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?

[boatsnguitars]

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?

What was your great-great-great-great grandfathers name? What children have died of starvation in the last 5 seconds? How many people have died in anonymity, their body and bones rotted away for all eternity?
What effect has any person had on the operation of the Universe in any way? What person changed the world in any appreciable way?

What individual dinosaur was important, or ape? Even Mitochondrial Eve doesn't seem to have been important to the universe in any way.

Perhaps you measure importance differently (Subjectively), but Objectively, you'd be hard pressed to explain how "nature, red in tooth and claw" demonstrates importance in any individual creature.

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.

Who? Can you explain who you claim exists?

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.

What created the bees instincts? Nature? Do they have "purpose and nature"?

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.

You said "Objective morality is about purpose AND nature".
Perhaps you have more you'd like to add?
Why only humans? Is it because you don't know if other animals have purpose and nature, or feel you can't know - and if not, how do you know all humans are moral agents?

Are all humans moral agents? What about humans who don't seem to have the capacity for rational thought? Or, do you think simply being a homo sapien is all that is required?

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.

Yes, but he still has a nature that he had no control over, correct? I don't see how your distinction solves any of the problem I've presented.

If I said, "Nature is uncaused and Good." You'd be right to ask why Nature is Good: Did it become Good, or defines Good because that's how we define Good?

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?

Yes, you need to Special Plead - to you God does it purposely, not that it is in his nature to create - but he goes against his nature? Or is it his nature to create? Yet, Nature, under atheism, would create because it's in it's nature to do so - which seems to be the exact same thing: Both God and Nature are uncaused and create 'nature and purpose."

You have not absolved yourself of determining why God's instinct is the one that can imbue OMVs but not Nature's - when both appear to, philosophically, "design" "purpose and nature" in their respective creations.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #639]

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.

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.

Re The Natural Philosophy I am engaging with, from what I gather of the idea of the "Christian God", this God is believed to exist outside of the physical universe, so as such wouldn't qualify as an objective reality, except perhaps in the minds of the believers.

With Natural Philosophy re any idea of "God" in this sense, is the Universal Mind, which organizes the universe (creation) and which mindfully diversifies within that objective organization of matter. (Mindful interaction with creation).

As such, there becomes "objectivity" and in the framework you are/appear to be arguing, morality can be objectified. You are arguing that morality objectified proves morality exists.
In that, the argument would be the result of morality, whereas I am arguing for the source of morality. That morality exists objectively because of its source, not that morality exists because of its results.

Essentially, IF your idea of the "Christian God" was the same as my idea of the Universal Mind, THEN "God is an objective reality, a being." would be observed objectively as the whole universe being organized by the Universal Mind. The universe would be the "being/object" and the Mind is the actual Intentional Thinking Agent organizing the object we call the universe.

From the perspective of human minds, the planet could be understood as being an object an ITA inhabits which could be objectified as a type of "God" from which we most directly get our inspiration and intuit morality from.
For that matter, humans could observe each other as types of "Gods" and likewise get our inspiration and sense of morality from one another.
Even so, the objectification of morality into the objective universe can only be sourced with the mind, and ultimately traced to the overall Universal Mind.

In this way, we can observe and understand that the Universal Mind is - from our human point of view - objectively displayed through the perpetual/ongoing organization of the matter which we refer to as the universe, but the reality is that the Universal Mind is subjectively experiencing the universe and does not see aspects of its mindful selves as "objects" outside of or unrelated to, its self, and we (and morality) are better served to understand ourselves and each other in that capacity.

So yes. Morality can be objectified and manifested into the direct situation (on earth) and practiced/followed, but this does not mean that morality comes from some outside/objective source. Understandably it can appear that way to any mind which doesn't understand the connection between the individual Intentional Thinking Agent and the overall Intentional Thinking Agent, and IF Christianity (or any religion) does not teach that, THEN Christianity (or any religion) has it wrong, and its images of God, have to be false.

[The Tanager]

Re The Natural Philosophy I am engaging with, from what I gather of the idea of the "Christian God", this God is believed to exist outside of the physical universe, so as such wouldn't qualify as an objective reality, except perhaps in the minds of the believers.

Sure, if “The Natural Philosophy” is correct, but I see no reason to think it is. If “The Natural Philosophy” is true, then I think morality would be subjective. It seems to me to be in the same boat as atheistic worldviews like materialism, in that sense.

As such, there becomes "objectivity" and in the framework you are/appear to be arguing, morality can be objectified. You are arguing that morality objectified proves morality exists.
In that, the argument would be the result of morality, whereas I am arguing for the source of morality. That morality exists objectively because of its source, not that morality exists because of its results.

You need to clarify this because it doesn’t sound like what I’m arguing. I believe morality exists objectively because of its source, not that morality exists because of its results (or at least what those terms mean to me).

[The Tanager]

What was your great-great-great-great grandfathers name? What children have died of starvation in the last 5 seconds? How many people have died in anonymity, their body and bones rotted away for all eternity?
What effect has any person had on the operation of the Universe in any way? What person changed the world in any appreciable way?

What individual dinosaur was important, or ape? Even Mitochondrial Eve doesn't seem to have been important to the universe in any way.

Perhaps you measure importance differently (Subjectively), but Objectively, you'd be hard pressed to explain how "nature, red in tooth and claw" demonstrates importance in any individual creature.

What is the objective standard as to what counts as affecting the world in any appreciable way? And why is that the objective standard?

Who? Can you explain who you claim exists?

Yes, but that isn’t this discussion.

What created the bees instincts? Nature? Do they have "purpose and nature"?

As a theist, I believe God did. As I said, they have objective purpose and an objective nature, but this doesn’t include moral agency as part of that.

Nature produces bees who act in X ways. It produces other creates that act in opposite ways. Nature can be responsible for how things are but doesn’t say anything about how things should be. There is no “ought” coming from nature.

You said "Objective morality is about purpose AND nature".
Perhaps you have more you'd like to add?
Why only humans? Is it because you don't know if other animals have purpose and nature, or feel you can't know - and if not, how do you know all humans are moral agents?

No, I said objective morality is about purpose and nature and I also said part of that is that human purpose and nature includes being a moral agent, even though it didn’t need to be. A being can be created as a moral agent or an amoral agent.

Are all humans moral agents? What about humans who don't seem to have the capacity for rational thought? Or, do you think simply being a homo sapien is all that is required?

I don’t think all humans are necessarily moral agents.

Yes, but he still has a nature that he had no control over, correct? I don't see how your distinction solves any of the problem I've presented.

If I said, "Nature is uncaused and Good." You'd be right to ask why Nature is Good: Did it become Good, or defines Good because that's how we define Good?

Yes, God has no control over what His nature is, but God does have control over what He does with that nature: what He creates, if He makes each created thing a moral agent or not, etc.

Yes, you need to Special Plead - to you God does it purposely, not that it is in his nature to create - but he goes against his nature? Or is it his nature to create? Yet, Nature, under atheism, would create because it's in it's nature to do so - which seems to be the exact same thing: Both God and Nature are uncaused and create 'nature and purpose."

You have not absolved yourself of determining why God's instinct is the one that can imbue OMVs but not Nature's - when both appear to, philosophically, "design" "purpose and nature" in their respective creations.

I’m not special pleading. An intentional being creates purposefully. And any thing that creates purposefully is an intentional being. That just logically follows. God, in my system, is an intentional being. Therefore, God creates purposefully. Nature, in atheistic systems (not what I say but what the system itself shows), are not intentional beings. Therefore, nature doesn’t create purposefully.

The difference is that nature, for you, has no intentions, while God does have intentions. Thus, nature doesn’t appear to, philosophically, “design” “purpose and nature”; it simply designs nature, no purpose. Yes, bees do certain actions, but nature didn't say "I want bees to do such and such but not this other thing." There is not this kind of purpose; things just evolved in many different "moral" ways.

[boatsnguitars]

What was your great-great-great-great grandfathers name? What children have died of starvation in the last 5 seconds? How many people have died in anonymity, their body and bones rotted away for all eternity?
What effect has any person had on the operation of the Universe in any way? What person changed the world in any appreciable way?

What individual dinosaur was important, or ape? Even Mitochondrial Eve doesn't seem to have been important to the universe in any way.

Perhaps you measure importance differently (Subjectively), but Objectively, you'd be hard pressed to explain how "nature, red in tooth and claw" demonstrates importance in any individual creature.

What is the objective standard as to what counts as affecting the world in any appreciable way? And why is that the objective standard?

You can't keep running to "what's the objective standard?" gambit to avoid the issue. I can always ask you the same: Why is God the Objective standard? You claiming God is, doesn't make it so.

The point is, if you objectively look at the Universe - without emotion - it appears to favor Black Holes. (Not my observation, but a keen one I'd be daft to ignore).
It certainly doesn't seem to care whether an innocent child lives or dies, or the Good die by bear attack, or the Evil live long, happy lives.

I know you are longing to appeal to your God and Heaven as the mitigating factor, but this is just religious faith with no evidence. I have asked you to look at the Universe objectively.

Faith wouldn't be required if it were so obvious to see the signs of Heaven, or some God. You can't appeal to Faith being a virtue then turn and say no Faith is needed to see the objective fact of Life.

Who? Can you explain who you claim exists?

Yes, but that isn’t this discussion.

Yep. See how you are? You never want to let on to your true intention, but keep weaseling into a conversation you have no honest intention of engaging.

What created the bees instincts? Nature? Do they have "purpose and nature"?

As a theist, I believe God did. As I said, they have objective purpose and an objective nature, but this doesn’t include moral agency as part of that.

Who did what? I thought you weren't talking about it? This is a crappy way to engage in a phillosophical discourse. You want to appeal to God, but the minute you are asked how God can be evidenced for the purpose of backing up your claims, you retreat to "i don't need to discuss that".
Very well, I will simply assert Nature can do whatever it is I need it to, and not have to ever show any evidence that the mechanism exists.
That is how you are engaging, and have engaged. Not all Theists do this. Some try.

Nature produces bees who act in X ways. It produces other creates that act in opposite ways. Nature can be responsible for how things are but doesn’t say anything about how things should be. There is no “ought” coming from nature.

Yes, there is an Ought from Nature. Nature is embodied with the power to obtain Oughts. Like your God.

You said "Objective morality is about purpose AND nature".
Perhaps you have more you'd like to add?
Why only humans? Is it because you don't know if other animals have purpose and nature, or feel you can't know - and if not, how do you know all humans are moral agents?

No, I said objective morality is about purpose and nature and I also said part of that is that human purpose and nature includes being a moral agent, even though it didn’t need to be. A being can be created as a moral agent or an amoral agent.

Nature creates animals that are moral agents.

Are all humans moral agents? What about humans who don't seem to have the capacity for rational thought? Or, do you think simply being a homo sapien is all that is required?

I don’t think all humans are necessarily moral agents.

No, Nature makes all living things moral agents.

Yes, but he still has a nature that he had no control over, correct? I don't see how your distinction solves any of the problem I've presented.

If I said, "Nature is uncaused and Good." You'd be right to ask why Nature is Good: Did it become Good, or defines Good because that's how we define Good?

Yes, God has no control over what His nature is, but God does have control over what He does with that nature: what He creates, if He makes each created thing a moral agent or not, etc.

Nature has control over all Beings, even Gods if they exist. Nature never gave God the power to imbue morality.

Yes, you need to Special Plead - to you God does it purposely, not that it is in his nature to create - but he goes against his nature? Or is it his nature to create? Yet, Nature, under atheism, would create because it's in it's nature to do so - which seems to be the exact same thing: Both God and Nature are uncaused and create 'nature and purpose."

You have not absolved yourself of determining why God's instinct is the one that can imbue OMVs but not Nature's - when both appear to, philosophically, "design" "purpose and nature" in their respective creations.

I’m not special pleading. An intentional being creates purposefully. And any thing that creates purposefully is an intentional being. That just logically follows. God, in my system, is an intentional being. Therefore, God creates purposefully. Nature, in atheistic systems (not what I say but what the system itself shows), are not intentional beings. Therefore, nature doesn’t create purposefully.

The difference is that nature, for you, has no intentions, while God does have intentions. Thus, nature doesn’t appear to, philosophically, “design” “purpose and nature”; it simply designs nature, no purpose. Yes, bees do certain actions, but nature didn't say "I want bees to do such and such but not this other thing." There is not this kind of purpose; things just evolved in many different "moral" ways.

You are Special Pleading. nature creates intentionally by it nature. It's nature is to be intentional. It intends to do exactly what it intends. If a God exists, it has intentions because Nature imbued it with those intentions.
Just because Nature doesn't talk to itself isn't an objective measure of intentionality.
Also, God is Deterministic and has no intention other than that which Nature gave it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #643]

Re The Natural Philosophy I am engaging with, from what I gather of the idea of the "Christian God", this God is believed to exist outside of the physical universe, so as such wouldn't qualify as an objective reality, except perhaps in the minds of the believers.

Sure, if “The Natural Philosophy” is correct, but I see no reason to think it is. If “The Natural Philosophy” is true, then I think morality would be subjective.

Yet the Natural Philosophy agrees with your own belief that subjective morality can be objectified.

It seems to me to be in the same boat as atheistic worldviews like materialism, in that sense.

There are similarities in Natural Philosophy with Materialist and Supernaturalist Philosophies, but this doesn't mean they are in the same "boat".
You recently used an expression which I have seen versions of, coming from Materialist philosophy, yet - in reading carefully what you present as your philosophy , I understand fully that you are a supernaturalist.

Clarifying the 3 different philosophies.
Philosophical Perspectives on Mindfulness: Materialism, Naturalism, and the Supernatural

1. Materialist Philosophy: Which argues that mindfulness is a brain-generated hallucination, and is non-physical in nature but created by physical means.
2. Natural Philosophy: Which argues that mindfulness is actually a physical thing as minds have to be physical in order to influence physical things and that the interaction between unseen and seen things does not mean that the unseen things are either hallucinations or supernatural in order to explain the existence of mindfulness/minds as these can be explained naturally.
3. Supernatural Philosophy: Which argues that mindfulness is evidence of non-physical entities which reside in an alternate reality/universe/realm et al and are responsible for creating the physical universe and interact with the physical universe.

I believe morality exists objectively because of its source, not that morality exists because of its results (or at least what those terms mean to me).

If you believe that its source is an objective physical being residing outside of the physical universe, that is a logical contradiction. In order for something to be objective in this universe, it has to exist in this universe. In the case of a supernatural creator, such a being would have to regarded as super-objective, which is a totally different argument.

You are not claiming that morality is super-objective.

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.

If objective morality is evident in the actions of humans which protect their tribe as a means of fighting off potential harm and even dying for the sake of the whole, then bees can be considered Intentional Thinking Agents which demonstrate morality in their behavior's.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #645]

We've given each other enough chances, but we still aren't even on the same discussion. I can't keep correcting misunderstandings and all of that. You can have the last say on this conversation between us. Have a great day!

[The Tanager]

Yet the Natural Philosophy agrees with your own belief that subjective morality can be objectified.

That isn’t my belief, as far as I can tell what those terms mean. I don’t think subjective morality exists.

There are similarities in Natural Philosophy with Materialist and Supernaturalist Philosophies, but this doesn't mean they are in the same "boat".
You recently used an expression which I have seen versions of, coming from Materialist philosophy, yet - in reading carefully what you present as your philosophy , I understand fully that you are a supernaturalist.

I think you understand being in the same boat differently than I meant it. All I said was that Natural Philosophy, if true, leads to morality being subjective like atheistic worldviews do.

If you believe that its source is an objective physical being residing outside of the physical universe, that is a logical contradiction.

I don't believe the source is an objective physical being.

In order for something to be objective in this universe, it has to exist in this universe. In the case of a supernatural creator, such a being would have to regarded as super-objective, which is a totally different argument.

You are not claiming that morality is super-objective.

If super-objective is something that exists outside of the physical universe, then, yes, I’m claiming morality is super-objective.

If objective morality is evident in the actions of humans which protect their tribe as a means of fighting off potential harm and even dying for the sake of the whole, then bees can be considered Intentional Thinking Agents which demonstrate morality in their behavior's.

Why conflate an action with morality? Why can’t there be non-moral actions? Even the same action. I don’t think sharks act immorally when they forcibly copulate with a female shark because they aren’t ITAs. But humans, as ITAs, do act immorally when they rape a female. That’s why we even have different terms to describe the actions; morality is more than just an action.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #648]

I don't believe the source is an objective physical being.

Then what do you believe? That the source is an objective non-physical being?

If super-objective is something that exists outside of the physical universe, then, yes, I’m claiming morality is super-objective.

More to the point, the belief cannot be thought of as a claim but as a philosophical belief which, unlike a claim, cannot be supported with physical evidence. It is an empty claim which brings with it the problem of infinite regression and - if this moral source is also believed to be all benevolent, all knowing and all powerful, - the problem of evil.

With Natural Philosophy, both of those philosophical problems are not issues. Supernaturalism is what makes those philosophical problems.

I don’t think sharks act immorally when they forcibly copulate with a female shark because they aren’t ITAs.

What defines morality/immorality re humans, if not the actions?

I was referring to bees not sharks, but whether they think they are being immoral or not, the action is still one of rape. Just as the action of bees is still one of protection of the hive.
The acts are still intentional.

But humans, as ITAs, do act immorally when they rape

Do they ignore or go against their better judgement et al, when committing the immoral acts? Or is it just something they do because they actually know no better?

And if they should know better, where does this knowing come from? Conscientiousness (subjective) or some outside reference (objective)?

[The Tanager]

Then what do you believe? That the source is an objective non-physical being?

Yes.

More to the point, the belief cannot be thought of as a claim but as a philosophical belief which, unlike a claim, cannot be supported with physical evidence. It is an empty claim…

Why is physical evidence the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty?

It is an empty claim which brings with it the problem of infinite regression and - if this moral source is also believed to be all benevolent, all knowing and all powerful, - the problem of evil.

With Natural Philosophy, both of those philosophical problems are not issues. Supernaturalism is what makes those philosophical problems.

And supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

What defines morality/immorality re humans, if not the actions?

I was referring to bees not sharks, but whether they think they are being immoral or not, the action is still one of rape. Just as the action of bees is still one of protection of the hive.
The acts are still intentional.

Actions alone are not morality; morality also requires free will, knowledge and intention. The bees don't intend to help other bees, they just follow their instincts. Male sharks don't intend to harm female sharks or use them for their means, they simply follow their instincts.

Do they ignore or go against their better judgement et al, when committing the immoral acts? Or is it just something they do because they actually know no better?

And if they should know better, where does this knowing come from? Conscientiousness (subjective) or some outside reference (objective)?

We do know better, but we twist justifications to make it seem the right thing to do in the situation. This knowledge comes from intuition as well as from the outside.