Measuring Objective Morality

[philosopher]

"no such thing exist"
"incompatible with science"
"scientism cannot accept it"

These are the words associated with Objective Morality. From a reduced logic, it does make sense. We cannot define objective morality.

I have great respect for Scientism, and I feel I am allied with the Atheists. Though I am not Scientistic myself, neither am I atheist.
That is why I would like to start defining Objective Morality without the need for a divine creator. Because even though there exists a divine creator, it wouldn't help us understand why morality should be objective.

Physicists are beginning to talk about consciousness as being a state of matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
It is very advanced physics, but boiled down and stripped of all the maths and explanations, a good analogy would be water molecules:

They can be either fluid, vapor or ice. It has to do with the way the atoms/molecules are organized.

They can even measure consciousness in terms of bits.

I would like to take this idea a step further and try to define morality:

With some matter that has the state of consciousness, for example a brain or whatever can have this consciousness state of matter,
it will show certain properties specific to the state of matter that give rise to its good or bad feelings (pleasure vs. pain).

Then we have some other conscious matter which feels pleasure from inflicing pain other matter.

The question is: Who's right? How do we objectively define what good morality is for either state of matter?
How do we objectively define who should have the right to pleasure and who should give up pleasure to get pain in order to fulfill the other's needs?

What about this:

Idea. We know it from maths. You can invent something, like "i" which is the square root of -1.
You can take this invention and have a whole set of mathematics and logics from it. That's how quantum mechanics was invented in the first place.

If mathematicians can invent and idea, so should Moralists!

I have this idea/invention:

Consciousness should feel more pleasure than pain, to the most possible physical extent. Meaning, whatever is physically possible to achieve more pleasure than pain, is the objective goal. I have nothing else than this idea, I have no arguments why I should invent this. I just do.

From this idea/invention we can invent a set of logical rules. It means when we can define consciousness having pleasure, we can objectively define which properties it will have when it feels pleasure/pain.

With consciousness I mean everything from ainmals to humans. Animals have less degree of consciousness than humans, so hurting a worm is not as bad as hurting a human. When all conscious beings that we know of are summed, we can furthermore look at our history and future of consciousness and measure the total amount of pleasure vs. pain.

This ratio (pleasure-pain) should be maximized in favor of pleasure.

In a global/universal system of conscious objects, the most physically and lengthy possible pleasure should be the ultimate goal of moral measure.

I believe that when the theory of Consciousness as a State of Matter is finished, we can also measure morality when applying this principle.
We will be able to objectively measure morality in terms of degrees of good morality and apply it to all sorts of specific events and actions in our everyday life, from our relationships with friends and family, to politics.

[Dalek Prime]

If you're not a believer in the divine, there is no possibility of objective, external morality. The best you can do in this case is agree in principle amongst others what constitutes morality.

[philosopher]

If you're not a believer in the divine, there is no possibility of objective, external morality. The best you can do in this case is agree in principle amongst others what constitutes morality.

What about my arguments in the OP?

[Dalek Prime]

If you're not a believer in the divine, there is no possibility of objective, external morality. The best you can do in this case is agree in principle amongst others what constitutes morality.

What about my arguments in the OP?

I'm a negative utilitarian. We have a moral duty to prevent suffering, not a moral duty to create pleasure. I disagree implicitly and explicitly with what you are saying. Have you read Fehige, Benetar, Popper, or even GE Moore? Down to the very fibre of my being, I'm an antifrustrationist.

[Eodnhoj7]

To objectify something effectively is to observe its boundaries...period. If I objectively observe "x" circumstance, I am observing not just what structures it but the circumstance itself as a structure to further circumstance. In these respects we may observe the boundaries of all circumstances:

1) Projecting to further circumstances.
2) Circulating back to themselves.
3) In these respects all circumstance, specifically morality, maintain an objective nature of limit through the golden rule.

The golden rule is objective in the respect it encapsulates the undefinable aspect of the subjective nature and gives it structure in which one subjective reality is directed towards another subjective reality with these subjective realities canceling themselves out to an objective reality.

Take for example I am feeding a homeless person. I may feed this person because of some subjective feeling which has no real limits in itself (pity, compassion) while the person may need feed because of some subjective feeling which I do not feel (despair, etc.).

These subjective feelings effectively cancel themselves out under the objective act of the person with the home feeding the homeless person and the homeless person recieving the food. Now one may view this objective situation, subjectively, as either good or bad, however the fact remains the objective reality of "one person feeding another and the person recieving the food" exists.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have this idea/invention:

Consciousness should feel more pleasure than pain, to the most possible physical extent. Meaning, whatever is physically possible to achieve more pleasure than pain, is the objective goal. I have nothing else than this idea, I have no arguments why I should invent this. I just do.

The general mistake here is that the task you set - establishing a universal true/false of morality that has anything at all to do with science - is literally meaningless. You are not taking into account that not all questions are matters of science. Some concepts we use in our daily lives are not part of the lexicon of science, and are therefore not valid subjects for valid sciences to ask*.

Think of art for instance. Science can tell us a great deal abouth the Mona Lisa, how it was painted, how the paints were mixed, and how they have decayed for instance. It can also tell you how many people think it is the greatest of paintings. But it can't tell you whether the Mona Lisa is actually better than this remarkable tattoo that you all need to see.


The reason this must be so is that none of those measurable and quantifiable things listed above are the actual art. So if I disagree with science on this subject, I am as right as science is. Measuring something else, such as some brain waves you would like to call joy that people might experience when looking at the picture doesn't change this in any way. The thing being measured is never art, that is outside the lexicon of scientific enquiry. Anoynoe who makes the attempt is substituting something else and mis-labelling it.

The same general thing applies to ethics. Science can inform our choices about right and wrong in uncountably many ways. Scientists regularly find new ways in which various animals lead emotional lives more complex than we previously suspected for instance, and from that we can infer that our treatment of animals is unethical to some new extent. The point at which the scientist demonstrates through experiment that something is occuring is a scientific event. The point at which the scientist might say "therefore this or that is right or wrong wrong", they are making a personal statement, not a scientific one. Right and wrong are similar to art in this matter and beyond any possible measurement. Measuring pleasure and pain is an act of substitution.








Pseudo-sciences of course can knock themselves out (ahem - prof.)

[philosopher]

If you're not a believer in the divine, there is no possibility of objective, external morality. The best you can do in this case is agree in principle amongst others what constitutes morality.

Ok, I've re-read the comments here, and I think you're right after all.

How would you describe a religious person who do not believe in a divine creator, fully supports scientism/darwinism and denies the existence of ghost and fairies as mental constructs, and whom is neither atheist nor agnostic?

[Dalek Prime]

If you're not a believer in the divine, there is no possibility of objective, external morality. The best you can do in this case is agree in principle amongst others what constitutes morality.

Ok, I've re-read the comments here, and I think you're right after all.

How would you describe a religious person who do not believe in a divine creator, fully supports scientism/darwinism and denies the existence of ghost and fairies as mental constructs, and whom is neither atheist nor agnostic?

It actually sounds like me in a way. I'm a dystheist/misotheist because its easier to dislike a creator's creation, than to deny him outright, as though I'd know. As to other myths, I haven't witnessed anything, and accept only the persistent as factual. There is nothing there in the dark that wasn't there in the light.

[surreptitious57]

How would you describe a religious person who do not believe in a divine creator fully supports scientism

Fully supporting scientism is logically flawed because science cannot explain every thing even within its own domain
It may be the best discipline for investigating observable phenomena but it cannot answer questions outside of this
It cannot for example study reality since that pertains to ontology which is a branch of philosophy and not science
Nor does it have anything to say about morality including morality specifically pertaining to scientific discoveries
And it cannot investigate the non falsifiable or metaphysical or supernatural and so cannot prove / disprove God

[philosopher]

How would you describe a religious person who do not believe in a divine creator fully supports scientism

Fully supporting scientism is logically flawed because science cannot explain every thing even within its own domain
It may be the best discipline for investigating observable phenomena but it cannot answer questions outside of this
It cannot for example study reality since that pertains to ontology which is a branch of philosophy and not science
Nor does it have anything to say about morality including morality specifically pertaining to scientific discoveries
And it cannot investigate the non falsifiable or metaphysical or supernatural and so cannot prove / disprove God

Science can explain the "supernatural". It has very good explanations for ghosts and the like, as tricks of the mind.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/there ... is-at-play

Also, the many ghostly photos from the 19th century have a logical explanation:

It took some exposure time from the decision to take a photo, until it was an actual photo. People had to stand still for long periods of time when a photo was taken, because if they moved around, they would produce these ghostly images, because of exposure.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015062 ... hotography

Science can also test God. Describe God - omniscient, benevolent mastermind of the entire universe. Easily falsifiable. The universe started from simple things and evolved. Also, why would an benevolent deity create life through eternal suffering - which Evolution is all about?

And even if there is stuff science cannot tell, it is because we need to do better science. Or at the very least say "we know nothing", instead of getting satisfied with a wrong answer "God" when there is so much more to be discovered. It is stupid to be satisfied with a wrong answer when we have a scientific answer within our grasp, as Richard Dawkins put it.

I would put it this way:

Even if God exists, I firmly believe He would favor the atheists. For they are humble, they know nothing and want to explore the universe through scientific investigation and the gathering of evidence, while the so-called believers got it all wrong and won't admit they're wrong.

"It is incredible how much people think they know, without knowing it is only something they think."
Quote: Me.

[FlashDangerpants]

"It is incredible how much people think they know, without knowing it is only something they think."
Quote: Me.

It's amazing how many times you will see words to that effect written by people at the same time as they are failing to understand something.

And it cannot investigate the non falsifiable or metaphysical or supernatural and so cannot prove / disprove God

Science can also test God. Describe God - omniscient, benevolent mastermind of the entire universe. Easily falsifiable. The universe started from simple things and evolved. Also, why would an benevolent deity create life through eternal suffering - which Evolution is all about?

You failed to understand the point he was making.

It is false science, always and under all circumstances, to design an experiment to test for something that cannot be empirically tested. This definitely includes invisible beings with miraculous powers who can choose whether or not to interact with your tests. There is no room within proper science for any sort of discussion of such beings, because they are by definition outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.

[philosopher]

"It is incredible how much people think they know, without knowing it is only something they think."
Quote: Me.

It's amazing how many times you will see words to that effect written by people at the same time as they are failing to understand something.

Science can also test God. Describe God - omniscient, benevolent mastermind of the entire universe. Easily falsifiable. The universe started from simple things and evolved. Also, why would an benevolent deity create life through eternal suffering - which Evolution is all about?

You failed to understand the point he was making.

It is false science, always and under all circumstances, to design an experiment to test for something that cannot be empirically tested. This definitely includes invisible beings with miraculous powers who can choose whether or not to interact with your tests. There is no room within proper science for any sort of discussion of such beings, because they are by definition outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.

Why would said deity choose to hide from scientific experiments, yet at the same time want people to believe in said deity?

[surreptitious57]

Science can also test God. Describe God - omniscient benevolent mastermind of the entire universe. Easily falsifiable. The universe started
from simple things and evolved. Also why would an benevolent deity create life through eternal suffering - which Evolution is all about ?

How exactly can science test God ? How can it falsify the non falsifiable ? How do you know that the Universe started from simple things ?
How do you know that it even had a starting point ? Is evolution all about suffering ? Is science not supposed to be amoral by definition ?

[FlashDangerpants]

Why would said deity choose to hide from scientific experiments, yet at the same time want people to believe in said deity?

Feel free to ask the Pope, but I'm an atheist so there's no point in asking me why God chooses to be weird.

It makes no difference though, the question of why doesn't need answering. The issue is the question of how you would devise an empirical test for something that is logically impossible to test empirically. Any side issues you dig up are just wasted effort.

[HexHammer]

Pure nonsense and babble!