to see inside your head, look outside. Everything you see is constructed inside your head based on information from the radiation of energy from charged particles.

November 5th 1955

MAGA! :laughing:

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

Today:

2% GDP
4% unemployment
Massive debt.
20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

It is called the Electromagnetic Light Spectrum which means that everything within it is light regardless of anything else. You could call it the
Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum instead but that would be no more accurate as electromagnetic radiation and light are exactly the same

I like the term “radiation” since that’s what’s happening. Even reflection is actually re-radiation. Light (radiation) does not reflect.

Chlorophyll is green because it resonates strongly in the blue and red which produces a 180 degree phase shifted re-radiation that cancels the incoming wave in those colors, but not in the green. The green re-radiation is not 180 degrees shifted, so it is not cancelled by the incoming green light. The effect is seen as a green reflection off the molecule, but it’s not reflection.

Chlorophyll evolved to take advantage of the high-energy blue light and some UV. Any frequencies higher than UV would vibrate the molecule apart (ie sunburns to our skin), so the color of plants was an artifact of optimal energy-harvesting of solar rays which is a product of the strength of the atomic bonds and the mass of the particles. Chlorophyll is also responsive in the red because that’s the highest-energy light that penetrates to the forest floor. IR doesn’t have the energy to power a plant and blue/UV can’t penetrate.

i.e. all organisms develope to take advantage of their surroundings/maximise their chances of survival.

Humans have evolved to take advantage of other humans in order to maximise their chances of survival… a moral human objective to be proud of, or a question of all fair game?

Yes but with one distinction: they don’t change to survive, but survive because they changed.

If determinism is true, then there certainly is no such thing as morality.
If determinism is false, then randomness is true, so there is no morality.

Morality is often arrogance, egoism, and identification with self.

Ironically, morality is immoral in the same way that the difference between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self and the mastery of relevant conceptual distinctions (e.g. that pride is distinct from happiness and joy) through language-based interaction with others.[2] Some social psychologists identify the nonverbal expression of pride as a means of sending a functional, automatically perceived signal of high social status.[3] In contrast, pride could also be defined as a lowly disagreement with the truth. One definition of pride in the former sense comes from St. Augustine: “the love of one’s own excellence”.[4] A similar definition comes from Meher Baba: “Pride is the specific feeling through which egoism manifests.”[5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride

So, no one, for example, in a deterministic universe, is affected by ideas of the Good towards certain behaviors not others? That if a society has certain morals, these are not causes of behavior (and emotions and thoughts) and also effects of previous events, organisms, etc.

Do you mean that people following certain moralities are not really moral in a deterministic universe? I can see an argument there. But clearly moralities exist.

How can something that does not exist be, only often, these other things? Further it seems like you are making a moralistic claim against the existence of morals. IOW it seems like, but I am not sure, you chose words generally associated with immorality to say what Morality often really is. But that argument undermines itself, since you are calling on the reader to say there is no morality since motives are often immoral. Which means that they and you must agree on what is moral for that argument to work. Which means in the very argument itself morality CAUSES certain conclusions and therefore exists in this universe. The reader makes moral judgments of those motives, decides they are bad, and so, is intended to agree that morality is not really there. A person using moral criteria which affects that persons thinking and perhaps even actions.

I can see arguing it is a false distinction, but not that it is an artificial one. I mean, at least if one does not want to be giving an example of what one is saying does not exist.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self and the mastery of relevant conceptual distinctions (e.g. that pride is distinct from happiness and joy) through language-based interaction with others.[2] Some social psychologists identify the nonverbal expression of pride as a means of sending a functional, automatically perceived signal of high social status.[3] In contrast, pride could also be defined as a lowly disagreement with the truth. One definition of pride in the former sense comes from St. Augustine: “the love of one’s own excellence”.[4] A similar definition comes from Meher Baba: “Pride is the specific feeling through which egoism manifests.”[5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride
[/quote]

If determinism is true, then there is no “one”. No you, no me, no others.

That question says a lot indeed. If there is no good and bad, but you insist that there is, then that’s arrogance.

For example you assert a god and rules, then you’ve laid the groundwork for a system where you are above those who don’t follow the rules of the non-existent god. The whole ideology is a game of one-upmanship.

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is a free gift that is thrust upon you. It’s not contingent upon believing, wishing, hoping, or works, but faith, which is not-thinking about it. The only way to screw it up is in trying not to screw it up :laughing:

“He who seeks to save his life, shall lose it.”

lol yeah that’s the humor in it. There are a lot of paradoxes:

It is objectively true that there is no objective truth.
We shouldn’t think in terms of ought and should.
It’s bad to believe in good and bad.
Moderation in all things, including moderation.
No tolerance of intolerance.
All things must exist in relation to something else, except the totality.
All statements must be backed by empirical evidence, except this one.

(I should make a list)

Good point. I think it boils down to defining sin as “the assertion of illusion” and therefore defining yourself to exist (pride) is the only possible sin.

The proclamation that an illusion is real is not itself an illusion, so it doesn’t undermine itself.

Virtue that is conscious of itself as virtue, is not virtue. Virtue that is not thoughtful of itself as virtue, is virtue. This is why I say the only innocent motivation is that of “fun” (which is lack of conscious motivation; it’s just following nature without thought of action; purposelessness).

Why am I doing this? Because it’s fun; no reason. I should be doing my chores, but I’m doing this because it’s more fun.

We could say that morality is illusory then, but it’s not as profound nor funny. Simply saying it’s illusory doesn’t conjure the idea that’s it’s bad to think in terms of good and bad. The distinction is that thinking in terms of good and bad is not itself illusory, but the good and bad are illusory; therefore it’s bad to think in terms of illusions.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride

So the more “plugged into the matrix” you are (realize your self), the more proud you are (under illusion).

Morality exists in the same way that an Electrical Building Code exists.

A set of rules is established which describes the right way to wire the electrical system of a building. This is done in order to reduce the number of power failures, electrocutions and building fires.

The Electrical Building Code is objective in the sense that it either achieves the goal of reducing power failures, electrocutions and fires or it doesn’t. Morality is objective in the same sense… it achieves a goal.

Is the Code the “only” possible Code? No. There are lots of codes which could achieve the goals. No doubt, some are better than others.

Both the code and the moral rules are instituted by authority; the only difference is we know precisely what the electrical code is, but we can’t be so sure of moral rules. Morality is relative to the culture, but electricity is the same regardless.

The problem I see with stating morality doesn’t exist, besides the self obvious refutation through contradiction, is that people want to apologize for a planet of people (including themselves) that wouldn’t exist if the species had been moral… it’s an ego defensive posture

You’re saying it’s arrogant to claim morality doesn’t exist? One feels morally superior to someone who believes in morality? I’m down with that.

I take this to mean that you now agree that morality exists.

It’s unclear to me what you mean by “can’t be so sure of moral rules”. You can go to someone “in authority” and he will tell you the rules and interpret the grey areas for you.

Electrical Building Codes vary by jurisdiction which is essentially the same as cultural variations of morality. The Code doesn’t describe “electricity” … it states the rules for using electricity safely and effectively in a building. Morality states the rules of how to live “safely and effectively” in a society with other people.

That’s avoiding the issue I raised.

I haven’t insisted there is good and bad. In fact I am a moral nihilist. But morality exists. And if morality cannot exist in a determinist universe how the hell can arrogance. And what is the point of saying I am being arrogant. It is utterly irrelevant.

Wow. I mean, hopefully you are familiar with the term strawman. And this is not just an example of a strawman in relation to me, it is an example in relation to people in general. AND AGAIN. You use what you seem to think is a negative root for morality, iow one you judge from a moral standpoint, to argue that morality does not exist. And you use a theist example, as if this was the only kind.

I am not sure how calling your position paradoxical means that it isn’t self-contradictory and thus problematic. Was this meant as conceding my point?

I don’t believe in sin not did I mention it.

Well, not only are you giving an example of a morality that exists, you have that morality.

  1. there is a distinction between believing that objective good and bad do not exist and thinking that morality does not exist. I believe I am not the only one pointing out that morality clearly exists, even if what is called good and bad are not objective. It might be helpful for the discussion if you could acknowledge this or defend the position that morality does not exist also. So far you haven’t done that. 2) you are a moralist. cAlling it ironic and paradoxical does not eliminate it being a morality, one that is used to judge people, and would end up, say in parenting, leading to guilt just like any other morality, for example.

And the sin of pride is being asserted. People often think that if they deny that they have a belief or do not openly state it, the way what they do functions in relations to others no longer exists. But that is not the case. You have a morality which judges people based on one could paraphrase their relation to ego or self and ideas related to that AND related, but not the same, in relation to pride. Morality, moral judgment, hierarchy of selves - even if you think they do not exist - an a communication dynamic that will do the same things that other moralities do. You, from the inside, don’t really get to say this is all ironic, but it is ironic.

I was really entering to focus on the existence of morality or moralities, but here I find not just that you believe moralities exist, but you even have found yourself one you think is objective. When you meditate,do you notice the way you judge people from it?

I find it easier to deal with moral objectivists who know they are moral objectivists. Not because their arguments are easier to counter, since some of them can be really quite ingenious, but because they are more honest about what they are doing.

Serendipper,

Speak for yourself! Yours is not a path that I would travel on. There is always another side to that coin.
The freedom to act, the freedom to transcend.

The Path of Least Resistance
The Human League

Faced with the choice
What would you say?
The path of least resistance
It seems the only way
But can we look a little further?
Too little far I think
Self-belief’s the answer
And not another drink
The safe method, the only way
You rationalise your course
Stay part of the crowd
And never find the source
Feel wanted, feel numb
Just stay as you are
The truth is - comfort kills
And you don’t need that car
So sad, the early grave
When all the fun’s for free
Start digging the early grave
And keep it warm for me
Faced with the choice
What would you say?
The path of least resistance
It seems the only way
But let’s look a little further
Too…

There is a major miscommunication here lol. When I said “you”, I meant “for instance if you were”. It’s a generality of shorthand and not directed at you personally. Probably just how I talk.

No it’s not. If everything is determined, then you do not exist. If you do not exist, then how can you be moral or anything else? What I mean by “you” is you as a controlling entity having a will that is not determined by the universe (a free will). If the universe is determined, then it’s just a bunch of dominoes knocking each other down and that includes you.

The fatalist is under illusion that the universe is pushing him around because he doesn’t realize there is no one to be pushed around in a determined universe; there is just the big happening.

What I meant was: If there is no good and bad, but if you were to insist that there is, then that’s arrogance. I left out “if you were to”.

How do you know?

I guess it can’t if arrogance is a moral attribute. But it’s a moot point because in a determined universe, no one can exist.

But if you do exist and if morality is an illusion, then believing in an illusion is not itself an illusion, therefore it exists as a delusion, right? The desire to be under that delusion is the arrogance that exists. Morality asserts that you exist, that other people exist, and that you are better than some of them. Afterall, we can’t have the moral without the immoral. So in defining yourself as moral, you’re defining someone else as immoral.

And by “you” I mean in general and hypothetical.

And morality presupposes that if you were them (which you are), you’d act differently (but you don’t). Otherwise you’d have to prove the existence of a “spirit” which is independent of the universe, but somehow able to affect it. Without the magical spirit, you’re just the universe and so am I, and so it’s arrogant for an arbitrary aspect of the universe to believe it is better than any other aspect. It’s self-righteous, hypocritical, conceited. This is true regardless if I am self-righteous, hypocritical and conceited for pointing it out… as if I’m better than you because I’m amoral. To judge the argument on my behavior is an ad hom and not relevant.

I’m not referring to you, but speaking generally.

No it’s just an example. Not a strawman. Not essential to my argument, but merely an example as a courtesy for extra clarification.

I already conceded this point last time lol. (look down a couple inches)

I didn’t use it “as if” it were the only kind. I said “For example…”

Yeah your point is valid, but there is some merit in my perspective. For instance if the universe exists, then what does it exist in relation to? That problem has no logical solution because if it exists, then it’s not the universe but part of a bigger universe. But if it is indeed the totality of everything, then it doesn’t exist because there is nothing to exist in. It’s absurd! That’s the analogy to the moral argument that paradoxical things are not necessarily self-contradicting. Everything seems at least partially circularly defined (the universe exists in relation to itself because there is nothing that is not the universe in which to relate to).

Everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can’t prove (self-supporting axiom).

I’m just swapping synonyms for variety.

The mindless and purposeless (fun) cannot be moral. But if the mindless were to flatter itself for its mindfulness, then that’s immoral since it conjures into existence that which doesn’t exist (self) and asserts the illusion as superior.

Maybe we could say that belief in an illusion causes what would otherwise be illusory to manifest… similar to light creating its own medium of propagation as it travels. I mean, a wave propagating through nothingness is absurd too, right? In similar fashion, immorality is created by the assertion of morality.

I’m just stabbing in the dark because I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be a journey if I did.

No there isn’t. Morality is delineation into good and bad. Objective-anything can’t exist unless it can exist relative to itself, which may be possible, idk.

Only relative morality exists and even then it’s relative to arbitrary culture.

I have no problem admitting I am a hypocrite. I wish I could take my own medicine. But my hypocrisy doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Don’t judge the message by the messenger.

Friend, there is no way out of the game.

And she has found a way to be superior to him by pointing out that he has found a way to be superior to the atheists and fundamentalists.

You’ve one-upped me by pointing out my hypocrisy and I’ll one-up you by redeeming myself and so on and so on.

The only way to win is not to play, which is to not exist as a self. There is no such thing as an unselfish act.

Howdy :slight_smile:

If… if… if determinism is true.

If there is a you, then obviously determinism is not true.

Reminds me of Occam’s razor. The simplest solution wins.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE2WjSmUcRA[/youtube]

[Verse 1]
There are those who think
That life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

[Verse 2]
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned
Or the gods are maligned
Blame is better to give than receive

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill

[Verse 3]
There are those who think
That they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren’t born in Lotus Land

[Verse 4]
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can pray for a place
In heaven’s unearthly estate

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill

[Instrumental Solo]

[Verse 5]
Each of us, a cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that’s far too fleet

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill

So then it does exist.

I guess that means you only think that objective morality does not exist. Which is another topic of discussion.

Serendipper

Right back at you cowboy. :evilfun:

True, there would not be a real Self. I may be wrong but perhaps part of the reason that people cannot take responsibility or feel that they owe no responsibility toward anyone is because of a lack of real self-identity.
I like the domino scenario. I think that at times there is that domino effect going on in the world as with wars/terrorism, ad continuum but at the same time sometimes those dominoes stop and that is when we can see more clearly what has to be done. At times we have no control, all is going to hell, but then we find that opening and we MOVE.

He needs a new paradigm or vision.

Are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, Serendipper? I experience a me, I experience others but that does not mean that there is NO such thing as determinism. It is real for me, whether it is nature, the elements, earthquakes, floods, wars, et cetera. We are all touched psychically by and influenced by the things happening around us and people around us, including our individual personal histories and the history of the world. I think that it would be absurd to not realize this just as it is equally absurd to believe that we cannot exercise any kind control of what goes on around us. The natural things which we cannot control we control in a sense by realizing that we cannot control them and thereby go with the flow of them.

Perhaps Determinism is not such a bad thing when you think about it because it is that very thing which we come to see and understand that we have no control of which teaches us to rise up,fight and change our own fates/destiny instead of whimpering like the fatalists and the nihilists that there is nothing which can be done.

Free will and choice may not always be so completely free as there are unconscious and unremembered movements which flow beneath ~ this I experience ~ but at the same time they are still choices and actions which we plow through which do make us self-determined creatures. Human history itself attests to this. Anyway…lol

I figure you were being ironic there.

[b][Verse 1]
There are those who think
That life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

[Verse 2]
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned
Or the gods are maligned
Blame is better to give than receive

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill

[Verse 3]
There are those who think
That they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren’t born in Lotus Land

[Verse 4]
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can pray for a place
In heaven’s unearthly estate

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill

[Instrumental Solo]

[Verse 5]
Each of us, a cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that’s far too fleet

[Hook]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill [/b]

I never heard that before. It is really very profound and real.

Good one , Arc.Couldn’t have said it better myself, though as all of You probably have guessed it by now, I do not personally have a self.