back to the beginning: morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1461

“I’d rather kill a man than a hawk, except the penalties…” -American poet Robinson Jeffers. I agree.

Humans are capable of evil and willing ignorance, hawks aren’t. Therefore a lowly human betrays his own value relative to that which he is, to his potential. In a way devaluing himself.

I’d judge on both, but firstly on absence of evils. To me, societies that tolerate gross massive evils, like the child and female trafficking in our world, are automatically ranked very lowly in, how shall I say, a more cosmic-spiritually higher, objective truth sense. Like imagining many alien civilizations out there, the most advanced in tech but also spirituality and morality would rank highest and probably have the most power. I believe tech and spirituality merge in strange ways at certain higher levels of both.

I believe humans are very incipient and immature, very young, as a species in cosmic terms. That’s not in every way a bad thing.

That may very well be true. I cannot help but wonder then why none of that beautiful rich inner world leads to any externalized indications of itself. Dolphins and whales don’t create anything or modify their environments accordingto their values. Then again, maybe it’s just because they have no need.

I still haven’t made up my mind about Buddhism. But the value of a joyful housecat is supreme beyond all reasonable ability to measure.

1462

Do you think then we will overcome the threat of AI implants you’ve talked about?
I hear that alien technology is merged with consciousness itself, and that some deep dark ops have been going on using telepaths to lure such aliens and then shoot down their craft. Pretty interesting. Telepathy can be very dangerous. Machines could probably learn it with quantum computing.

They probably just weren’t incarnated to be creative in that way, since they don’t have hands and such they could maximally push around some rocks…

The orgonite movement produced, maybe still does, dolphin balls, which they would toss in the ocean for dolphins to transport them to underwater military installations and constructions that emit a lot of radiation. I dont know how or if it was verified that dolphins actually did this of course.

1463

“Dolphins and whales don’t create anything or modify their environments according to their values. Then again, maybe it’s just because they have no need.”

It could even be because they have no hands.

Dolphin 1: hey bro, you wanna build a shopping center at the base of the atlantic shelf?

Dolphin 2: … and how are we gonna do that, Einstein… with our dorsal fins?

1464

To be honest I really don’t know. I wish I did. I value the truth so highly and for its own sake, and it pains me to not have access to these things. The truth about these subjects is certainly out there somewhere, if not in the human realms then in other ones. I could speculate but that is all it would be doing. AI implants, hell I will never accept something like that. Maybe they will force it on us all somehow, nano smartdust in our foods and stuff linking with advanced 7G+ and the web 3 internet of everything, they can force it but… one of the higher spiritual-metaphysical rules is that we need to accept it. Choose it ourselves.

Think about the covid jabs for example. They used coercion, social pressure, financial pressure, shame, inconvenience, lies, but in the end everyone who got that jab did so of their own free will. They may have been robbed of due informed consent, yet in many cases that cannot excuse the choice they made because there were plenty of other markers and reasons that ought to have given them pause at least enough to see some of what was going on with the suppression of information and the fascist tactics let alone the pushing of obviously novel untested technologies the long term effects of which were totally unknown and the short term harmful effects of which were being suppressed from media and online. Anyone who, in such a situation, just shrugs and rolls up his sleeve is complicit and cannot later complain “well they told me it was safe!”

I suspect it’s much the same with AI implants and such things. They can coerce us and lie us into it, but we still have a choice. If enough people utilized their free choice to say No, then it would fail. If enough people (sheeple) just shrug and go along with it, then it wins and the architects can defend themselves from massive spiritual backlash by claiming “hey, they wanted it, look, they lined up to get it on their own! They knew, in their hearts deep down, that it was suspect but they wanted the benefits and took the easy way out. That was their choice. They knew what was coming and so we are just giving them what they wanted, what they choose.”

In a way that is how it works. There’s no need to see it on that occult higher level either, just simply realize that they need public acceptance of these things to instantiate them into the fabric of culture and going forward into the future. If it was literally forced on people agains their will, the success would be short lived and they would have already polluted their own narrative going forward.

“If you want to make something weak, first make it strong.” --Samurai saying

They give us what we ‘want’, make us want it, knowing it will weaken us. But they promise all the tantilizing shiny things like convenience, pleasure, social acceptance, wealth. Most people are cowardly and lazy, even the ones who are more brave may not have the intelligence or the intuitive perceptiveness to figure out what is going on. A lot has been dulled down in the last however many decades.

As for aliens and telepathy, I have no doubt that all sorts of crazy weird things exist out there and all around us of which we are not at all aware. The quaint day to day world we are used to is certainly in some part an illusion, a veil of simplicity and control. I know enough about things like 9/11 and the plandemic to realize how easy it is for them to fake pretty much anything they want, and to keep the truth covered up.

And since none of the benevolent, useful and truly human powers out there fighting for good have ever shown me otherwise, I have little reason to fret too much. I already try my best to seek the truth, in so far as that isn’t good enough then most likely I am simply not meant to know certain things. Ok, fine. Not my choice but very little I can do about it.

It would be cool to know what goes on in the minds and emotions of whales and dolphins. I’m not convinced either way, maybe they are supreme beings or maybe they are just mindless fish. Who knows? I certainly don’t.

1465

I don’t want this to get lost.

1466

Some humans are wired like that. I think it really depends. Some humans think humans are evil, dissociate from them, and identify more with cats, some find their true identity in communicating with aliens, and many find pleasure and meaning in murdering other humans. Others are disconnected from general human reality in other ways.

I think humans being is in a way circumstantial. For many it’s just a skin they were born into. They happen to have the same kind of issues, but that doesn’t mean mutual valuing.

Maybe it is supposed to be that way, maybe in a more golden age it will be. But by that time I think we’ll be in contact with all sorts of other species.

1467

Right now, I believe that human interactions are essentially meaningless and purposeless. And I don’t have a God or an ideological or philosophical font like Marxism or VO or James Saint’s RM to anchor my own self to. Not anymore.

I also believe that in a No God universe, human morality is profoundly problematic…rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein in world veritably awash in contingency, chance and change.

As a result, failures to communicate abound. Conflicting goods going back thousands of years that, philosophically or otherwise, have [to the best of my knowledge] never been resolved. Meanwhile the natural sciences have provided us with these extraordinary accomplishments that are in fact applicable to everyone.

On the other hand, in no way can I myself demonstrate any of this beyond the assumptions I make about them “in my head”.

Finally, I believe that when a mere mortal dies, he or she then tumbles over into the abyss. Next stop…oblivion.

So, sure, I come into places like this in order to encounter arguments – demonstrable arguments – that might prompt me to believe none of that at all.

As for consequences, don’t we often react to the behaviors of others [as they react to our own] in any number of conflicting ways? So, philosophically or otherwise, how do we reach an agreement that allows us to grasp the optimal behaviors…behaviors that all truly rational men and women can agree on.

Given particular contexts.

1468

Regardless what species we are materially, persons are all structured to be able to see when there is inconsistency between our thoughts, values, and behaviors. We know that we are persons, and that there are other persons. We know we have a choice to acknowledge what we know, in our thoughts, values, and behaviors. That is the only reason there is ever a difference between our thoughts, values, and behaviors. We aren’t programmed robots without the ability to “game” the program. Imagine if we went with the flow of the program rather than gaming it?

1469

Moral Objectivism

by Michael Huemer

Another way of stating the thesis that morality is objective is to say that values are ‘part of the fabric of reality;’ that is, there is some actual state of the world that corresponds to a value judgement.

Sure, if thinking about it this way makes morality objective for you, then that’s really all that is necessary to make it…true? At least until a new experience in your life challenges that conviction…perhaps even upending it altogether. Or reconfiguring it into another altogether different One True Path? Click, say.

And values are a part of the fabric of reality because the fabric of reality itself is such that given any human community, actual rules of behavior are standard operation procedure. Certain behaviors are rewarded, while other behaviors are punished. In other words, what if the fabric of reality is closer to the assumptions I make in regard to morality, than the assumptions you make?

Of course, there are countless statements made regarding countless human interactions in the either/or world. Words and worlds here are wholly in sync because the laws of matter themselves seem clearly to be applicable to all of us. Someone may be ignorant of the actual facts here, but that doesn’t make them go away.

Then back to the distinction I make between being able or unable to demonstrate any of what you believe here to others…given particular situations. In other words, if what statement is false; if what statement is true, if what statement corresponds to some state of the subject who observes it and not to the (external) world; or if what statement is neither true nor false?

1470

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Several relativist theories

Here are a few different things one could believe in order to be a moral relativist:

  1. Moral judgements are simply universally in error, i.e., contrary to appearances, nothing is good, right, evil, just, etc. These are concepts without any application.

Contrary to appearances? Tell that to the objectivists. From their frame of mind, what appears to be true to them in regard to value judgments is true for all of us. So, you either become “one of us” or you are necessarily wrong. Of course, some here will flat out exclude those of color or homosexuals or feminists or Jews or liberals. They can never be “one of us”. And then those who are rather blunt regarding the “or else” part.

Uh, theoretically? Because for all practical purposes the only assertions that are not genuine for the objectivists are those from men and women who are not “one of us”.

And, of course, we live in a world bursting at the seams with those who insist instead that they do not like X because it’s bad.

“Ordained” given might makes right, right makes might, or democracy and the rule of law? And that can make all the difference in the world.

Of course, that’s where deontology might be broached. In other words, using the tools of philosophy – of science? – rational men and women can pin down our actual moral obligations. Though, again, after thousands of years where’s that gotten us?

Same thing. Our conventions or theirs?

With money, however, the pieces of paper themselves are not in dispute. On the other hand, capitalists and socialists have been going at it now for decades regarding, among other things, money and political economy.

1471

[Written in one short session on March 30.]

Self-lightening is the bestowing of value, namely the bestowing of the bestowing of value, etc.; one of my words for it is ‘self-bestowing’.

But is valuing, or the bestowing of value, a logical or rational value? Back when I asserted it was, I was careful to put it as follows:

‘Valuation is a rational value, for its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.’

Why put it in such a way? Why use an obscure word like “disvalue”, which hardly anyone knows and many misinterpreted to mean “devalue”? Well, I expressly said it meant to value lowly or negatively… I was always aware this included a blind spot.

An example of valuing lowly would be to value something at 1 out of 10. An example of valuing negatively would be to value it at -10 out of -10. But what about valuing it at 0 out of 10 and -0 out of -10, i.e. not valuing it at all? The absence of valuation does not disvalue itself!

Ironically, it was through VO that I was swallowed whole by the said blind spot, the Abyss of Thelema. I came to understand that all values are cancelled out and are only values by contrast, even contrast itself. Yet there can be no life or existence without values, and therefore one has either to be deluded or to perish. And life or existence is no more and no less valuable than death or nonexistence.

1472

Do you need a criterion of truth and a way to find it? Easy. The question “Who benefits from this?” will directly point to the creator, and purposefulness will reveal the goal.
So then—why is everything arranged the way it is, and not the way people would prefer? Who benefits from it, and for what purpose?
Doesn’t a ridiculous morality vanish without a trace?
The wolf eats the sheep regardless of the “laws” invented by the flock.
Humans are mortal by the will of the Universe—not because they broke some moral code.

1473

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Some people argue about whether morality or anything else can be ‘absolute.’ “Absolute” might mean “certain”, it might mean “exceptionless”, it might mean “objective”, it might mean “universal” in some sense, or it might mean something else. I don’t know what it means in the context “There is an absolute morality;” therefore, I will not use the term. I am not interested here in whether morality is ‘absolute’ in any of the other senses than “objective”.

Arguing about it, however, is not the same as actually demonstrating how and why your argument reflects that which [essentially, objectively] all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace themselves.

On the other hand “in reality” [for the objectivists], nothing really has to be demonstrated at all. They merely have to insist their own moral philosophy reflects a truly deontological assessment of human interactions. And it then becomes true because they believe that it is.

Or, perhaps, there is a technical distinction to be made here between objective morality and absolute – universal – morality? And though some may not be interested in exploring this existentially, it’s the only direction that those of my ilk are willing to go.

I am not concerned with whether there are some exceptionless rules for judging moral issues - whether there is an algorithm for computing morality. My own opinion happens to be that there is not, but that has nothing to do with the present issue.
I am also not arguing that there is a universal morality in the sense of a moral code that everybody either does or would accept.

I am not arguing that we can know moral truths with absolute precision or certainty.

Okay, but the truly hardcore objectivists among us are basically arguing just that. It then comes down to this part: or else.

1474

To understand the boundaries of morality, one must rid oneself of those boundaries. And this is quite easy. Think about what society would be like if people had telepathy. What would remain of morality and its principles? Nothing

1475

That still depends on the nature of people involved. I lived in a telepathic town for some time, there was a lot of education and ascension going on, but also black magic. The ascenders are doing well though, as the black magicians are reduced to consuming hate and psychic violence against the unwitting and defenseless.

Moral; be an Elf if you can manage. Not an angel or a saint, an Elf. It is a good life. That Good is unquestionable, absolute. You will be a benefit to all who can help themselves.

How to be an Elf? I dont know, I was born one but became mere mortal through philosophy - i.e. generalization of the spirit.

Elves dont do general. They’re most particular. So be that, to start with. Be particular and beatific.

1476

You’ve made me laugh. Want to talk about magic? I’m at your service. For example, there is no such thing as ‘Black’ magic. Although there is a primitive form, which goes by the name of ‘Light’ magic. Or perhaps magic of the blind, blinded by their faith in the goodness of Light. Want to chat about mythical beings that live in the collective unconscious, or the informational field of our planet? We can easily continue. ‘Born an elf’? Nothing special or noteworthy — it’s the birth of a dreamer. But here’s something else for you. My mother had three dead sons who didn’t live past a year. It was motherly love that revived me — they implanted a demon. And then, something funny. The man didn’t understand the demon until half a century had passed

1477

John McGinn
Logic and Morality

Are there any affinities between logic and morality? The question may appear perverse: aren’t logic and morality at opposite ends of the spectrum? Isn’t logic dry and abstract while morality is human and practical? Isn’t one about proofs and the other about opinions?

"Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Wikipedia

Again, the important distinction here [in my view] revolves around how one understands the above “for all practical purposes” given particular sets of circumstances.

To wit:

There are rational, logical, epistemologically sound assessments of abortion as a medical procedure. But what is the equivalent of that in regard to the morality of abortion?

Same thing though?

Who gets to decide how we should behave given particular social, political and economic interactions? Who determines when behaviors are both cognitively and practically sound?

As for telling us what we ought to do in a world where there are hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths out there – click – to choose from?

And yet to a Path any number of these adherents and advocates will insist it is their own Path that reflects either the “best of all possible worlds” or the only possible rational, logical, epistemological sound world there can be.

1478

Logic is an attempt to apply the law of existence, the law of cause and effect, in intellectual activity. Morality is a set of behavioral norms. Is there a desire to apply logic to the evaluation of morality? Yes, easily. Morality is based on the desires of parasitic power and its servants, where the other members of society are turned into slaves. As a result, society not only fails to develop but catastrophically degrades. Morality does not allow the destruction of parasites and the replacement of power with governance, under which a different, more perfect morality could exist. Is this what you wanted to hear

1479

What is this…. Hegel meets Nietzsche? lol

1480

When the simple is unclear, it’s not funny, but pathetic. However, one can still laugh at those who refuse to understand.