How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

There is no logical contradiction in all beings being sentient.

Perhaps we need to each supply our premise for thinking differently about this.

I agree with that, so if that is all you are saying, then there is no disagreement. But if you are saying that all beings are necessarily sentient (not just that it’s logically possible), then you need to supply a premise for thinking so. Since I’m not saying that there must be non sentient beings (I’m only saying saying it’s logically possible for non-sentient beings to exist), I have only the logically possible claim, which you said “okay,” implying that you agree it is logically possible.

There is no logical contradiction in the observation that human morality must be subjective.

That’s not enough to support that claim. You have to show it’s logically impossible or metaphysically impossible for human morality to be objective.

The focus is on whether human/planetary morality is an objective reality, which is why I mentioned what the OP author asked and thought and made observations and asked questions re that.
I see you snipped that bit. Why?

I’m not talking about human consciousness and morality at this point, just the more general principle of consciousness creating an objective reality.

Where would you like to go with that, re "non-human" consciousness and morality being objective reality?

I snipped it because it doesn’t seem relevant. I’m open to you explaining why it is relevant, but I think you aren’t getting the context of what I’m saying, so you mentioned what the OP author asked and made observations on that which are irrelevant to what I’m talking about. This last question shows you aren’t getting that context. I don’t want to go anywhere with “non-human consciousness and morality being objective reality.”

I asked you about “consciousness and objective reality”. After we discuss that we can apply it to morality and human or non-human consciousnesses. But let’s talk about the more general principle first. Do you think consciousness can bring about objective realities?

[The Tanager]

Both, I spoke of level of agreement - morality is mostly universal but not quite universal, just like food taste.

Okay, but once again, this is a claim. I’m waiting for the proof of your claim that this is true.

Because purpose is in all your head and can affect only you and nothing else.

But the hammer maker’s purpose obviously does affect what the hammer is made of.

The act of making a squeaky hammer, affected the material used. The act of making a soft landing pad, affected the material used.

The maker’s purpose affected what they made in that act.

I told you why: because there is no objective standard to appeal to, so we can do whatever we feel like.

Even if there is an objective standard, we can do whatever we feel like. That’s not the issue. What my personal food taste is is irrelevant to me talking about food taste being subjective.

I wouldn't. I would appeal to the objective standard. Who cares what anyone's opinion is when it comes to the shape of the Earth. I don't, I just appeal to it's actual physical shape.

Which is your view; you are expressing the equivalent of your “specific moral preference”. Saying it is the truth and not an opinion is simply saying that you are an objectivist about it, not sharing something other than your specific view on the matter.

[Bust Nak]

Okay, but once again, this is a claim. I’m waiting for the proof of your claim that this is true.

What's wrong with the example you provided re: killing the innocent?

But the hammer maker’s purpose obviously does affect what the hammer is made of.

Obvious to whom? It's obvious to me that purpose can't affect what the hammer is made of. It's obvious to me that a thought affecting the external world would qualify as a psychic power.

The maker’s purpose affected what they made in that act.

How can you tell the difference between that and the maker affecting what they made?

Even if there is an objective standard, we can do whatever we feel like. That’s not the issue. What my personal food taste is is irrelevant to me talking about food taste being subjective.

We can do whatever we feel like, but I wouldn't when there is an objective truth to appeal to. It's irrational.

Which is your view; you are expressing the equivalent of your “specific moral preference”.

What preference am I expressing when I say "the Earth is ball shaped?"

Saying it is the truth and not an opinion is simply saying that you are an objectivist about it, not sharing something other than your specific view on the matter.

If you are an objectivist about anything then you are saying that something is the truth regardless of any opinion.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #591]

(I’m only saying saying it’s logically possible for non-sentient beings to exist), I have only the logically possible claim, which you said “okay,” implying that you agree it is logically possible.

I was agreeing that you obviously believe this to be the case.
Someone can claim something is logically possible but that does not mean it is logically possible.
Since you were asked to explain this logic but declined on account that it wasn't a claim, I have no interest in it at this point and remain skeptical of it being true.

I snipped it because it doesn’t seem relevant. I’m open to you explaining why it is relevant, but I think you aren’t getting the context of what I’m saying, so you mentioned what the OP author asked and made observations on that which are irrelevant to what I’m talking about.

The OP is irrelevant to what you are saying?

Do you think consciousness can bring about objective realities?

I have no problem accepting that human morality is a thing invented and used by human consciousness when expressed into objective reality through the human instrument.

[The Tanager]

I was agreeing that you obviously believe this to be the case.
Someone can claim something is logically possible but that does not mean it is logically possible.
Since you were asked to explain this logic but declined on account that it wasn't a claim, I have no interest in it at this point and remain skeptical of it being true.

Oh, you were questioning that a non-sentient being is logically possible? Okay. For that we look at the two definitions (non-sentient and being) and see if there is a logical contradiction. If not, then it is logically possible.

‘Non-sentient’ means something like “not having the ability to perceive or feel things”

‘Being’ means something like “a thing that exists”

When combining these two definitions there is nothing that logically contradicts. A thing that exists could also be a thing that does not perceive or feel things.

In return, I grant you that “all beings are sentient” is logically possible, so no need to spell out the logic of that claim. If that is all you are claiming then there is no problem between us on that. Is that all you are claiming? A straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ if you care about clarity in this discussion.

If you are claiming that “all beings are sentient” is the only logically possible view or that it’s not only logically possible but the actual truth, then you need more support. Are you claiming this? A straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ for clarity’s sake, please. It’s not some kind of ‘gotcha’ or something like that; it’s just seeking true clarity.

The OP is irrelevant to what you are saying?

No. I said the way you were taking the OP combined with what you thought the context of my statement was seems irrelevant.

[/quote[Do you think consciousness can bring about objective realities?

I have no problem accepting that human morality is a thing invented and used by human consciousness when expressed into objective reality through the human instrument.[/quote]

I have no idea what your answer is from that response. If you want to move this discussion forward you have to clarify what you mean. Can consciousness (human or not) bring about objective reality? In any way? Not concerning morality, but concerning anything? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would go a long way to clarity in this discussion, even if you need to nuance things later.

[The Tanager]

What's wrong with the example you provided re: killing the innocent?

You haven’t shown it isn’t a universally accepted moral principle.

Obvious to whom? It's obvious to me that purpose can't affect what the hammer is made of. It's obvious to me that a thought affecting the external world would qualify as a psychic power.

We are talking about creating the physical nature of the hammer, not changing it after it has already been made. If Jimmy wants to make a tool to hammer nails, then Jimmy will use hard material to do so. If Jimmy wants to a pillow, Jimmy will use different material. Jimmy’s purposes will determine what comes into existence: a hammer or a pillow and the physical nature will reflect that purpose.

How can you tell the difference between that and the maker affecting what they made?

I don’t know what that means. Clarify the difference you see in “the maker’s purpose” and “the maker” in this context.

We can do whatever we feel like, but I wouldn't when there is an objective truth to appeal to. It's irrational.

It doesn’t matter what you would do; our personal taste is still irrelevant in talking about food taste being objective or subjective.

What preference am I expressing when I say "the Earth is ball shaped?"

That your view is that the Earth is ball shaped. I’m not calling it an actual preference, but it is your view which sits in the same position when talking about what your ‘preference’ is on food tastes.

If you are an objectivist about anything then you are saying that something is the truth regardless of any opinion.

Yes. And the person that disagrees with the objectivist (called a ‘subjectivist’) is saying there is not a truth out there. That means that they are saying their view isn’t the truth; that even their view/preference is an opinion, different from other opinions, but no better or no worse.

But then you think this means that you should act like your opinion is the truth, in that you call other people wrong and you try to change their behavior. Well, only when it comes to morality even though you say you act the same in other subjective issues, too. And now you’ll repeat your refrain and we go in circles. So, if that is your response, the discussion is still not moving forward and it's time to get off the carousel.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #595]

‘Non-sentient’ means something like “not having the ability to perceive or feel things”

‘Being’ means something like “a thing that exists”

This is why I wrote the following, 7 days ago in post #564
"I think the statement is untrue, but it may be because we have different definitions of what beingness requires in order for it to be "beingness".

I think of a being as something which is obviously self aware rather than any object which exists.

Can consciousness (human or not) bring about objective reality?

Yes.

Objective reality is organized matter. Organized matter is objects.

[The Tanager]

This is why I wrote the following, 7 days ago in post #564
"I think the statement is untrue, but it may be because we have different definitions of what beingness requires in order for it to be "beingness".

I think of a being as something which is obviously self aware rather than any object which exists.

So you were basically saying all sentient beings are necessarily sentient. Of course they are. You originally asked me if I thought all sentient beings were necessarily sentient in response to me saying that I don’t believe there is a universal morality because not all beings are necessarily moral agents. Help me see why you think that question is relevant to pursue.

[quote[Can consciousness (human or not) bring about objective reality?

Yes.

Objective reality is organized matter. Organized matter is objects.[/quote]

Thank you for clarifying that. So, why do you think morality is different? Why can’t a subjective consciousness bring about morality as an objective reality, if it can bring about other things as objective realities?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #598]

You originally asked me if I thought all sentient beings were necessarily sentient in response to me saying that I don’t believe there is a universal morality because not all beings are necessarily moral agents. Help me see why you think that question is relevant to pursue.

At this point, because your definition of "being" is every object, the question would need to be reframed once you explain what would constitute a "necessary agent". Until then, there is nothing relevant to pursue because the belief you have expressed, is vague in that regard.

Thank you for clarifying that. So, why do you think morality is different? Why can’t a subjective consciousness bring about morality as an objective reality, if it can bring about other things as objective realities?

Morality is like an idea for something.

An idea for a lightbulb remains an idea until it is made real by organizing matter.

Once a lightbulb is made real, it is a lightbulb. It is not an idea.

One can point at a lightbulb and agree that it was an idea which was made into a real and functionable object of organized matter. The object remains identifiable as a lightbulb, no matter its shape, size, color, or placement.

As an idea. morality doesn't have those same functioning properties and is hard to identify, hence the question "how do we know what is right and wrong?" as opposed to an easier to answer question "how do we know what is a lightbulb?"

We cannot point to morality as an actual thing, because morality appears as a lot of different things, not always in agreement. It is more in appearance as ideas which are used to try an organize consciousness housed in organized matter rather than being an actual object - like a lightbulb - of organized matter.

[William]

Tanager.

I have read what you claim about God here in this thread, up to page 17 and it seems clear that you are claiming that God is an objective thing.
I see that you are basing your opinions/beliefs about that against the alternative atheism presents regarding morality and in that, it is necessary for you to present God as an object rather than a subject, which is where you and I appear to differ in our views.

As you know, I regard all theistic beliefs as sourced in mindful phenomena which I see as a local source in that all such phenomena derives from the planet mind and it is that mind which our own minds are most related to. Therefore we do agree that we get our sense of morals from a creator-mind, but the difference in my view from your own appears to be that you believe that mind is an objective thing, whereas I think all mindfulness is purely/perfectly subjective.

To example, if you and I were on the space station looking out at the planet we can agree that we observe the planet as an object.

What we also should be able to agree with is that what we are viewing is NOT the planet mind itself, but the object from which the planet mind expresses itself.

We need not confuse the planet with being the mind. We need not point at the object and claim that the object is the mind.

The same applies to all mindful forms - specifically re the argument of human morality - the object is not the mind and the mind is really what the human being is as it true core identity - not the body.

The body allows for different morals to subjectively form as criteria for expression in finding the best way for the human animals to socially prosper in the objective environment provided, and even that these moral ideas may work well enough to that end in different epochs, they still require changing as humans progress into new epochs.

I think there is confusion wrought through the belief that morals are from an objective source, be that God or not-God.

The mind/minds cannot be anything other than subjective, simply due to the nature of mindfulness.