A question for everyone

[GDL]

I think your views expressed here assume that our existence ends at death.

Although I am a Christian, I'm not thinking of a particularly Christian worldview at this point. Suppose the Hindu version of reincarnation is true. Then it's not that we ever cease to exist, it's that we exist in more or less states of happiness or peace.

If that's the case, then morality is about achieving a greater experience of happiness or peace.

What would your Christian worldview say?

 

[GDL]

I'm just pointing out that everything you've said here would not sound out of place in some sort of sinister cult

And your final words are once again the problem, as you be surely should understand. From my point of view, I can turn every provocative word or phrase you've used and say the same thing about your thinking. What's the point of having a discussion from that basis?

Why "Agnostic" vs. "Atheist"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And your final words are once again the problem, as you be surely should understand.

As they are far rom my "final words," I'm araid I don't quite understand.

From my point of view, I can turn every provocative word or phrase you've used and say the same thing about your thinking.

But would it really be "your" point of view? "You" are the thing that needs to change into something better, remember?

What's the point of having a discussion from that basis?

You mean from your point of view? I agree. There'd be nothing here I haven't heard a million times before with very little deviation from the script.

Perhaps they were simply further along in their improvements than you?

Why "Agnostic" vs. "Atheist"?

Because the belief in the existence of a higher power does not require the existence of a theistic higher power.

 

[Leaf473]

What would your Christian worldview say?

My Christian worldview would say that we continue to exist after we die.

And that after death, we will face a judge in some way. So the wisest thing to do is to follow the instructions of that judge while living.

From a philosophical view, it doesn't make those actions right or wrong, but it's definitely the wisest approach imo.

 

[GDL]

As they are far rom my "final words," I'm araid I don't quite understand

Last words in your sentence I quoted for you.

No point in further discussion on things we've both "heard a million times before." Some of what you say I may have even said myself in my earlier days.

 

[GDL]

My Christian worldview would say that we continue to exist after we die.

And that after death, we will face a judge in some way. So the wisest thing to do is to follow the instructions of that judge while living.

From a philosophical view, it doesn't make those actions right or wrong, but it's definitely the wisest approach imo.

Thanks for answering.

I don't follow your last point about philosophy, but I won't ask for explanation right now.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think your views expressed here assume that our existence ends at death.

Although I am a Christian, I'm not thinking of a particularly Christian worldview at this point. Suppose the Hindu version of reincarnation is true. Then it's not that we ever cease to exist, it's that we exist in more or less states of happiness or peace.

If that's the case, then morality is about achieving a greater experience of happiness or peace.

Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.

I discard all arbitrary notions such as the supernatural, life after death, gods, fairies, gremlins, etc.
if I have one limited shot at life, I want to do the best I can to live the best life possible to me, not fantasize about some life I might have after death. This is precisely why I need a proper moral code to guide me because I wasn't born knowing what was good for me or bad. I'm not like the other animals that act automatically to further their life. I have to choose my actions wisely and think long range. If we have eternity to live and we can't die then we have no need for morality.

don't mean to offend anyone but I believe in answering questions honestly.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Is there nothing we might seek or need to dispose of that would also be of value for living? Is there any value in giving up one's own life for something or someone else? What is of ultimate value, even intrinsic value, and who or what defines it? Is it simply up to the individual mind and appetites? We're all going to die [physically]. What will have made our life valuable and why? What will we have gained or kept that will be of continued value to us?

Valuable to whom? This is the question. If my life has value to me, I seek to sustain it, then it has value. Nothing else is needed. There could be value in giving one's life in very special circumstances such as fighting for one's freedom. Life would not be worth living as a slave. A value worth risking one's life for would be one that life would not be worth living without.

What is of ultimate value is life itself. It is an end in itself. I don't seek life as a means to some other end. I seek it for its own sake, because it is good. All other values serve this one purpose.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.

I discard all arbitrary notions such as the supernatural, life after death, gods, fairies, gremlins, etc.
if I have one limited shot at life, I want to do the best I can to live the best life possible to me, not fantasize about some life I might have after death. This is precisely why I need a proper moral code to guide me because I wasn't born knowing what was good for me or bad. I'm not like the other animals that act automatically to further their life. I have to choose my actions wisely and think long range. If we have eternity to live and we can't die then we have no need for morality.

don't mean to offend anyone but I believe in answering questions honestly.

Thanks for answering honestly.

Consciousness or some form of existence after the physical body stops working is not a contradiction imo.

You can look around you and see that other people die. But you don't know what happens to their consciousness after that.

More importantly, you don't know if they experience consciousness the same way that you do. So even if their consciousness ceases when they die, it doesn't necessarily follow that your consciousness will cease.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Thanks for answering honestly.

Consciousness or some form of existence after the physical body stops working is not a contradiction imo.

You can look around you and see that other people die. But you don't know what happens to their consciousness after that.

More importantly, you don't know if they experience consciousness the same way that you do. So even if their consciousness ceases when they die, it doesn't necessarily follow that your consciousness will cease.

I said that life after death is a contradiction. Death means the end of life. Humans are an integration of matter and consciousness. This is a fact. There's no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated. A certain person once said that a body without consciousness is a corpse and a consciousness without a body is a ghost. Both are symbols of death. Consciousness is also biological in nature and when we die biology ceases. Consciousness requires a means, i.e., sense organs and a brain and nervous system. Without sense organs, there's no contact with reality, there's nothing to think about, remember, or feel emotions about. A consciousness with no means of being conscious is a contradiction.

 

[GDL]

Valuable to whom? This is the question. If my life has value to me, I seek to sustain it, then it has value. Nothing else is needed.

Yes, that is an important question. It sounds like you are fully self-oriented, so value by definition for you must be whatever you determine it to be. And since you are free to determine to accept a certain quality of life or another and to affect others however you choose, then again, you are the determining factor of value according only to you as to what is needed and what is not. In this case wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer to you as the happy subjectivist vs. objectivist.

You said, "By value, I mean anything that we act to gain or keep for the purpose of living." My question was, "Is there nothing we might seek or need to dispose of that would also be of value for living? Have you ever found yourself disposing of something in order to gain something better? By "something," I am not speaking just materially.

There could be value in giving one's life in very special circumstances such as fighting for one's freedom. Life would not be worth living as a slave. A value worth risking one's life for would be one that life would not be worth living without.

Again, self-orientation. Would you give your life to protect the life of your wife or children(?) or??? What would be the greater value of your life, to save yourself or another?

What is of ultimate value is life itself. It is an end in itself. I don't seek life as a means to some other end. I seek it for its own sake, because it is good. All other values serve this one purpose.

"Good" again as defined by yourself. What do you mean by "values"? Are you speaking only of materially valuable to your physical existence, or are you including such immaterial things as ethics in the word?

Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.

Of course, you don't. Your view is materialism to the core and is not unique.

Please explain what you mean by "affirms the primacy of consciousness." Apart from explanation, your logic escapes me. Truth is truth and does not depend on human recognition. That would include you. Otherwise, there would be no truth apart from what you recognize & understand. Truth may rest on the primacy of existence, but not existence as you know or believe it to be.

I discard all arbitrary notions such as the supernatural, life after death, gods, fairies, gremlins, etc.
if I have one limited shot at life, I want to do the best I can to live the best life possible to me, not fantasize about some life I might have after death. This is precisely why I need a proper moral code to guide me because I wasn't born knowing what was good for me or bad. I'm not like the other animals that act automatically to further their life. I have to choose my actions wisely and think long range. If we have eternity to live and we can't die then we have no need for morality.

You are consistent. Again, self-oriented. And now self-limiting. No sense of anything beyond physical existence even though the non-material part of you, your thoughts, reasonings, use of logic, etc., must be clear to you. No inquisitiveness whatsoever as to what this is all about, what else there might be, how a short time drawing breath only becomes nothing thereafter and how that brief experience makes any sense or was of value to you or anyone else?

What, if I may ask, does the best possible life for you look like?

You closed out your post to Leaf473 by saying you don't mean to offend anybody. I'm putting the same sentiment back to you right here before I proceed.

Honestly, I'm a bit astounded at what you think morality is for. But after reading all of the self-oriented things you've written I should not be astounded. Are you saying that morality and ethics are just for you so you can have the best life for yourself? This may make sense, but you'd have to explain it, so I'm not left to project into it.

Also, what is a "proper moral code" - who devises it? Where does it come from? What makes it proper? You use words like "good" and "proper," but what makes them such? What is "wisdom" for you?

I don't know how old you are but at some point, you may come to understand why there are sayings about how quickly this life goes by. Long term seems to be a matter of some decades to you, since it seems to be all about you. What am I missing or misunderstanding here?

What you think is so diametrically opposed to what I think, that I share with many, many others. We need morality precisely because there is an eternity. Honestly, I can't see why you need it at all. At least tell me that you need it because your life is better when you act morally towards other people. And, if you do tell me that, then please explain why you think that is?

 

[Leaf473]

I said that life after death is a contradiction. Death means the end of life. Humans are an integration of matter and consciousness. This is a fact. There's no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated. A certain person once said that a body without consciousness is a corpse and a consciousness without a body is a ghost. Both are symbols of death. Consciousness is also biological in nature and when we die biology ceases. Consciousness requires a means, i.e., sense organs and a brain and nervous system. Without sense organs, there's no contact with reality, there's nothing to think about, remember, or feel emotions about. A consciousness with no means of being conscious is a contradiction.

If there is no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated, neither is there evidence that they cannot be.

 

[o_mlly]

Life would not be worth living as a slave. ... What is of ultimate value is life itself.

The two claims seem to be contradictory. It would seem that the ultimate value is not merely life itself but only lives lived in at least freedom. True?

There are degrees of slavery. One can be a slave to the will of another or even to their own passions. Using reason, morality attempts to identify and regulate those passions which are disordered and do not lead us to a life well lived.

I agree that freedom is a qualifier for the life worth living. However, some whose passion for security moves them to attempt to escape from their innate freedom. A moral code that made more than life itself as the only good to be pursued could benefit them.

Beyond freedom, are there not other innate goods that we desire that lead us to the good life, a life well lived? We also have an innate (natural) desire for truth and justice. For the Christian, seeking Goodness in itself is the basis for all morality.

 

[o_mlly]

If there is no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated, neither is there evidence that they cannot be.

To your point, my understanding is that materialists cannot yet explain consciousness itself. As in real estate, the three most important attributes for scientists are location, location and location. Brain mapping studies have not yet shown the location in the brain that evidences certain kinds of consciousness.

 

[o_mlly]

Why "Agnostic" vs. "Atheist"?

One might define an agnostic as a humble atheist or conversely, an atheist as an arrogant agnostic.

 

[Leaf473]

To your point, my understanding is that materialists cannot yet explain consciousness itself. As in real estate, the three most important attributes for scientists are location, location and location. Brain mapping studies have not yet shown the location in the brain that evidences certain kinds of consciousness.

Interesting!

I have heard that putting a probe inside a brain can change what the person feels or something. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that consciousness is created by the brain.

That would be similar to saying that by putting a small jumper cable in certain places in your phone you can change how a web page is displayed. Thus, the web page is created by the phone.

If a person starts with the assumptions that the material world is all that exists and that everyone is equally conscious, then they're pretty much left with the brain.

But I don't see any reason to start with those two assumptions.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, that is an important question. It sounds like you are fully self-oriented, so value by definition for you must be whatever you determine it to be. And since you are free to determine to accept a certain quality of life or another and to affect others however you choose, then again, you are the determining factor of value according only to you as to what is needed and what is not. In this case wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer to you as the happy subjectivist vs. objectivist.

NO, no, no. I do not determine what is of value, nature does that. It's my responsibility to discover it. No, no, no. I am not the determining factor of value, nature is. No, no, no. I can not do to others whatever I want to, not and be in compliance with the standard of value, which is man's life and its requirements. No, I'm not the Happy Subjectivist because I reject the claim that underlies subjectivism, i.e., the primacy of consciousness. I reject it on the grounds that it isn't true. It doesn't correspond to reality.

You said, "By value, I mean anything that we act to gain or keep for the purpose of living." My question was, "Is there nothing we might seek or need to dispose of that would also be of value for living? Have you ever found yourself disposing of something in order to gain something better? By "something," I am not speaking just materially.

I do this all the time. Its called rational trading. I give up my money for things that I want more than the money and the person I buy from gives up his goods because they are worth less to him than the money I am giving. I give up my time. I give up my food, my sleep, but never for something of lesser value as dictated by my needs as a living organism which are not a matter of opinion or personal preference.

Again, self-orientation. Would you give your life to protect the life of your wife or children(?) or??? What would be the greater value of your life, to save yourself or another?

Yes, if need be. They are my top values. They are my life. If it was a stranger, no. I value my life more than any random stranger's. And I would hope that others would act the same way towards me. But this is a rather strange scenario to be basing morality on. After all, who finds themselves in a situation where they need to give up their lives for others. There are people right now who are dying for lack of a kidney transplant. Why don't you go and give up your kidneys, your heart, your eyes, your liver, your lungs and anything else that can be harvested and transplanted. Why don't you if your concern is for others more than yourself?

"Good" again as defined by yourself. What do you mean by "values"? Are you speaking only of materially valuable to your physical existence, or are you including such immaterial things as ethics in the word?

Defined by myself by an objective method and standard. Do you understand how concepts are defined objectively?

Of course, you don't. Your view is materialism to the core and is not unique.

No, materialists deny the axiom of consciousness. I hold it as one of my founding principles. Wrong again.

Please explain what you mean by "affirms the primacy of consciousness." Apart from explanation, your logic escapes me. Truth is truth and does not depend on human recognition. That would include you. Otherwise, there would be no truth apart from what you recognize & understand. Truth may rest on the primacy of existence, but not existence as you know or believe it to be.

Do your own homework. It's not my problem that you are ignorant of such basic issues as primacy. You want to tell me that I'm a materialist and a subjectivist, which is a contradiction in terms by the way, and you don't even understand what these terms mean. Not if you don't understand the issue of primacy. Because it is the base of objectivism vs. subjectivism. Of course you've just affirmed the primacy of existence when you said that "truth may rest on the primacy of existence, but not existence as you know or believe it to be. Of course existence, everything that exists, exists independent of my knowledge or beliefs about it.

You are consistent. Again, self-oriented. And now self-limiting. No sense of anything beyond physical existence even though the non-material part of you, your thoughts, reasonings, use of logic, etc., must be clear to you. No inquisitiveness whatsoever as to what this is all about, what else there might be, how a short time drawing breath only becomes nothing thereafter and how that brief experience makes any sense or was of value to you or anyone else?

No inquisitiveness? What it's all for is my life and my happiness. That's my primary focus as it should be yours, but it's not my only focus. Again, I am not a materialist. Not in any way. Consciousness, reasoning, logic, thoughts, these things are not made of matter and I recognize this so please don't tell me what I believe.

What, if I may ask, does the best possible life for you look like?

One proper to a rational being. A full, thriving, flourishing, potential reaching life. Happiness.

You closed out your post to Leaf473 by saying you don't mean to offend anybody. I'm putting the same sentiment back to you right here before I proceed.

What offends me is when people tell me I'm a materialist and a subjectivist as if I don't know what I am and what ideas I hold.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Honestly, I'm a bit astounded at what you think morality is for. But after reading all of the self-oriented things you've written I should not be astounded. Are you saying that morality and ethics are just for you so you can have the best life for yourself? This may make sense, but you'd have to explain it, so I'm not left to project into it.

Also, what is a "proper moral code" - who devises it? Where does it come from? What makes it proper? You use words like "good" and "proper," but what makes them such? What is "wisdom" for you?

I don't know how old you are but at some point, you may come to understand why there are sayings about how quickly this life goes by. Long term seems to be a matter of some decades to you, since it seems to be all about you. What am I missing or misunderstanding here?

What you think is so diametrically opposed to what I think, that I share with many, many others. We need morality precisely because there is an eternity. Honestly, I can't see why you need it at all. At least tell me that you need it because your life is better when you act morally towards other people. And, if you do tell me that, then please explain why you think that is?

GDL, why are you making this about me. The thread is about the metaphysical facts which give rise to the need for the concept "morality". Morality is not a primary. It rests on more fundamental knowledge. That's what this thread is about. Not whether or not I'd give my life up or what I think is a proper moral code. I've simply tried to introduce you to a powerful method of thinking that you might not be aware of, one that has helped me greatly in life and one that I think others could benefit from. If you don't consider it of value, that's fine. I'm doing this because I think it will help others, no other reason. If I were what you want to think I am, a selfish person who doesn't care about anybody but myself then why would I do this. I am selfish, but not in the way you mean.

I understand that the Objectivist ethics, which this thread is not about, is radically different from what you've been taught all your life. That's because you have never been given a rational alternative to the morality of religion and socialism and communism. But this thread is not about what is moral or what moral principles are best, it's about the metaphysical underpinnings of the concept of morality. why do we need such a concept in the first place? This is an important question to ask about any idea, not just about morality.

Now I'll recap the facts which I have pointed to that give rise to the need for a concept such as morality.

Man has an identity, he is somethng specific. Yes or no?

Man faces the alternative of death vs. life. Yes or no?

Man has to act in order to live. Yes or no?

Man has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him and what is bad. Yes or no?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The two claims seem to be contradictory. It would seem that the ultimate value is not merely life itself but only lives lived in at least freedom. True?

There are degrees of slavery. One can be a slave to the will of another or even to their own passions. Using reason, morality attempts to identify and regulate those passions which are disordered and do not lead us to a life well lived.

I agree that freedom is a qualifier for the life worth living. However, some whose passion for security moves them to attempt to escape from their innate freedom. A moral code that made more than life itself as the only good to be pursued could benefit them.

Beyond freedom, are there not other innate goods that we desire that lead us to the good life, a life well lived? We also have an innate (natural) desire for truth and justice. For the Christian, seeking Goodness in itself is the basis for all morality.

Not at all. By life I mean the life proper to a rational being. A rational being needs freedom in order to operate. A slave is not free. He can not act on his judgment for his own sake if he's held captive.

Without our individual rights, we don't have a life. If I were a slave owner in the 19th century, knowing what I know now, I'd free all my slaves because it is unspeakably evil to own people as property and to take what's rightfully theirs. They have an inalienable right to live for their own sake.

I don't believe there are any inate goods. Good is a value judgement and requires a mind with conceptual capabilities and something to judge against an objective standard of what is good. I submit to you that life and its requirements are that standard. Any other standard would be arbitrary.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Hear hear -- because I have yet to meet a deity who's been consistent regarding such instruction...they all seem pretty flighty.

Ah yes, another argument which is very destructive to the (incorrect) view that Christians tend to see for morality.

You see, morality is not "this is bad, this is good," so much as it is about time and place. The book of Ephesians in the Bible actually talks about this.
I have stated previously, but to reiterate, I believe morality is based upon balance; good is what brings us closer to perfect balance and a state of perfection, evil is that which causes discord. So basically, the idea of morality is simply that good is, all things considered, the best choice for the benefit of all, yourself included. However, one would need to know literally everything to make the perfect decision at all times, as even the smallest actions can have major consequences, even if we do not notice them immediately.
I'm not going to go into all that right now; it's simple enough but can take a while to explain. I'm more than willing to make another post or directly message you about the matter, if you're interested.

While I cannot speak for other deities, God may seem flighty on the outside, but only because we do not understand all things. The idea is that God is doing what is the best possible option, given what He has to work with, for the given situation. The catch is, He has rules He abides by, and allowing free will is one of those. Ergo, certain things happen that He does not prevent, due to His respect for His own rules.

Also, as this inevitably brings up the question "why would a good God let bad things happen?", I will explain as best as my humble mind knows about such a deep and unexplainable question:
People tend to forget that, if God as we Christians know Him were indeed to exist, so would Heaven and eternal afterlife and all that. So while we may see a thousand people dying as tragic, for God it would just be like a bunch of people left a prison and were being brought home. Of course, God tries to care about our feelings and emotions here on Earth, but ultimately, if an eternity of peace and love exists after death, then death is not so tragic, and the tragedies life not so deeply harmful as we think.
I speak as someone who knows how painful and hopeless one feels in the moment of pain. I too have questioned God... many, many times. And He has answered. Hence why I am a Christian; I certainly would not be if there was no legitimacy, as following social norms is quite against my personality.

Suffice it to say, God will act differently at different times, but not because He has changed, but because we have, and the circumstance may require one thing or another. I do not claim to know why He lets some things happen; I struggle with that question a lot. But if you are going to believe in a God, you have to trust Him, other wise the whole belief is pointless. And even if God were not to exist, the mentality of turning your suffering into opportunity is one that I think all people can agree is extremely healthy and beneficial.