Practicality is a matter of utility.
Utility is judged based on what tool satisfies the greatest desire.
This means that bad desires can produce false practicality, and that is one of the biggest holes in utilitarianism.
To me the only solution is an idealism for desires and worthiness.
Worthiness is a matter of good and bad fate or destiny. It is like a matter of luck.

Our job is to realize that we have either a good or a bad fate, as that will change the fate and empower the will.

On the surface practicality seems really smart and logical, but to me I think it is majorly flawed, because it is desire-serving and humanized.

Many desires which arise are base desires, which battle with the highest desire, which is usually our egotistical version of the will to live.
Serving a mass of personal wants equates to something like a giant resource gobbelling parasite.
“I want” is the father of the practical, in the usual case. I-Want is simply a reaction to base instinct and base desire.
Most people I see don’t seem to me to realize this whole concept. They just go with the flow and consider utility the highest good, even though it turns the world into a means to an end, a tool, with less meaning than could have alternatively been given.

Nice post Dan, i have some questions though… You say there a good and bad or base desires. How do you discern between the two, what is the measuring-stick there? Isn’t it ultimately also desire, and does it then become of matter of short term vs long term or something along those lines? Or do you think we should move beyond personal desire, or even human desire as a group alltogether? I guess i would have trouble envisioning meaning not ultimately tied to human desire, if you assume we are the ones giving meanig.

Thanks lots for reading and responding.

That’s hard to reduce to words. The measuring stick needs to be just as unique as the moral topics and situations. Virtues are mostly aspects of our mind and body. They develop during our fate as we find the best and the worst of things. What makes them better or worse is unique per person.

I believe in emotionless alien races that still have a sense of morality without desire. Their morality is different than ours but it is still a morality and can be quite good.

Moving beyond things is natural if you are growing and changing. If humanity ever upgraded, either genetically or cybernetically, morals would gain new higher limitations and the lower limitations would disappear.

The problem is that our desire and all our brain regions are not good enough. They can be good, but they could be way better, if upgraded. We don’t have a lot of upgrades yet, but in the future we’ll see what goes down. People understand technology better these days, and that effects their sense of what is possible. It gives them hope that human nature can someday be upgraded, for example.

This all seems a bit confusing to me.

It appears as though there are the extreme subjectivists, “ES”, who want morals to be totally arbitrary, which is “amorality”. And then there are extreme objectivists, “EO”, who want morals to be independent of all reasoning.

I have a hard time fathoming either. Neither makes sense to me.

The ES obviously creates extreme amounts of conflict and chaos that serve only those who stay out of it by eliminating everyone else, “divide and conquer”, forming a socialist regime of the clever governors over the burning governed.

The EO proposes divine rules of behavior “out of nowhere”. And since they can’t actually come from nowhere, they end up coming from whoever is in authority and serve that authority, a socialist regime of the “holy” dictators over the blind servants.

This explains the religious dichotomy between the Holy City of Heaven and the Gehenna of Hell.

And as always, I am a third option, neither extreme. I can point out the absurdity in both extremes. The entire socialist regime is a bad concept. But because it has formed power (to the ultimate ruination of humanity already underway), people seem to not be able to understand anything but either being governed by serpents or dictated to by the “voice of God”.

As I have said for years now;
“On the planet of the apes, in the land of lies, all they do, to their own demise.”

Thanks for explaining. I think one of the problems is the bad rep any form of idealism has gotten because of the misuses of it in human history. Practicality seems better than false idealism,… and if you don’t believe in idealism anymore, that’s the best you’ve got i suppose.

I’ve been kinda pessimistic about this for a long time, but it think i can see things really getting better with new generations and technology.