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?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #630]

I will give one such overall action. It creates life forms which are imbued with consciousness (ITA).

That is not an abusive action.

I agree.

Therefore, many of the points brought up in the OP are simply the authors opinion on what might be "wrong", which is why the question is asked. How do we KNOW what is right and what is wrong?

Right and wrong do not appear to be static objective realities, but rather are dependent upon learning and adapting, and what might have been right or wrong once may not be right or wrong now, and what might be right or wrong now, might not be right or wrong in the future.

“children should not be abused”

This is a static thing, regardless of whether humans had to learn it? Is that what you are saying?

Given that you also say all manner of purposeful abuse likewise is wrong, but that we were designed to be able to do either/or, the design suggests that there is more to why ITA is the design preference.

From the perspective of my philosophy, since there is no requirement for a supernatural creator because the Earth fills the "creator" roll per the evidence, and since you agree that a planet mind - a mind also being an Intentional Thinking Agent - would not be showing abuse by creating life-forms, can you also agree that issues of right and wrong are primarily something humans are responsible for sorting out in their own way?

[The Tanager]

I agree.

Therefore, many of the points brought up in the OP are simply the authors opinion on what might be "wrong", which is why the question is asked. How do we KNOW what is right and what is wrong?

Right and wrong do not appear to be static objective realities, but rather are dependent upon learning and adapting, and what might have been right or wrong once may not be right or wrong now, and what might be right or wrong now, might not be right or wrong in the future.

I don’t think right and wrong appear to be dependent on learning and adapting, etc. I’m open to hearing your positive case for that being a true appearance, though.

This is a static thing, regardless of whether humans had to learn it? Is that what you are saying?

Yes, just like 2+2=4 is a static truth, regardless of humans having to learn it (or failing to do so).

Given that you also say all manner of purposeful abuse likewise is wrong, but that we were designed to be able to do either/or, the design suggests that there is more to why ITA is the design preference.

From the perspective of my philosophy, since there is no requirement for a supernatural creator because the Earth fills the "creator" roll per the evidence, and since you agree that a planet mind - a mind also being an Intentional Thinking Agent - would not be showing abuse by creating life-forms, can you also agree that issues of right and wrong are primarily something humans are responsible for sorting out in their own way?

I think you are conflating two issues: (1) how humans should act (if there is a ‘should’) and (2) how humans do act. Thus, I think that morality is objective AND humans are responsible for sorting their choices out in light of that.

[boatsnguitars]

Tanager, let's pull a little more on the thread of your Toy Maker idea of morality.

You propose that under Toyism:
1. The Toy maker can create a Toy with a certain purpose.
2. If the Toy Maker makes that purpose to include killing other toys for his enjoyment, that would be considered "Good" under that morality.
3. The point is that it would be an Objective Moral Value, because the Toy Maker made the Toy with that Objective use - whatever the use.

That is, the use or purpose isn't the important matter, but it's the fact that the Toy Maker had an intention to make the purpose x, y or z.

Is this generally correct? If not, correct me where I'm wrong.

[The Tanager]

Tanager, let's pull a little more on the thread of your Toy Maker idea of morality.

You propose that under Toyism:
1. The Toy maker can create a Toy with a certain purpose.
2. If the Toy Maker makes that purpose to include killing other toys for his enjoyment, that would be considered "Good" under that morality.
3. The point is that it would be an Objective Moral Value, because the Toy Maker made the Toy with that Objective use - whatever the use.

That is, the use or purpose isn't the important matter, but it's the fact that the Toy Maker had an intention to make the purpose x, y or z.

Is this generally correct? If not, correct me where I'm wrong.

Objective morality is about purpose AND nature, so, on 2, the Toy Maker would have to make that purpose to include killing others as well as the nature of the ones being killed such that this would be flourishing for them as well. It's both, not just purpose. I'm unsure of whether purpose and nature could be combined in such a way where being killed for the enjoyment of another could be something that doesn't go against either's natural wellbeing, logically speaking. In other words, if that is possible, then, yes, that would be considered an objective morality (not necessarily the objective morality that exists), but if it's like a round square, then it can't exist at all and, therefore, couldn't be a possible objective morality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #632]

I don’t think right and wrong appear to be dependent on learning and adapting, etc.

What makes you think this is the case? What example can you provide which would support your thinking on this'?

Right and wrong do not appear to be static objective realities

I’m open to hearing your positive case for that being a true appearance, though.

Abuse. Without abused objects or abuses, how can humans learn otherwise that it is right or wrong? Trial and error appear to be the process by which an Intentional Thinking Agent operates and since the information isn't inbuilt (as subjective knowledge one is born with) the understanding is accessed through the objective world being subjectively experienced.

If the creator had built understanding of right and wrong into the design, then we could say that the build was an objective insert if we also accepted that the instrument was was not the actual ITA but simply the device through which the ITA experiences and works with/through.

If the ITA is a "child" of the "parent" ITA and the parent/creator has knowledge of right and wrong, then we could agree that this knowledge would be a part of the overall nature of every ITA related to the creator consciousness.

However, we also would have to acknowledge that inserting the ITA into the physical form could be a barrier for the ITA to easily access the knowledge, if the design of the nature of the form inhibits the ITA from full access to the knowledge and thus full understanding, thus trial and error become the means to that end, explaining the nature of the human condition.

One could argue that intuition/gut feelings/subconscious operations are an aspect/evidence of ITA's having said inbuilt knowledge, but access is not easy (and also not impossible) and requires the ITA in human form to look - not outside of itself in order to understand right and wrong as static objective realities, but inside of itself. Thus - perfectly subjectively yet still necessarily dependent upon learning and adapting as per the situation/circumstance re objectivity.

This is a static thing, regardless of whether humans had to learn it? Is that what you are saying?

Yes, just like 2+2=4 is a static truth, regardless of humans having to learn it (or failing to do so).

So it should be just as easy for you to provide any static example as it was for you to write 2+2=4.

Remove consciousness altogether from the reality, and 2+2=4 still exists. The planet is still spherical. Where is the static moral thing?

I think you are conflating two issues: (1) how humans should act (if there is a ‘should’) and (2) how humans do act. Thus, I think that morality is objective AND humans are responsible for sorting their choices out in light of that.

So in that, are you saying that without consciousness, morality exists as an objective reality? If that is your philosophical claim, all that is required from you is any example that the claim is correct. Where is this objective 2+2=4 morality?

[The Tanager]

What makes you think this is the case? What example can you provide which would support your thinking on this'?

I think that at least the following four evidences point to objective morality.

1. Shared moral principles across all human cultures
2. The universal human initial intuition that morality is objective
3. How even those who deny objective morality act as though objective morality exists (by quarreling with each other, thinking morality can improve and attempting to improve society’s morals, judging other moral actions, speaking of mistreatment, reasoning over moral issues, making excuses for one’s behaviors, etc.)
4. The existence of the Christian God

Abuse. Without abused objects or abuses, how can humans learn otherwise that it is right or wrong? Trial and error appear to be the process by which an Intentional Thinking Agent operates and since the information isn't inbuilt (as subjective knowledge one is born with) the understanding is accessed through the objective world being subjectively experienced.

Why do you think it has to be either or? Why can’t morality have inbuilt and learned elements? Even assuming morality is fully learned, that wouldn’t show it’s not objectively true. Math is learned, yet still objectively true.

One could argue that intuition/gut feelings/subconscious operations are an aspect/evidence of ITA's having said inbuilt knowledge, but access is not easy (and also not impossible) and requires the ITA in human form to look - not outside of itself in order to understand right and wrong as static objective realities, but inside of itself. Thus - perfectly subjectively yet still necessarily dependent upon learning and adapting as per the situation/circumstance re objectivity.

Why do you think it just looks inside itself and not outside itself?

So in that, are you saying that without consciousness, morality exists as an objective reality?

No, I’m not saying that. Morality is logically tied to conscious beings. I believe morality is produced by a consciousness (God) and I think morality only applies to consciousnesses (moral agents).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #636]

I think that at least the following four evidences point to objective morality.

1. Shared moral principles across all human cultures

It is still subjective. Principles themselves come from the mind, just as cultures, mythologies et al form from ideas of the mind.

2. The universal human initial intuition that morality is objective

Whatever that is, intuition is of the mind and it may be a case of misinterpreting that there is such a thing as objective morality. Intuiting morality is objective does not mean that morality is objective. It may simply be a case that the individual prefers to think that rather than realizing morality is subjective and is a product of mindfulness re Intentional Thinking Agents.

3. How even those who deny objective morality act as though objective morality exists (by quarreling with each other, thinking morality can improve and attempting to improve society’s morals, judging other moral actions, speaking of mistreatment, reasoning over moral issues, making excuses for one’s behaviors, etc.)

Denying objective morality does not mean that those who do, are not moral. They just understand morality as a subjective - coming from within rather than from objective reality.

4. The existence of the Christian God

Again - any idea of God - Christian or otherwise - is subjective belief.

Why do you think it just looks inside itself and not outside itself?

Because it is mind so in order to understand itself, that is the best way to do so.

I believe morality is produced by a consciousness (God) and I think morality only applies to consciousnesses (moral agents).

If I reworded what you wrote there to read:
Morality is an aspect of the creator-consciousness therefore morality applies to all Intentional Thinking Agents, would you agree with this?

[boatsnguitars]

Tanager, let's pull a little more on the thread of your Toy Maker idea of morality.

You propose that under Toyism:
1. The Toy maker can create a Toy with a certain purpose.
2. If the Toy Maker makes that purpose to include killing other toys for his enjoyment, that would be considered "Good" under that morality.
3. The point is that it would be an Objective Moral Value, because the Toy Maker made the Toy with that Objective use - whatever the use.

That is, the use or purpose isn't the important matter, but it's the fact that the Toy Maker had an intention to make the purpose x, y or z.

Is this generally correct? If not, correct me where I'm wrong.

Objective morality is about purpose AND nature, so, on 2, the Toy Maker would have to make that purpose to include killing others as well as the nature of the ones being killed such that this would be flourishing for them as well. It's both, not just purpose. I'm unsure of whether purpose and nature could be combined in such a way where being killed for the enjoyment of another could be something that doesn't go against either's natural wellbeing, logically speaking. In other words, if that is possible, then, yes, that would be considered an objective morality (not necessarily the objective morality that exists), but if it's like a round square, then it can't exist at all and, therefore, couldn't be a possible objective morality.

Let's say, like the purpose of Aging, cancer, viruses, etc. These things "seem designed" to kill, and it "seems God designed" us to die. And, in fact, one could say that God "designed" the world to have Life, but individual people were not the important factor.
That is, if we look objectively at the world, there appears to be a very clear and robust Cycle of Life, where any one individual is not important at all.

When you think of your Toy Maker, you seem to focus on yourself, or the individual Toy - but perhaps not the larger Terrarium that He may have actually cared about.

I know you are loathe to apply your Toy Maker Moral System to reality, as you keep saying it's more of an intellectual idea, not a description of reality, so I suppose I won't ask you for evidence that your Toy Maker cares about the Individual - as it seems from Objective observation that he doesn't (if he exists).

But, that is one question.

The other question:
If "Objective morality is about purpose AND nature" then is it possible, in your mind, that Nature can randomly create a purpose and nature of a Being? For example, bees seem to have a purpose (protect the queen, the queen determines the type of bee, the type of bee determines what they do, what they do creates a hive or collects pollen, pollen contributes to the diversity of plant life, etc.).
Therefore, it would be Objectively Moral for a bee to sting a person (to protect the queen), even if that person died. That is, it appears:
1. Nature can create it's own Objective Morality
2. Morality is not strictly tied to moral agents under your system, since you've not tied it to moral agents but to 'purpose and nature'. That is, the bee is not a Moral agent in my understanding, but under yours it seems to be acting Objectively Good in acting out it's purpose and Nature.

Careful with this: If you claim the bee was designed by God to have that purpose, then it appears it's purpose (among many) is to kill - despite the victims opinion (and, of course, you may be conceding that this is not an intellectual idea, but a statement of fact; which you resist). But, if you claim God didn't make the bee, then you concede that Nature can create "purpose and nature" which concedes that nature can create OMVs.

Perhaps you can flesh out why the intention of the Toy Maker makes the difference - specifically when the intention of the Toy Maker is a random attribute, provided to the Toy Maker by Nature. That is, the Toy Maker would have no say in it's nature or purpose.

If the Toy Maker has no intentional nature or purpose, then how is it that it "magically' obtains this? Again, what is the difference between a Toy Maker with some random 'nature and purpose' designing Toys and that of nature randomly creating things with "nature and purpose?" You may want to spend a little time fleshing this out.

[The Tanager]

It is still subjective. Principles themselves come from the mind, just as cultures, mythologies et al form from ideas of the mind.

You haven’t shown why I should agree that things that come from a mind can’t be objective truths. You’ve even said you agree that minds can produce objective realities.

Whatever that is, intuition is of the mind and it may be a case of misinterpreting that there is such a thing as objective morality. Intuiting morality is objective does not mean that morality is objective. It may simply be a case that the individual prefers to think that rather than realizing morality is subjective and is a product of mindfulness re Intentional Thinking Agents.

Of course. But it may not be misinterpreting. All four things, considered together, sways the rationality towards believing in objective morality.

Denying objective morality does not mean that those who do, are not moral. They just understand morality as a subjective - coming from within rather than from objective reality.

I didn’t say those who deny objective morality aren’t moral. I was saying even those who say they believe in subjective morality act like morality is objective.

Again - any idea of God - Christian or otherwise - is subjective belief.

I didn’t say the idea of God, but the existence of the Christian God. God is an objective reality, a being.

Because it is mind so in order to understand itself, that is the best way to do so.

Why? I look at objective reality outside of myself all the time to understand reality, including myself.

Why do you think it has to be either or? Why can’t morality have inbuilt and learned elements? Even assuming morality is fully learned, that wouldn’t show it’s not objectively true. Math is learned, yet still objectively true.

[No response]

(1) Why do you think morality can’t have inbuilt and learned elements? (2) Even assuming it is all learned, why would that show it’s not objectively true? Do you think math gives us subjective truths?

If I reworded what you wrote there to read:
Morality is an aspect of the creator-consciousness therefore morality applies to all Intentional Thinking Agents, would you agree with this?

Given how you earlier defined ITAs, yes I agree with that.

[The Tanager]

That is, if we look objectively at the world, there appears to be a very clear and robust Cycle of Life, where any one individual is not important at all.

Why does a cycle of life show that individuals aren’t important at all?

I know you are loathe to apply your Toy Maker Moral System to reality, as you keep saying it's more of an intellectual idea, not a description of reality, so I suppose I won't ask you for evidence that your Toy Maker cares about the Individual - as it seems from Objective observation that he doesn't (if he exists).

You know that? I didn’t know that. Thanks for correcting my self understanding, once again. No, what I said was that my argument was about what would logically follow if theism and atheism were true concerning morality. I never said my moral system was not a description of reality.

And you say it seems from objective observation that he doesn’t care. Give proof of that.

If "Objective morality is about purpose AND nature" then is it possible, in your mind, that Nature can randomly create a purpose and nature of a Being? For example, bees seem to have a purpose (protect the queen, the queen determines the type of bee, the type of bee determines what they do, what they do creates a hive or collects pollen, pollen contributes to the diversity of plant life, etc.).
Therefore, it would be Objectively Moral for a bee to sting a person (to protect the queen), even if that person died. That is, it appears:
1. Nature can create it's own Objective Morality

Bees aren’t moral agents, they simply follow their instincts. If humans are like bees, then there is no such thing as human morality. If our instincts evolved in different ways, then it would have been “moral” to, say, forcibly copulate with females. Nature isn’t controlling anything, things are just unintentionally coming out specific ways. Morality would be subjective, in other words, based on just how we happened to unguidedly evolved as a species.

And, if this is all that actually took place, then we see humans doing different things than each other. A person that abuses a child, evolved that way and is just following their instincts. This is subjective morality.

2. Morality is not strictly tied to moral agents under your system, since you've not tied it to moral agents but to 'purpose and nature'. That is, the bee is not a Moral agent in my understanding, but under yours it seems to be acting Objectively Good in acting out it's purpose and Nature.

No, a bee is not a moral agent under my system. It has an objective purpose and objective nature from the Creator, but part of that purpose is not moral agency. I have tied moral agency into morality in my system. I’ve said, numerous times, that part of one’s purpose would have to include moral agency to be a moral agent. Bees are amoral agents. I've only committed to humans being moral agents.

Perhaps you can flesh out why the intention of the Toy Maker makes the difference - specifically when the intention of the Toy Maker is a random attribute, provided to the Toy Maker by Nature. That is, the Toy Maker would have no say in it's nature or purpose.

Those are two very different ideas: being caused by another and being uncaused. God, as uncaused, logically can’t have a purpose (to His existence) since that sense of purpose is “the reason for which something is created” and being uncaused is being uncreated.

If the Toy Maker has no intentional nature or purpose, then how is it that it "magically' obtains this? Again, what is the difference between a Toy Maker with some random 'nature and purpose' designing Toys and that of nature randomly creating things with "nature and purpose?" You may want to spend a little time fleshing this out.

It doesn’t obtain a purpose for its existence, much less magically so. That’s different than having purposes for the things He creates, of course. So, we've got to keep clear at least these two contexts of purpose.

The difference between God purposefully creating things and nature randomly creating things with nature (but, logically, not purpose since it is “randomly” creating) is what I just bolded. What needs fleshed out more about that difference?