using the Anthropic Principle to determine objective truths

[statiktech]

@kyle2000

stak, thanks for the thoughtful post.

I’ve got to say man, I respect your honesty. It’s good to see someone else (besides me) admitting error or revising his thoughts as he goes. We are only human.

Men are rational to the extent that they are capable of determining which actions will lead to the least harm. If I decide right now to go throw a rock through my neighbor’s window that is an objectively irrational action because I know that it will inevitably lead to consequences which I will consider harmful. It will also lead to my deportation because I’m living in a foreign country and haven’t yet got a residence permit. In some cases, our actions do not lead inevitably to harmful results. In those cases man is unable to determine what is rational because the future is not fixed. Without the future being fixed we are unable to evaluate the consequences of our actions. However when we have strong evidence that our actions will inevitably lead to certain consequences, that evidence is objective because no amount of personal taste can influence the result.

I’m not sure the future is ever ‘fixed’. We can make judgments based on probability, but nobody can really predict the future with absolute certainty. So, really, the evidence is more relative than anything. Your beliefs regarding the probability of an outcome is where subjectivity comes into play.

Using your own example, the probability of your consequences are relative to the context of the situation, the reason for your action, and your neighbor’s preference (including temperament). If you throw the rock just to watch the window smash, it is more likely that the neighbor will be upset. However, there is also a chance that he will assume it was an accident and do nothing, or that he doesn’t care about his window at all (so personal taste, or subjectivity, must account for something). Now, if your neighbor’s house were on fire, smashing the window could be prudent for a number of reasons.

This is where you lost me. What of death? Everything dies, erodes, decays, or is destroyed at some point. Nature does necessitate destruction, in some form, though it may not be complete destruction of itself all at once.

A living organism usually dies unwillingly. Nature has found a use for dead bodies, ie, fertilizer, but that does not mean that if:

destruction were more encouraged than construction that we would be here.

Complex life cannot arise if destruction is more (preferred, desired, or encouraged) (or better) than construction.

Nature finding use for that which is destroyed doesn’t discount that destruction does take place naturally. I’m not saying destruction is encouraged or preferred in any way over construction, but that they are proportional. Everything which is constructed seems to eventually be destroyed. The two are equally as important as far as we are concerned, but I think nature relatively indifferent.

3. Complex life can only arise if it understands how to avoid harm.
   […]
   A better formulation is: complex life can only arise after it has obtained a certain degree of comprehension regarding the avoidance of harm.

Even better is: complex life can only thrive after it has obtained a certain degree of comprehension regarding the avoidance of harm.

I think something can arise or persist, to a degree, by chance. To thrive and multiply implies some amount of organization.

Reasonable men disagree on this because we, humans, simply are not omniscient. The standard is:

act in such a way that you maximize the continuity of life in the Universe.

If you establish a law that fetuses have a right to the protections of morality does that maximize the continuity of life in the Universe? It’s difficult as human beings for us to know that. I think it does, but I can understand if others disagree.

You must like Kant – the maxims you present seem very reminiscent of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

This doesn’t seem to account for certain phenomena such as war, capital punishment, or abortion (as a few examples). In these cases we seem to adhere to your maxim by willingly deviating from it. Seems contradictory.

This is true. In some cases the differences of harms between one action and another are so minimal that it really doesn’t matter. Getting back to the baseball analogy, sometimes the difference between a strike and a ball is 1 mm. Nevertheless, I believe that in each situation one action is better than the other even if it is such by a hair’s breadth. If they’re equal than both actions are rational.

If you admit that multiple solutions can be equally rational, by your definition, then I’d say you don’t really seem to believe each situation calls for one most rational decision. Different solutions yield different results.

Say, for instance, one solution results in the least possible amount of harm, whereas another results in some negligible harm but a high probability for future benefit. Which is more rational?

There are certainly other actions that do not cause much harm, but a rational person, if he were omniscient, would always choose the action that lead to the least amount of harm, provided the will is strong enough and the capacity is there. That is the standard. Humans do not set it, they only strive for it.

Then who/what does set the standard? Where do you propose rationality came from if not human conception?

No person establishes the standard, that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. For instance, there is a finite number of stars in the Universe. No human can know what that is. That doesn’t mean that that is not an objective fact.

In a supposedly infinite universe, how can you call that objective fact? There is no possible proof to support that statement; it is purely speculation. Much the same that you speculate rationality can be proven objectively, yet you still lack that fundamental proof.

No, humans do not decide what is rational.

Of course we do. And that decision is based relative to our circumstances.

For instance, let’s say I want to shoot my neighbor. It’s not that we then ask 12 people if that will lead to harm or not. If I shoot my neighbor and kill him, the pain that will hit his family is inevitable and an objective fact.

You sure about that objective fact part? What if he was an abusive tyrant that terrorized his family to the extent that they all feared for their own lives. The family would more likely be relieved or even elated. You’d be a hero. Perhaps his death ensured the lives of his wife and kid(s). You saved lives by taking one. Relative, my good man.

We don’t consult other people to determine if his family will feel pain, his family will feel pain, irregardless of what people think.

But you almost certainly should consult people before making a decision like that. The families reaction is relative to their subjective feelings about the guy. Nothing here is objectively certain.

If you’re a sociopath you’re objectively irrational even though you’re capable of functioning and making decisions. Being a sociopath means that the likelihood of you being put in jail are so large that your behavior is not worth taking that risk. In some cases, where there is a strong chance of our not being caught, then it is rational for someone to behave immorally. But when the odds of us being caught are very high, then it is irrational for us to behave as such because we will then harm ourselves through our imprisonment.

Some sociopaths don’t care if they are caught, that isn’t considered “harmful” to them. So, can their actions still be rational? The only reason they would not is because of a differing opinion posed by societal consensus.

Also, if immoral and rational can coexist in a single action, would that not defeat your contention that values are objective? Think about it…

Nobody helps, or does what they feel is “good/right” because they assume someone else will deal with it.

Then they believe that their actions are acceptable because they think in their mind that someone else will help. Remember, all rational people do what they THINK is correct. In the above example they are misled because of the crowd of people.

No, they are entirely dismissive to a shameful degree - this, to me, is not rational. Would you not feel guilty for not helping a woman who was being raped in plain sight because you assumed someone else would? The “right” and reasonable thing to do is help. “Acceptable” is not the same as “good” – “acceptable” implies that the subject knows his inclination is not totally correct, but enough to justify being dismissive.

This is why the State makes the final decision to arbitrate disputes. The State can still make immoral or irrational decisions however. But again, in some cases, it is impossible for humans to know the correct answer. That does not mean that a correct answer does not exist.

Some might argue that whatever the answer, it is the “correct” answer insofar as it made necessary by causality leading up to that point. Even still, the ‘state’ is us – that is, human beings determining rationality through consensus.

This is true. Bad choice of words on my part. I’m talking about construction in general. A better maxim is:

act in such a way that you maximize the persistence of life in the Universe.

In general construction maximizes and destruction does the opposite.

Not true. Destruction necessarily makes way for new construction. The two coalesce as far as nature is concerned. Also, over-construction can cause serious issues.

Bad choice of words on my part. A better sentence would be: In order for nature to persist it must be constructed in such a way that it has mechanisms whereby it can sustain itself.

Even better would be: In order for nature to persist it must evolve and develop mechanisms whereby it can sustain itself.

That seems like a reasonable assertion to me. The way something is initially constructed seems to usually aid persistence only up to a certain point.

To call destruction (that which is natural) an objective evil is to essentially say that our rationality takes precedence over nature in determining the good. If rationality takes precedence over nature it is not natural (it is posited as complimentary to nature) and thus is not naturally innate.

I take back what I said. Destruction is not an objective evil. In some cases it can be good such as destroying an old building to make way for a better one. But I will say that if nature adopts as a maxim:

reward those who destroy and punish those who construct

then natural will soon annihilate itself.

Agreed, but that much seems fairly obvious. In reality, I don’t think nature is issuing any rewards or punishments. I just think it safer to say that eventual destruction of any construct is the way nature seems to operate. Nature doesn’t reason with us, nor us with nature because reason is not objective.

[kyle2000]

I’ve got to say man, I respect your honesty. It’s good to see someone else (besides me) admitting error or revising his thoughts as he goes. We are only human.

This is my first time trying to argue in favor of objective morality without appealing to deity, so of course it will take a long time before all the problems are encountered and considered.

I’m not sure the future is ever ‘fixed’.

No, it’s not but in certain cases it can narrow down to a very small set of possibilities. Right now, my future has quite a few possibilities, but if I shoot someone, it virtually has only one possibility: jail.

Using your own example, the probability of your consequences are relative to the context of the situation, the reason for your action, and your neighbor’s preference (including temperament). If you throw the rock just to watch the window smash, it is more likely that the neighbor will be upset. However, there is also a chance that he will assume it was an accident and do nothing, or that he doesn’t care about his window at all (so personal taste, or subjectivity, must account for something). Now, if your neighbor’s house were on fire, smashing the window could be prudent for a number of reasons.

This raises the issue of acting in one’s own self-interest. We only act against our own self-interest when we THINK our actions will harm us. For example, if I throw a rock into my neighbor’s window I THINK that he will get angry and call the cops. Therefore, my action would be irrational. If on the other hand, I think giving my neighbor a gift such as a bottle of wine will benefit me and my neighbor and I’m wrong, because he’s an alcoholic and it causes him to relapse and subsequently makes my living above him unbearable then that action would still be rational, even though it resulted in harm to myself and others.

Nature finding use for that which is destroyed doesn’t discount that destruction does take place naturally. I’m not saying destruction is encouraged or preferred in any way over construction, but that they are proportional. Everything which is constructed seems to eventually be destroyed. The two are equally as important as far as we are concerned, but I think nature relatively indifferent.

Well, if you agree that destruction is not preferred then I don’t see why you are not accepting my thesis.

You must like Kant – the maxims you present seem very reminiscent of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

He has a few good points, but I have trouble respecting him after I read: Telling a lie based on philanthropic concerns, (I wrote an essay on this and will post it soon) plus he does sometimes needlessly complicate things with his love for jargon, but at the end of the day, he is not a charlatan, like Derrida. But when he says that morality must be categorical, he’s right, because less harm will result if there is one morality that all rational beings abide by.

This doesn’t seem to account for certain phenomena such as war, capital punishment, or abortion (as a few examples). In these cases we seem to adhere to your maxim by willingly deviating from it. Seems contradictory.

In all the examples, war, capital punishment, abortion, we wrongly think these acts will result in less harm, abortion being more controversial. When Bush (or should we say the military-industrial complex) invaded Iraq he thought it was a good idea.

If you admit that multiple solutions can be equally rational, by your definition, then I’d say you don’t really seem to believe each situation calls for one most rational decision. Different solutions yield different results.

Ok, I take it back.

Say, for instance, one solution results in the least possible amount of harm, whereas another results in some negligible harm but a high probability for future benefit. Which is more rational?

I don’t know, but I think I have made it clear that the reason is because man is not omniscient, not because a standard does not exist.

There are certainly other actions that do not cause much harm, but a rational person, if he were omniscient, would always choose the action that lead to the least amount of harm, provided the will is strong enough and the capacity is there. That is the standard. Humans do not set it, they only strive for it.

Then who/what does set the standard?

The goal is a minimal amount of harm. Again, we humans can not always know which actions will result in the least amount of harm. The standard exists because it is a law of nature, just like gravity, nature cannot exist without it. The problem with verifying an act’s goodness is you have to compare it with other actions that never took place, which is impossible. In some cases, measuring an act’s goodness is impossible until after the fact and even then it’s hard.

Where do you propose rationality came from if not human conception?

From the same place that gravity came from. I personally believe that the Universe is designed, but if you’re an atheist and have no idea where gravity came from, then you can assume that morality, reason, and gravity came from the same place.

No person establishes the standard, that doesn't mean that it does not exist. For instance, there is a finite number of stars in the Universe. No human can know what that is. That doesn't mean that that is not an objective fact.

In a supposedly infinite universe, how can you call that objective fact? There is no possible proof to support that statement; it is purely speculation.

If you don’t like the example we’ll use a different one. I didn’t think anyone believed the Universe was infinite since no respectable scientist believes that. There is a finite number of humans on Earth. Man can not know that number, but that does not mean that the number does not exist.

For instance, let's say I want to shoot my neighbor. It's not that we then ask 12 people if that will lead to harm or not. If I shoot my neighbor and kill him, the pain that will hit his family is inevitable and an objective fact.

You sure about that objective fact part? What if he was an abusive tyrant that terrorized his family to the extent that they all feared for their own lives. The family would more likely be relieved or even elated. You’d be a hero. Perhaps his death ensured the lives of his wife and kid(s). You saved lives by taking one. Relative, my good man.

Ok, then will look at the action after the fact. If I shoot my neighbor for no reason other than my love for killing and it ended up causing his family pain and suffering, then we do not consult 12 people to determine if harm resulted, the pain of the family is an objective fact, independent of what anyone thinks.

If you're a sociopath you're objectively irrational even though you're capable of functioning and making decisions. Being a sociopath means that the likelihood of you being put in jail are so large that your behavior is not worth taking that risk. In some cases, where there is a strong chance of our not being caught, then it is rational for someone to behave immorally. But when the odds of us being caught are very high, then it is irrational for us to behave as such because we will then harm ourselves through our imprisonment.

Some sociopaths don’t care if they are caught, that isn’t considered “harmful” to them. So, can their actions still be rational? The only reason they would not is because of a differing opinion posed by societal consensus. Also, if immoral and rational can coexist in a single action, would that not defeat your contention that values are objective? Think about it…

Some people clearly like jail, no doubt about that. One person said: “I’m getting out today, don’t let anyone sleep in my bed because I want it when I come back.” However, I think most serial killers prefer to be out of jail so that they can do what they enjoy doing: killing. There actions are rational to them, but their actions are objectively immoral.

rational: that which results in the least amount of harm to the individual
moral: that which results in the least amount of harm to nature

Morality is a higher form of rationality, because moral actions more effectively ensure the continuity of Nature. In the beginning life was only equipped with a very crude form of rationality. Gradually, life has become more moral. We humans are certainly more moral than we were 500 years ago.

“Rational acts can be immoral, but moral acts are never irrational.” - Bernard Gert, though he probably didn’t say it first.

Then they believe that their actions are acceptable because they think in their mind that someone else will help. Remember, all rational people do what they THINK is correct. In the above example they are misled because of the crowd of people.

No, they are entirely dismissive to a shameful degree - this, to me, is not rational.

They are rational but not moral. See above.

This is why the State makes the final decision to arbitrate disputes. The State can still make immoral or irrational decisions however. But again, in some cases, it is impossible for humans to know the correct answer. That does not mean that a correct answer does not exist.

Some might argue that whatever the answer, it is the “correct” answer insofar as it made necessary by causality leading up to that point. Even still, the ‘state’ is us – that is, human beings determining rationality through consensus.

I can never accept that human beings determine what is rational by consensus because you can never determine where the line is between consensus and disagreement.

    To call destruction (that which is natural) an objective evil is to essentially say that our rationality takes precedence over nature in determining the good. If rationality takes precedence over nature it is not natural (it is posited as complimentary to nature) and thus is not naturally innate.

I don’t see why you think that I’m asserting that our rationality takes precedence over nature.

I take back what I said. Destruction is not an objective evil. In some cases it can be good such as destroying an old building to make way for a better one. But I will say that if nature adopts as a maxim:

reward those who destroy and punish those who construct

then natural will soon annihilate itself.

Agreed, but that much seems fairly obvious. In reality, I don’t think nature is issuing any rewards or punishments.

Nature rewards us through pleasure and pain. Admittedly the reward system is rather crude and makes a lot of mistakes but it is nevertheless there, and it certainly made no error when it decided to reward people for having an orgasm.

I just think it safer to say that eventual destruction of any construct is the way nature seems to operate.

As I have already stated I believe destruction is unavoidable not necessary or neutral.

Also, you might want to read this summary I wrote of Gert’s philosophy. I get a lot of my ideas from him.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=172877

He however believes that when a group of rational people say an action is rational, it’s rational. His argument is a lot like French, a word is a French word if the French use it. But he has no clear way of deciding when is a group of rational people a group.

[statiktech]

@kyle2000

This is my first time trying to argue in favor of objective morality without appealing to deity, so of course it will take a long time before all the problems are encountered and considered.

Well that is a commendable endeavor if you are religious in actuality.

I’m not sure the future is ever ‘fixed’.

No, it’s not but in certain cases it can narrow down to a very small set of possibilities. Right now, my future has quite a few possibilities, but if I shoot someone, it virtually has only one possibility: jail.

The possibilities narrow with the relative variables. The more specific you get, the more probable an outcome may seem. Though, you still aren’t guaranteed any one outcome.

This raises the issue of acting in one’s own self-interest. We only act against our own self-interest when we THINK our actions will harm us. For example, if I throw a rock into my neighbor’s window I THINK that he will get angry and call the cops. Therefore, my action would be irrational.

Check and mate. You just described rationality subjectively. Rationality depends on what the subject thinks, or expects, to be the outcome.

If on the other hand, I think giving my neighbor a gift such as a bottle of wine will benefit me and my neighbor and I’m wrong, because he’s an alcoholic and it causes him to relapse and subsequently makes my living above him unbearable then that action would still be rational, even though it resulted in harm to myself and others.

So, then, I think we can conclude also that rationality is not based on harm but on intent to inflict harm. You did not intend to inflict harm, but he, knowing he was an alcoholic, still chose to drink.

Well, if you agree that destruction is not preferred then I don’t see why you are not accepting my thesis.

Simple – I don’t think that construction is “preferred” at all, let alone preferred over destruction. One doesn’t seem to exist without the other, so acceptance of one implies acceptance of the other.

He has a few good points, but I have trouble respecting him after I read: Telling a lie based on philanthropic concerns, (I wrote an essay on this and will post it soon) plus he does sometimes needlessly complicate things with his love for jargon, but at the end of the day, he is not a charlatan, like Derrida.

In honesty, I like Kant. I think he was genuine in his endeavors, though I agree that his is near impossible to understand at times.

Haha, why does everyone hate Derrida? I’ve never taken the time to actually delve into his work, but your’s seems to be the common opinion about him.

But when he says that morality must be categorical, he’s right, because less harm will result if there is one morality that all rational beings abide by.

Perhaps, but I don’t think this can or will ever happen. Cultural and societal perspectives alone are coveted to such a degree that they would never allow for that kind of moral unification.

In all the examples, war, capital punishment, abortion, we wrongly think these acts will result in less harm, abortion being more controversial. When Bush (or should we say the military-industrial complex) invaded Iraq he thought it was a good idea.

I’d argue that WWII and the Civil War, at least, resulted in less overall harm. We halted a genocidal campaign that sought world control in WWII. We gave way to civil rights movements and a unified America with the Civil War.

Say, for instance, one solution results in the least possible amount of harm, whereas another results in some negligible harm but a high probability for future benefit. Which is more rational?

I don’t know, but I think I have made it clear that the reason is because man is not omniscient, not because a standard does not exist.

My point here is not to deny a standard exists, but to contend that the standard is human.

The goal is a minimal amount of harm. Again, we humans can not always know which actions will result in the least amount of harm. The standard exists because it is a law of nature, just like gravity, nature cannot exist without it.

Rationality is a law of nature? This you’ll have to provide a proof for…

The problem with verifying an act’s goodness is you have to compare it with other actions that never took place, which is impossible. In some cases, measuring an act’s goodness is impossible until after the fact and even then it’s hard.

Agreed.

From the same place that gravity came from. I personally believe that the Universe is designed, but if you’re an atheist and have no idea where gravity came from, then you can assume that morality, reason, and gravity came from the same place.

Now why would I assume something like that? Nature does not impose rationality or morality on people, we can choose to act against them without any physical exertion. This is why I contend that rationality, and morality, are conceptual in nature.

If you don’t like the example we’ll use a different one. I didn’t think anyone believed the Universe was infinite since no respectable scientist believes that.

This is the first I’m hearing of this commonly held scientific belief. Can you cite a reference?

There is a finite number of humans on Earth. Man can not know that number, but that does not mean that the number does not exist.

Finite how? People are born and die every second of every day, that number doesn’t exist because it’s not possible to measure (now at least). Immeasurable and “infinite” are very much the same in many respects - specifically, in this context, they represent that which is unknown.

Ok, then will look at the action after the fact. If I shoot my neighbor for no reason other than my love for killing and it ended up causing his family pain and suffering, then we do not consult 12 people to determine if harm resulted, the pain of the family is an objective fact, independent of what anyone thinks.

Not independent of what the family thinks. They determine whether or not they feel pain; not you, not nature, not society. The pain they feel is subjective in nature and should only be considered objective in a case where they overtly display that pain – even then it is not “fact”, but a safe assumption. Someone can look sad without being sad.

Some people clearly like jail, no doubt about that. One person said: “I’m getting out today, don’t let anyone sleep in my bed because I want it when I come back.” However, I think most serial killers prefer to be out of jail so that they can do what they enjoy doing: killing. There actions are rational to them, but their actions are objectively immoral.

Not necessarily immoral to them or people like them, so I wouldn’t call it objective. It is immoral based on consensus.

rational: that which results in the least amount of harm to the individual
moral: that which results in the least amount of harm to nature

So, then, it can be considered rational to do nothing which might put yourself at risk at all? That is just not practical.

Also, can it be considered immoral to tear down a forest for community housing, or chop down a pine tree to use as a Christmas tree? Doesn’t seem practical either.

Morality is a higher form of rationality, because moral actions more effectively ensure the continuity of Nature. In the beginning life was only equipped with a very crude form of rationality. Gradually, life has become more moral. We humans are certainly more moral than we were 500 years ago.

Times have changed and morality with it. I think this shows, in itself, that morality is not objective. We can’t say we are more moral than we were 500 years ago because morality is relative in that respect. Morals applied to entirely different concepts, different people, etc. We can now be moral/immoral over the Internet, as one example.

“Rational acts can be immoral, but moral acts are never irrational.” - Bernard Gert, though he probably didn’t say it first.

This seems reasonable enough.

No, they are entirely dismissive to a shameful degree - this, to me, is not rational.

They are rational but not moral. See above.

You don’t think it irrational that one does not do what he believes is logically correct and prudent because he would rather someone else deal with it?

I can never accept that human beings determine what is rational by consensus because you can never determine where the line is between consensus and disagreement.

Which is the problem with the concept of rationality. How can you determine where the line is between objective rationality and subjective rationality (what we think is, but may not be, rational)?

I don’t see why you think that I’m asserting that our rationality takes precedence over nature.

That was based on your assertion that destruction is objective evil, which you’ve conceded since. So I suppose this is no longer relevant.

Nature rewards us through pleasure and pain. Admittedly the reward system is rather crude and makes a lot of mistakes but it is nevertheless there, and it certainly made no error when it decided to reward people for having an orgasm.

So, our objective values are to be based on sensations of pleasure and pain? Seems a bit self indulgent to me, and doesn’t seem to apply in the context we are speaking. Destruction doesn’t necessarily result in pain, nor construction in pleasure.

As I have already stated I believe destruction is unavoidable not necessary or neutral.

Unavoidable but not necessary? You’ll have to elaborate, that doesn’t make sense to me.

He however believes that when a group of rational people say an action is rational, it’s rational. His argument is a lot like French, a word is a French word if the French use it. But he has no clear way of deciding when is a group of rational people a group.

I believe he is correct, and people are only rational insofar as they, and the rest of the group, deems them so. In reality, you could easily have a group of utterly irrational people calling themselves rational – and we do.

[kyle2000]

This raises the issue of acting in one's own self-interest. We only act against our own self-interest when we THINK our actions will harm us. For example, if I throw a rock into my neighbor's window I THINK that he will get angry and call the cops. Therefore, my action would be irrational.

Check and mate. You just described rationality subjectively. Rationality depends on what the subject thinks, or expects, to be the outcome.

Again, people do what they THINK is rational. It does not mean that it is an objectively rational act. I can do an objectively irrational act which I think is rational, and I can also do an objectively rational action which I think is irrational. Right now the Israelis think it is in their interest to steal land from the Palestinians and harass them. (I lived in the West Bank for a month). They think this is in their self-interest, but is actually not in their self-interest because these actions by the Israelis will result in more harm to them. I could be wrong but that captures my point.

I brought up that example of throwing the rock threw a neighbor’s window to show that no one does what they perceive to be an irrational act. Whether the act is objectively irrational does not matter. Our behavior hangs on the principle that we always do what we think is right, and if we don’t we hate ourselves for it. Whether or not our actions are right or wrong, is another matter completely.

If on the other hand, I think giving my neighbor a gift such as a bottle of wine will benefit me and my neighbor and I'm wrong, because he's an alcoholic and it causes him to relapse and subsequently makes my living above him unbearable then that action would still be rational, even though it resulted in harm to myself and others.

So, then, I think we can conclude also that rationality is not based on harm but on intent to inflict harm. You did not intend to inflict harm, but he, knowing he was an alcoholic, still chose to drink.

When you say rational you have to distinguish between objective rationality and humanely perceived rationality. If I did not know my neighbor was an alcoholic then I did not commit an immoral act, but I knew he was an alcoholic and I was trying to cause him to relapse then my act was immoral.

Well, if you agree that destruction is not preferred then I don't see why you are not accepting my thesis.

Simple – I don’t think that construction is “preferred” at all, let alone preferred over destruction. One doesn’t seem to exist without the other, so acceptance of one implies acceptance of the other.

Thesis: Nature must have a mechanism whereby it punishes destruction and rewards construction if it is to thrive.
Antithesis: Nature does not need a mechanism whereby it punishes destruction and rewards construction in order to thrive.

To me the thesis is as evident as I think therefore I am. If it is not evident to you, then there is nothing I can do. As evidence I cite the fact that every complex animal is endowed with a pleasure/pain mechanism.

Haha, why does everyone hate Derrida? I’ve never taken the time to actually delve into his work, but your’s seems to be the common opinion about him.

To read a good essay trashing him: type in Google, Mark Goldblatt derrida fraud

I’d argue that WWII and the Civil War, at least, resulted in less overall harm. We halted a genocidal campaign that sought world control in WWII. We gave way to civil rights movements and a unified America with the Civil War.

I agree

My point here is not to deny a standard exists, but to contend that the standard is human.

The standard is not human because humans disagree.

From the same place that gravity came from. I personally believe that the Universe is designed, but if you're an atheist and have no idea where gravity came from, then you can assume that morality, reason, and gravity came from the same place.

Now why would I assume something like that? Nature does not impose rationality or morality on people, we can choose to act against them without any physical exertion. This is why I contend that rationality, and morality, are conceptual in nature.

Sometimes you can go against nature sometimes you can’t. For example, you can only put your hand on a stove for so long before you begin to hate it. Becoming a jigolo when you’re not born gay, on the other hand, well, you can sort of deal with that when you think about all the money you’re making. Nature has imposed the pleasure/pain principle on us, though it is not an iron principle.

If you don't like the example we'll use a different one. I didn't think anyone believed the Universe was infinite since no respectable scientist believes that.

This is the first I’m hearing of this commonly held scientific belief. Can you cite a reference?

Actually, this article says it’s a little bit of both. So much for the law of the excluded middle.
universetoday.com/38274/finite-universe/

Ok, then will look at the action after the fact. If I shoot my neighbor for no reason other than my love for killing and it ended up causing his family pain and suffering, then we do not consult 12 people to determine if harm resulted, the pain of the family is an objective fact, independent of what anyone thinks.

Not independent of what the family thinks. They determine whether or not they feel pain; not you, not nature, not society. The pain they feel is subjective in nature and should only be considered objective in a case where they overtly display that pain – even then it is not “fact”, but a safe assumption. Someone can look sad without being sad.

While it is true that a human being cannot determine if another human being is in pain, that does not mean that human pain is a fact. Moreover, all rational people agree that in a normal setting a family suffers pain when the father dies.

Some people clearly like jail, no doubt about that. One person said: "I'm getting out today, don't let anyone sleep in my bed because I want it when I come back." However, I think most serial killers prefer to be out of jail so that they can do what they enjoy doing: killing. There actions are rational to them, but their actions are objectively immoral.

Not necessarily immoral to them or people like them, so I wouldn’t call it objective. It is immoral based on consensus.

Again, I don’t believe immorality is determined by consensus because you can never fix a boundary of when a consensus becomes not a consensus.

rational: that which results in the least amount of harm to the individual
moral: that which results in the least amount of harm to nature

So, then, it can be considered rational to do nothing which might put yourself at risk at all? That is just not practical.

Ok I mispoke. Here is a better formulation

rationally acceptable: that which does not result in harm to yourself
rationally ideal: that which maximizes benefits

You don’t think it irrational that one does not do what he believes is logically correct and prudent because he would rather someone else deal with it?

The double negative in that sentence makes it very tough to know what you mean.

Which is the problem with the concept of rationality. How can you determine where the line is between objective rationality and subjective rationality (what we think is, but may not be, rational)?

That’s the problem with being human: we’re not omniscient. We can only strive to be right, we can never be certain we’re right.

Nature rewards us through pleasure and pain. Admittedly the reward system is rather crude and makes a lot of mistakes but it is nevertheless there, and it certainly made no error when it decided to reward people for having an orgasm.

So, our objective values are to be based on sensations of pleasure and pain? Seems a bit self indulgent to me, and doesn’t seem to apply in the context we are speaking.

Objective values are not based on our sensations. Our sensations are merely Nature’s way of encouraging its survival.

Destruction doesn’t necessarily result in pain, nor construction in pleasure.

I mispoke. Destruction GENERALLY results in pain, which is what I think I said.

As I have already stated I believe destruction is unavoidable not necessary or neutral.

Unavoidable but not necessary? You’ll have to elaborate, that doesn’t make sense to me.

If there was no destruction something could still exist, therefore, destruction is not necessary.
If there was more destruction than construction then ultimately nothing would exist.

[kyle2000]

btw, everyone does not hate Derrida, at least no in Academia. In 2007 he was the 3rd most quoted scholar according to this survey

timeshighereducation.co.uk/s … ioncode=26

Pretty sad if you ask me. Just shows you how much bullshit there is in Academia.