What should Morals and Ethics be?

[Roboramma]

Can I be the one to push the button?

I did say it was oversimplified and that there are things that have (both positive and negative) value other than suffering. I agree with your criticism of the idea of a complete morality based only on suffering.

ETA: To quote myself:

Of course there are other things that are important, and our moral system needs to take them into account as well, which is why this is an oversimplified version of it in order to just get the basic idea across.

 

[caveman1917]

I did say it was oversimplified and that there are things that have (both positive and negative) value other than suffering. I agree with your criticism of the idea of a complete morality based only on suffering.

Well then it seems that you're going to have to do a better job of defining this morality you speak of.

 

[Cheetah]

Either suffering can be objectively measured or it can't.

Anything a mind experiences can be measured, what difference does that make?
The point is the mind experiences it.

Either both reducing and increasing suffering are objective goals or neither are, you can't have it both ways. Your post doesn't change any of that.

You missed the whole part about evolution and the laws of physics, read again.

 

[Roboramma]

Well then it seems that you're going to have to do a better job of defining this morality you speak of.

I think what I offered is one aspect of that morality. I wasn't trying to give a complete definition, only to show how such reasoning can be applied.

 

[Belz...]

That's the thing: They are other reality bubbles. They're separated from us by a gulf of expanding time and distance that cannot be crossed, even by light itself.

Not an actual bubble. It's all in the same bubble, just too far in it for us to see.

I've already explained all this.

 

[caveman1917]

Anything a mind experiences can be measured, what difference does that make? The point is the mind experiences it.

Whether something can be measured would be the distinction between objective and subjective.

You missed the whole part about evolution, read again.

I didn't miss it, I rejected it for being trivially refutable at worst[1] and equivalent to "morality = everyone should do whatever they want" at best[2]

[1]

All evolved minds have a single universal purpose, to continue living in order to reproduce. That is why brains evolved.

Pointing out people who don't want kids or kill themselves should refute this.

[2]

All organisms seek out situations that feel good and avoid situations that feel bad. Evolution has programmed them to do so because it led to reproductive success.
Well-being is therefore the universal and objective goal of all natural minds (and as a bonus it's the subjective goal of any individual mind as well).
Start there.

 

[Belz...]

Well-being is therefore the universal and objective goal of all natural minds (and as a bonus it's the subjective goal of any individual mind as well).
Start there.

No, that doesn't follow. It's also not objective. "Everyone agrees" doesn't mean it's objective.

Okay. Here's a framework: I know that there is something bad about my own suffering. I know this through experience. I can deduce from our common origins and makeup that your suffering is the same as mine, so I know there's something bad about that too. That seems pretty universal and objective so far.

No, it doesn't. To begin with, your assumptions about my pain are not evidence of anything. But even so, that's not morality.

You can, of course, go on to say "why should I care about suffering?". (snip) The answer is simply that you already do. As evidence I present the fact that you try to avoid it.[/QUOTE]

In myself. Morality is about others.

To avoid getting too hung up on the multiverse thing, I just want to go back to where it started, which was this comment. My point is that there are places that we know exist whose properties we cannot investigate and will never know. There are true facts about those places that we can't know. So what?

So from our perspective they don't exist.

So it's not the case that "for all practical purposes they don't exist", because assuming their non-existence would lead to erroneous conclusions about other things.

You can't conclude that they exist either. You're stuck either way. You know how positive claims work.

 

[caveman1917]

I think what I offered is one aspect of that morality. I wasn't trying to give a complete definition, only to show how such reasoning can be applied.

I don't think the problem here is one of reasoning but one of axioms.

 

[caveman1917]

So from our perspective they don't exist.

You don't know that.

You can't conclude that they exist either.

Sometimes you can. For example one can prove that there are true statements about the natural numbers that we can't know (in a certain sense). In the cosmology example there's an argument that, given the observed flatness of space, even if it were spherical it would still need to have a radius significantly larger than our observable part of it.

 

[Belz...]

You don't know that.

Er... yes I do, actually. If there's no way to know, even in principle, if something exists, then it really doesn't, from your perspective. Doesn't mean that it actually doesn't, but that makes no difference to you.

Sometimes you can. For example one can prove that there are true statements about the natural numbers that we can't know (in a certain sense).

Which should be an indication to you that this isn't one of the situations we're discussing. If you can conclude that something exists via implication, then it isn't an unknown, is it?

 

[caveman1917]

Er... yes I do, actually. If there's no way to know, even in principle, if something exists, then it really doesn't, from your perspective. Doesn't mean that it actually doesn't, but that makes no difference to you.

By the same logic you can say that if there's no way to know, even in principle, if something doesn't exist, then it really does, from your perspective. Doesn't mean that it actually does, but that makes no difference to you.

Which should be an indication to you that this isn't one of the situations we're discussing. If you can conclude that something exists via implication, then it isn't an unknown, is it?

I actually gave you one such implication on what you were discussing, which you've left out of your quote.

 

[Cheetah]

Just to be clear, you are focusing on very specific examples you think might refute my point.
I am focusing on the overall principles of life and evolution that lead to our success as the most successful and intelligent species on the planet.

Whether something can be measured would be the distinction between objective and subjective.

It's objective.
Great!

I didn't miss it, I rejected it for being trivially refutable at worst[1] and equivalent to "morality = everyone should do whatever they want" at best[2]
[1]
Pointing out people who don't want kids or kill themselves should refute this.
[2]

Oh no, not at all.
[1] It does not, but it's complicated. Some points:

• Evolution uses what works best. Even though the primary goal of evolution is reproduction, producing offspring might not even be a goal of the individual organism. Evolution ensures reproduction primarily by making it feel good and making the opposite sex attractive. Animals have a drive to reproduce because it feels good, not because they crave offspring, they crave well-being.
• Wanting children in their own right, is a much later evolutionary invention, building on the former, that only sufficiently complex brains are capable of.
• Since well-being is the primary driver it is not surprising that some would want to stop their own suffering or that of others.
• Evolution thrives on diversity, it's is what enables life to adapt to changing conditions. When you get down to specific details and situations, individual organism can react differently and counter-productively from an evolutionary perspective.

[2] Maximizing well-being does not imply that at all, not for any social animals.

 

[caveman1917]

Maximizing well-being does not imply that at all, not for any social animals.

If organisms are "programmed by evolution" to seek well-being, where well-being is defined as whatever feels good for the organism, then an organism maximizing its well-being is doing what it wants. For example the cat playing with the mouse before eating it is obviously enjoying it, the mouse is obviously not enjoying it, so the cat doesn't care and maximizes its own well-being - you know, it's evolution.

 

[Cheetah]

No, that doesn't follow. It's also not objective. "Everyone agrees" doesn't mean it's objective.

It's a basic scientific fact of the way evolved brains work, even the simplest ones, not an opinion you can agree or disagree with.

 

[Cheetah]

If organisms are "programmed by evolution" to seek well-being, where well-being is defined as whatever feels good for the organism, then an organism maximizing its well-being is doing what it wants. For example the cat playing with the mouse before eating it is obviously enjoying it, the mouse is obviously not enjoying it, so the cat doesn't care and maximizes its own well-being - you know, it's evolution.

Yes of course. You cannot blame the cat though, because it is incapable of feeling sympathy for the mouse. It cannot imagine or comprehend the suffering of the mouse.

When looking at highly evolved social animals things are very different, the well-being of your companions become very important to your own long-term well-being. It is in your own best interest to sometimes take a knock in well-being for the social good. This is the hallmark of social cooperation.
Humans are another step up, being super-social semi-rational animals able to think things through and plan ahead. We are able to imagine what another mind is experiencing and further, imagine what it would be like if we were experiencing what we imagine that other mind is experiencing.
That gives us much more responsibility than the cat.
Things that would be immoral for us would not be for a cat.

 

[caveman1917]

Yes of course. You cannot blame the cat though, because it is incapable of feeling sympathy for the mouse. It cannot imagine or comprehend the suffering of the mouse.

Blame the cat for what? Maybe it can imagine the suffering of the mouse but it just doesn't care. After all, why should it?

When looking at highly evolved social animals things are very different, the well-being of your companions become very important to your own long-term well-being. It is in your own best interest to sometimes take a knock in well-being for the social good. This is the hallmark of social cooperation.

Yeah, I don't think so.

Humans are another step up, being super-social semi-rational animals able to think things through and plan ahead.
We are able to imagine what another mind is experiencing and further, imagine what it would be like if we were experiencing what we imagine that other mind is experiencing.
That gives us much more responsibility than the cat.

Responsibility for what?

 

[Belz...]

By the same logic you can say that if there's no way to know, even in principle, if something doesn't exist, then it really does, from your perspective.

There's so much wrong in that sentence that it's hard to know how to address it.

No, by the same logic you can't do the exact opposite. That would be a contradiction, which is impossible in logic. It's the fundamental rule of logic that you can't contradict yourself. Where did you learn logic, mate?

And no, what you describe is an argument from ignorance. That you can treat something as non-existent until it's shown to exist is one thing. You can't assume that it exists under the same circumstances. That's not how knowledge works.

I actually gave you one such implication on what you were discussing, which you've left out of your quote.

Which is entirely irrelevant. If you can logically conclude that something exists then it's not an unknown.

 

[Belz...]

It's a basic scientific fact of the way evolved brains work, even the simplest ones, not an opinion you can agree or disagree with.

First of all, no it's not a basic scientific fact. It was a conclusion YOU made from your premises, one that happens to NOT follow from those premises. Survival/reproduction are not the same thing as well-being.

Second, even were it true, it wouldn't make it objective. Objective and universally agreed upon are not the same thing.

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah, I don't think so.

What don't you think?
How does social behaviour evolve?

Responsibility for what?

Sorry, I added a bit there: Things that would be immoral for us would not be for a cat.

 

[caveman1917]

There's so much wrong in that sentence that it's hard to know how to address it.

No, by the same logic you can't do the exact opposite. That would be a contradiction, which is impossible in logic. It's the fundamental rule of logic that you can't contradict yourself. Where did you learn logic, mate?

What contradiction?

And no, what you describe is an argument from ignorance. That you can treat something as non-existent until it's shown to exist is one thing. You can't assume that it exists under the same circumstances. That's not how knowledge works.

They are both arguments from ignorance: "I don't know if P is true or not so I'm assuming it's true" is no more or less an argument from ignorance than "I don't know if P is true or not so I'm assuming it's not." Yes, you're right that this isn't how knowledge works, makes one wonder why you insist on it then...

Which is entirely irrelevant. If you can logically conclude that something exists then it's not an unknown.

And yet there are various questions which hence have an answer (for example, what is the energy density in some region outside our observable universe) but the answer of which we can not know.