What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

That's the exact same behavior you display. It is not a contradiction. It is the will to power.

Nietzsche said that. He said that all of morality is secretly nothing other than the "will to power," and particularly the "will" of the weak to control the strong. Behind all morality, he said, is nothing but power.

And our age has believed him. This is why we find ourselves in a world of raw power, with new levels of cruelty and barbarism appearing every day, and the foundations of our moral resistance crumbling to dust under our feet. After all, if the deep secret of morality is that it's just power, then why should one kind of power be privileged over another?

Why should some uses of power be "wrong," and some "right"? In a Nietzschean world, might makes right...at least, it makes as "right" as anything can get -- which is to say, really, not at all. The truth is, all there is is power.

But even Nietzsche couldn't live like that. Neither can you. And if you ever think you manage to try, you'll find your neighbours rise up and kill you, because you'll be intolerable in any society. Their power will crush yours. And why shouldn't it? You're not privileged either -- your greatness is only the extent of your present power. And collectively, theirs is greater.

Whatever is, is as good as it gets for you, then. And as per Nietzsche, nothing, but nothing, can make morality objective.

But in point of fact, you're incorrect. Dubious is still caught in a self-contradiction. It's just that in a NIetzschean world, we can't call being caught in a contradiction "bad." But then, in a Nietzschean world, we can't call being a "hypocrite," a "coward" or a "trickster" wrong either.

[TimeSeeker]

That's the exact same behavior you display. It is not a contradiction. It is the will to power.

Nietzsche said that. He said that all of morality is secretly nothing other than the "will to power," and particularly the "will" of the weak to control the strong. Behind all morality, he said, is nothing but power.

And our age has believed him. This is why we find ourselves in a world of raw power, with new levels of cruelty and barbarism appearing every day, and the foundations of our moral resistance crumbling to dust under our feet. After all, if the deep secret of morality is that it's just power, then why should one kind of power be privileged over another?

Why should some uses of power be "wrong," and some "right"? In a Nietzschean world, might makes right...at least, it makes as "right" as anything can get -- which is to say, really, not at all. The truth is, all there is is power.

But even Nietzsche couldn't live like that. Neither can you. And if you ever think you manage to try, you'll find your neighbours rise up and kill you, because you'll be intolerable in any society. Their power will crush yours. And why shouldn't it? You're not privileged either -- your greatness is only the extent of your present power. And collectively, theirs is greater.

Whatever is, is as good as it gets for you, then. And as per Nietzsche, nothing, but nothing, can make morality objective.

The will to power is not to control the weak. The will to power is power for its own sake. Given that avoiding human extinction is OUR objective moral goal - then we use power for the purposes of controlling the environment! We aren't very smart to deal with all this complexity though - so the environment is kicking our ass.

It's the biblical myth of David vs The Goliath. Humanity vs The Universe.

We cannot achieve it without power (knowledge?) AND co-operation. The bickering that happens between individual human-animals - that's a distraction.

Because we need to cooperate the social contract boils down to "no harm". Power can and will be used against those who violate this rule.

[Atla]

How do we prevent it from taking control away from humans? It doesn't even have to target nuclear weapons.
It can go for our infrastructure - power, water. Food supply.

We haven't figured out how to secure a single computer system.

I guess it could take away control from humans if nuclear launch sites are really hackable from the outside. That doesn't necessarily require an AI though.

Rogue AI targeting infrastructure is more like a local problem, or problem that can't wipe out humanity in general, and I think we will have such cases.

No idea what people think philosophy is or isn't.
No philosopher I've ever spoken to can give me a clear objective/success/failure criteria for "philosophy".
I can give you clear objective/success/failure criteria for science: prediction and control of the environment.
I can give you clear objective/success/failure criteria for morality also: avoiding human extinction

Do you want to play the "define extinction" game?

Philosophy can't have clear objective/success/failure criteria, why expect it.

What are your objective success/failure criteria for "clarity" ? How do you know/verify/confirm/recognize that you have attained clarity?

Objective success/failure criteria for "clarity" are not possible.

I don't understand what you are saying. If global warming isn't a threat to humanity how is stopping global warming maximising welfare for humanity?

I also don't understand what you mean by "global warming by itself". It's part of a (very!) complex system that is the Eearth's biosphere. We neither understand how it works, nor have any control over it if it starts behaving in erratic manner.

We were talkin about existential threats that could entirely kill humanity. Global warming isn't one of them imo.

[TimeSeeker]

Philosophy can't have clear objective/success/failure criteria, why expect it.

So what HUMAN goals/objectives is philosophy good for then? Why do philosophers do philosophy?

Objective success/failure criteria for "clarity" are not possible.

OK, so do you have SUBJECTIVE success/failure criteria for clarity then? How will YOU know/verify/confirm/recognize when you have finally attained clarity?

We were talkin about existential threats that could entirely kill humanity. Global warming isn't one of them imo.

Do you think a systemic positive feedback loop can cause global warming to advance at exponential pace?
Do you think global warming advancing at exponential pace will cause significant climate change?
Do you think significant climate change will have a systemic, disruptive effect on the Earth's biosphere?
If Earth's biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet? How and for how long?

[Peter Holmes]

To expand on what I said earlier: are any of the solutions to the so-called problems of meaning and reference themselves non-linguistic? Do you think we can get behind, beneath, through or beyond language by means of language - natural or formal?

Holy shit. More red herrings! FOCUS. There are problems and then there are PROBLEMS.

My interest in philosophy isn't solely academic - though I wouldn't be ashamed if it were. But you seem to be grinding some utterly irrelevant axe about how we or the machines we make do or will use language to destroy everything. Non-sequitur.

We are on a thread called "What could make morality objective?"
I am pointing to you that AI is an EXISTENTIAL THREAT to HUMANITY.

And you think it's a non-sequitur?

If you conception of "objective morality" has no overlap with "human survival" I think you've missed the forest for the trees.

I don't often go to such lengths - but people who think like that truly deserve to be expelled from society. You are stealing air.

So your argument is: AI is an existential threat to humanity, so morality is objective. Sorry, but I've no time for this blather.

[Atla]

So what HUMAN goals/objectives is philosophy good for then? Why do philosophers do philosophy?

I don't care about social and political philosophy, but I guess those are closest to everyday human goals.

And when it comes to the bigger questions: I guess trying to understand human existence in general, as much as we are able. Who and what we are, why are we here, what's going on, what is the world, what's our place in the world etc. Well if you consider this a goal at all.

Maybe science completely breaks down beyond the observable universe (and we remain oblivious about this); and maybe our best guess about human existence, our best metaphysics, is also totally off.

OK, so do you have SUBJECTIVE success/failure criteria for clarity then? How will YOU know/verify/confirm/recognize when you have finally attained clarity?

I mean it's a good idea to have clarity on a philosophy forum, to try to get our ideas across as best as we can, so we can debate them.

Do you think a systemic positive feedback loop can cause global warming to advance at exponential pace?

For a while yes, but not permanently.

Do you think global warming advancing at exponential pace will cause significant climate change?

Yes

Do you think significant climate change will have a disruptive effect on the Earth's biosphere?

Yes

If Earth's biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet and how?

An increase of 5-10 degrees would have catastrophic biosphere collapses all over the world, but would still be able to support somewhere roughly around a billion people imo. (Which would also mean that the warming would greatly slow down btw., because there are much less people.) After that humanity would probably be forced to adapt and plant forests all over the now unhabited parts of the world.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the exact same behavior you display. It is not a contradiction. It is the will to power.

Nietzsche said that. He said that all of morality is secretly nothing other than the "will to power," and particularly the "will" of the weak to control the strong. Behind all morality, he said, is nothing but power.

And our age has believed him. This is why we find ourselves in a world of raw power, with new levels of cruelty and barbarism appearing every day, and the foundations of our moral resistance crumbling to dust under our feet. After all, if the deep secret of morality is that it's just power, then why should one kind of power be privileged over another?

Why should some uses of power be "wrong," and some "right"? In a Nietzschean world, might makes right...at least, it makes as "right" as anything can get -- which is to say, really, not at all. The truth is, all there is is power.

But even Nietzsche couldn't live like that. Neither can you. And if you ever think you manage to try, you'll find your neighbours rise up and kill you, because you'll be intolerable in any society. Their power will crush yours. And why shouldn't it? You're not privileged either -- your greatness is only the extent of your present power. And collectively, theirs is greater.

Whatever is, is as good as it gets for you, then. And as per Nietzsche, nothing, but nothing, can make morality objective.

The will to power is not to control the weak.

See in the red above. I did not say that. I said the opposite. (Well, Nietzsche did, actually.)

The "strong" were the übermensch, the "supermen." (Apparently, Nietzsche had no "superwomen" -- he didn't really like women.) The "weak" were the people who believed in any morality at all, but especially "Judeo-Christian" morality. He said they were perpetuators of the "slave morality" (to use his term) that encouraged pity for the weaker and suppression of the strong. To get beyond them, and to get "beyond good and evil" altogether (to use Nietzsche's terms) was the whole point. Forget mercy. Forget kindness. Forget charity. Power rules.

Hitler heard him very clearly on that. While Nietzsche himself despised Nazis, the Nazis sure didn't despise Nietzsche. What he left them was wide open to their use, because nothing in Nietzsche gave them a reason not to; and they sure didn't pass up the opportunity.

[TimeSeeker]

So your argument is: AI is an existential threat to humanity, so morality is objective. Sorry, but I've no time for this blather.

No, you stupid philosopher!

If murdering one human is immoral/wrong/undesirable/bad (pick your favorite word) then the closest thing to "objective immorality" (the biggest evil, the worst wrong, the ultimate sacrilege) that we HUMANS can conceive is every single one of us DYING. The end of the line for humanity - extinction!

So if Human Extinction is The Worst Evil. Then by contraposition Human Survival is The Best Good. Anything which threatens our survival is objectively immoral! AI is just one example of MANY potential existential threats.

I expect that at this point you will protest with some philosophical nitpick such as "what makes it objective"? Collective human consensus!

Plus - extinct species don't get to philosophise about "objective morality"!

[TimeSeeker]

If Earth's biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet and how?
An increase of 5-10 degrees would have catastrophic biosphere collapses all over the world, but would still be able to support somewhere roughly around a billion people imo. (Which would also mean that the warming would greatly slow down btw., because there are much less people.) After that humanity would probably be forced to adapt and plant forests all over the now unhabited parts of the world.

Our tools (scientific method, computational power) can't make such accurate predictions. We don't understand the biosphere well enough to model it under drastic change (chaos theory). It's far too complex.

So... what if you are wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

"what makes it objective"? Collective human consensus!

Won't work.

"Human consensus" says some good things, but also a whole ton of really stupid and plausibly immoral things.

If we take "human consensus" as a basis, women are not equal in value to men, and people from other tribes/races/cultures/ideologies are not equal in value to one's own. "Human consensus" makes it impossible to argue for human rights, makes it okay to fight wars, makes slavery permissible, and would tell us it's just fine to kill your children.

Should we be fine with all that?

[Atla]

If Earth's biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet and how?
An increase of 5-10 degrees would have catastrophic biosphere collapses all over the world, but would still be able to support somewhere roughly around a billion people imo. (Which would also mean that the warming would greatly slow down btw., because there are much less people.) After that humanity would probably be forced to adapt and plant forests all over the now unhabited parts of the world.

Our tools (scientific method, computational power) can't make such accurate predictions. We don't understand the biosphere well enough to model it under drastic change (chaos theory). It's far too complex.

So... what if you are wrong?

I'm fairly certain that if a 5-10 degrees change without some additional catastrophe could render the Earth inhabitable, then we wouldn't be here right now. But most species that prefer the cold would be wiped out.

And if I'm wrong, then I guess humanity will be forced to take drastic action and slightly block out the Sun using tiny particles placed into space, or placed into the atmosphere, creating more clouds, or some similar method. (Maybe we will do something like this anyway at the end of the century I think.)

[TimeSeeker]

Won't work.

"Human consensus" says some good things, but also a whole ton of really stupid and plausibly immoral things.

If we take "human consensus" as a basis, women are not equal in value to men, and people from other tribes/races/cultures/ideologies are not equal in value to one's own. "Human consensus" makes it impossible to argue for human rights, makes it okay to fight wars, makes slavery permissible, and would tell us it's just fine to kill your children.

Should we be fine with all that?

That's very small-minded thinking. Look at society as a whole - all 7.5 billion people. The fact that a handful of assholes fight wars - doesn't mean that the others want to.


Besides, if you don't agree with "lets avoid extinction" as a common goal, then surely you don't have to worry about all the social problems you point out? They are far more trivial in proportion. And they will eventually go away...

[TimeSeeker]

And if I'm wrong, then I guess humanity will be forced to take drastic action and slightly block out the Sun using tiny particles placed into space, or placed into the atmosphere, creating more clouds, or some similar method. (Maybe we will do something like this anyway at the end of the century I think.)

That sounds like science fiction. Especially on a planet that lost 90% of its population and all social institutions have collapsed.

[Atla]

And if I'm wrong, then I guess humanity will be forced to take drastic action and slightly block out the Sun using tiny particles placed into space, or placed into the atmosphere, creating more clouds, or some similar method. (Maybe we will do something like this anyway at the end of the century I think.)

That sounds like science fiction.

It's very seriously considered now

[TimeSeeker]

It's very seriously considered now

As serious as addressing the root cause ?

Of course - in the end it will always end up being an economic/pragmatic decision.