CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why be moral?
If there are objective moral standards, why be moral by behaving in accordance with those standards? Does the fact that those standards would be moral intrinsically mean that you should follow them, or does there need to be further reason?
Oh? Well, there went that bs, "we need to be multicultural" narrative. Of course we always knew that it wasn't about that didn't we? It's about bringing in enough people in poverty to force the system to give the government absolute power and social control.
Since he is not white, perhaps your assumption of his worldview as racist is wrong. Maybe there is more to being a free market Conservative than simply hating people who aren't white. Just maybe.
No. Last I checked you had excluded half of the voting class, which isn't very inclusive.
Your pack includes WHITE PEOPLE..
I'm not white, nor are many conservatives.
And, I have NO idea why, because you're NOT white..
I think identity politics is racism in its purist form, think demonizing a race as Nazis when they aren't is racism and evil, believe in free speech, think defending gays and women from Islam is good, and don't want Sharia Law? And finally, because I'm sick of your clan saying you need to repay groups for past wrongs, yet you keep giving the Native lands away to foreigners like Colonialist, Imperialist, Elitists that "know best"? Oh hell, let's add one more for giggles. Because you want Mexicans here in mass, and when asked why, you say, "to pick the lettuce and do my laundry".
There is a fair amount of research that indicates the survival advantages (among social animals) of innate behavior tropisms. Reciprocity is one of these, as is a natural antipathy to killing ones own species. These are kind of proto-morals.
Can you explain how the packs that don't have morals are packs if a pack can only stay together - I. E. Continue being a pack - if they have dont morals?
The pack has morals if you wanna call it that.. Some just call it good behavior. In the simplest terms, it's not moral to kill your pack members. That has NOTHING to do with good or evil, and EVERYTHING to do with survival of the pack..
In the main, as evolved human beings, we don't kill our fellow man either. That too has NOTHING to do with good or evil, and EVERYTHING to do with survival of the species.
I can only speak for myself. I am moral because I want to be moral. Doing the right thing, the kind thing, the enlightened thing, makes me happy, makes the people around me happy, and generally makes life and society better.
Some will say they need a God for that, a threat of hell for that, or lessons from philosophers for that. That's all up to them. I don't need those in order for me to come to the conclusion to try to live morally.
(FromWithin, now you can post your standard no you're not moral because you're pro choice. It's not true, of course, but it makes you feel moral, because you do interpret your religion as making that order, because you do need fear of hell and belief in an ubiquitous supergod to decide to be that way).
You include "kind" and "enlightened" as moral concepts, and then explain that these things make you happy.
I am never sure what people really mean by enlightened, but I know what you mean by kind.
This puts us in "Love thy neighbor as thyself" territory of New Testament morality. It turns out that except for psychopaths, people get an oxytocin burst (and sometimes some dopamine) when we do something kind.
That is extremely interesting. It is an indication that we are hardwired (whether by a deity or natural selection) to tend naturally toward what might be interpreted as "moral" behavior.
Almost everything we do can be traced to some survival need, in other words, "to survive" has been hardwired in us. I think the objective morals as you said,somehow refer to survival, as in my opinion, that fits well with the idea of what we "should" do..
Why should we worry about the survival of the species though? Why not do 'immoral' things that hinder the survival of the species, but help ourselves, and only act 'morally' t the extent that we won't be shunned from society?
Why should we worry about the survival of the species though?
I don't support the idea, or advertise it in any sense, to worry about the survival of a species, it's just present in us, we are genetically made to survive, although "why" is an interesting question to ponder upon, which would lead to the reason or purpose of life.., of which I have given my opinion in another debate..
Why not do 'immoral' things that hinder the survival of the species, but help ourselves, and only act 'morally' t the extent that we won't be shunned from society?
I need to clear myself upon this, I was referring to the morality that is objective, which isn't different for all of us, something that is common among us, that we all would call a part of morality. Interesting question, the way you've put it, it seems to me that even that is linked to survival, if you look at the animal kingdom,many animals tend to be in groups for increasing their individual survival, I think humans are similar. It's in our genes to stay in groups, in my view, which makes social acceptance a consequence of survival instincts right from our genes. We have "immoral" acts, which are basically ideas conflicting from that of the group we live, in this case the group is society..
I think that objective moral standards would have to be synonymous with things that you 'should' do, so maybe this question's answer just drops out by definition. I'm not sure that this is a satisfying answer though. How would there be something that you just 'should' do?
We once were a nation doing it's best to live up to common sense moral values derived from our Christian heritage. Even atheists had no problem with mention of our nations Christian values, because they knew it was good for families.
Along came the anti God Progressive movement whereby only political correct moral values are allowed mention in public.
A nation without God's moral foundations will end up with few moral values. Mankind without God will never agree on whose morals shoud be lifted up in a society.
Therefore we are living in an anything goes no fault culture that is bankrupting our nation.
We now have self consumed people who support killing viable babies for any reason.
We now have some self consumed people who actually think it is ok to kill newborns. The slippery slope in actions.
We now live in a culture that thinks one night hook ups are ok, and when millions more unwed mothers live off tax payers, the Godless simply say we need more social programs to bandaid the problem.
Remember the Aids epedemic? The Left refused to address the irresponsible immoral lifestyles that were spreading the disease.
The only thing they wanted to speak to was finding a cure rather than slowing the epedemic by immediately speaking to the irresponsible lifestyles spreading the disease.
There was no shaming behavior that spread the disease. They even refused to ask people who their previous sex partners were so we could warn them and stop the spread.
It's funny how with every other epedemic, there are always quarentines and emergency education on what and what not to do!
But not today when the answers have to do with moral values. Now the Left's only answers are never ending social programs which do nothing to solve the problems with broken families, unwed mothers, etc.
Man has no answers because the bigots who hate God will do anything to make sure we never admit how once lifting up traditional Godly moral values actully worked better than todays anything goes self love culture.
Nobody wants moral laws forced on a nation, but we are seeing that very thing with the Left's Political correct moral values.
What we need is to get back to common sense values where a nation as a whole can lift up what is good and what is right so as not to ruin so many millions of fatherless children's lives.
These fatherless children grow up to be the ones who create the vast majority of our problems. The Left refuses to speak to the problem because it involves moral values!
We watch the sitcoms, MTV, Hollywood, etc. etc. lifting up this amoral anything goes sexual revolution, and the Left says NOTHING against it. These anything goes lifestlyes are EXACTLY what creates the unwed mothers, the abandoned children, etc. etc.
Those one night hook ups lifted up as being so cool on TV are destroying our family unit, and taking our nation down with it. Government and case workers makes for terrible parents.
Hollywood and our media should be shamed for what they are doing, all in the name of money. Playing to the selfsih base desires of mankind for ratings.
But of course, the anti God Progressive movement says NO! We will no longer shame immoral irresponsible behavior no matter how many fatherless children there are.
The compassion of the Left is a myth! To say you care for our chidren and do NOTHING to prevent the millions more future fatherless children, is a lie! They care for buying votes off these Government dependent people, and furthering their selfish Godless ideology.
We once were a nation doing it's best to live up to common sense moral values derived from our Christian heritage.
That's no where close to accurate.
We now have self consumed people who support killing viable babies for any reason.
I agree. Those damn people who hate condoms and refuse to teach sex education are awful.
Man has no answers because the bigots who hate God will do anything to make sure we never admit how once lifting up traditional Godly moral values actully worked better than todays anything goes self love culture.
The bigots who hate God (you) are the first to make these claims.
Nobody wants moral laws forced on a nation,
LIAR!!!!!!!
But of course, the anti God Progressive movement says NO! We will no longer shame immoral irresponsible behavior no matter how many fatherless children there are.
You are the one who refuses to promote safe sex and sex education.
I'll answer this one if you pardon me for butting in.
Of course people can strive for and live by a high moral code, and uphold objective morality in their actions. When they do, they reap the consequential benefits...people who consistently uphold objective morals in their actions will generally have more peace and success in the world than those who do not and they are the people we can thank for societal stability as their behavior hinders those who practice evil and disdain morality.
The problem is that even the most virtuous of us is still a sinner, still guilty of breaking the very moral code they try to live by. There is no way by trying to be good that a person can actually be good...one drop of poison ruins the whole pitcher of water.
I answered the question. I said man will never agree on whose morals to follow. Did you miss that?
Without God, mankind has no foundation to hang on to. No two men completely agree on anything let alone the moral values that should be lifted up for the good of our nation.
What is the first thing that happens when a person speaks up against the irresponsibility of one night hook ups?
The Progressives on this site gives you the answer most every time i speak to moral values. People like me are instantly ridiculed as some bible thumping lunatic who wants to judge people and tell them how to live.
What they say about me is a pure lie, but it is always the first knee jerk reaction from bigoted Liberals. Man without God does not want to hear about immoral irresponsible lifestyles as the Aids epedemic clearly showed.
Did you know that Gay men during the start of the Aids epedemic were often having sex swapping parties where men swapped with each other? This was one of the main causes of the spread of Aids, but did you hear much about it on the news? People were not shamed for the behaviors spreading it.
There was no talk of immoral irresponsible behavior spreading the disease. This was the start of our cultures's no fault Progressive political correctness. No longer was shamimg immoral behavior a political correct thing to do.
So I answered the question, but wll never get acknowledgement for the truth of my words.
Let me ask you, do you think one night hookups are immoral?
Do you think men or women abandoning their children is immoral?
Do you think living together with no committment for the children is immoral?
Do you think choosing to illegally take hard drugs the first time is immoral?
Do you think choosing to drink too much, getting drunk all the time, and because of it becoming an alcoholic, is immoral?
Do you think unwed mothers living on welfare and getting pregnant again is immoral?
This culture refuses to shame these behaviors, so you tell me, where are the morals of Godless people?
According to functionalism (a model used in sociology and anthropology), there is a natural selection in human culture. Those cultural values and behaviors that promote health, security, and prosperity tend to "survive". Those values and behaviors that undermine health, security, and prosperity tend to die out or be pointedly eliminated, either because people stop doing and teaching them, or because the people who adhere to them do not survive.
It would follow from this that traditional morals, those basics that have millennia-long histories, and are common to most cultures (monogamy, not killing or stealing, etc.) have been tested and found to be so universally useful in improving life for all that those core values and behaviors have never been eliminated.
I am agnostic, so I don't buy into anybody's claim that they know anything about god or what god might want. I do however recognize that behaviors that agree with traditional morals are useful in avoiding all kinds of problems and encouraging stable relationships, peace, prosperity and health.
As I wrote in an earlier post, I favor ethics (chosen codes of behavior) over morals (dictated codes of behavior). My observation is that a useful code of ethics will tend to be very similar to most sets of morals.
Your idea of ethics over morals will be dictated by whoever rises to power and decides their ethics are more important that your ethics. Hitler's ethics ruled under Hitler and who are you to say he was wrong.....and who are you to say the next Hitler is wrong. By your own ethics you could be the next Hitler.
This is the nonsense modern education sells the world, making people think they are educated when they ignore the fact that right is right and it's always right and wrong is wrong and it's always wrong. The stuff you are spouting about ethics is evil and I learned it when I was ten years old...they were trying to shove it down kids throats fifty years ago and probably before that. it's childishly simple and wrong, making kids feel that their opinion is above God.....it's evil.
Your post is indicative of an objective ethic without a biblical God. In order for ethics to persist over time, they must be conveyed or dictated. In other words morals are a necessity as well.
In order for ethics to persist over time, they must be conveyed or dictated. In other words morals are a necessity as well.
Morals are not a necessity for conveyance and persistence over time. People do a lot of things that are not dictated, but merely useful enough that we continue to do them over vast periods of time. (Tying knots, cooking meat, etc. ad infinitum.)
How to tie a knot was conveyed to me, but not dictated.
My point was that the dictatorial nature of morality is unnecessary to ensure the conveyance of useful behaviors like not stealing, or not killing our kids.
You just sat there and totally ignored the condition of our families due to these new age anything goes promiscuous lifestlyes.
You say these immoral people will die out? ROFLOL, their children follow the same path as we see with ever growing welfare roles. What will die out will be our nation and our quality of life.
Is it nice up there in your little intellectual world wereby reality is ignored and you continue on with your ludicrous theories? These theories of man's so called moral values has never been proven since America's Godless culture is the first of it's kind.
In other Goldess nations such as Russia, China, North Korea, etc. etc., they rule with an iron fist and thereby just kill off those who would become burdens. Oh wait a minute, kind of like No Rerstriction abortions here in America supported by the Godless. That's the only final answer from the Godless.
Moral restraint from promiscuous lifestyles would solve most of our problems, but mankind wants none of it.
We see no moral values being lifted up by the Left. We see never ending social bandaids to a growing problem that will bankrupt America and other supposed Progressive nations.
You just proved my point. Mankind without moral values from God soon falls apart. The culture dies from within as did Rome and many others.
Notice how he capitalizes his own name as "I", but can't capitalize God's name while he talks about a thing called god which is not God.....he believes in God, he just can't admit it because that would mean God has the right to tell him that abortion is murder and punishable by the fire of Hell.
Lower case (god) is for some non-specific (any religion, possibly but not necessarily monotheistic.) deity. I use this when not specifying a particular religion, or when talking about religion in general. Lower case god refers to a category of being like it is a kind of job (president, plumber, teacher, god).
Upper case(God) applies only in the context of a particular set of monotheistic religions, and denotes a particular god whose name is God. Unlike the lower case word, this is not a job, but a proper name, so it is capitalized.
The same rules of grammar apply when talking about deities as when talking about other figures in fiction. When I talk about humans or wookies, I do not capitalize unless I specifically talk about Han Solo and Chewbacca.
God's name is God. You cannot say that because you hate God and all you can do is talk about things which are not god like "god's" and "religions".
As I said before, your avoidance of simple logic while feigning yourself to be wise is quite childish and it's a tragic comedy the way so many "educated" people play the self-destructive game like you play it.
The name of God refers to God, not to a god whose name is God. A god, even if it's name is God, is a created thing. God is the creator of all things, and there is no other God even if you call things which are not God, "God". Why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you have a mental block?
God is the creator of all things, and there is no other God even if you call things which are not God, "God".
Let's look at a text I am pretty sure you think of as authoritative. Consider the importance and implications of the phrasing of Exodus 20:3. "You shall have no other gods before me." The phrase could have been, "I, God, am the only god, so worship me." Instead, the text you believe without evidence includes the words of God, clearly indicates there are plural deities.
-
You cannot say that because you hate God...
I recognize the lack of empirical evidence for what you believe, yet I still look at a text you consider to be evidence for what you believe. I then look at what that text means (as opposed to what people insist that it means in order to justify their a priori assumptions). These actions, include no hate, but only the ability to think clearly and critically, and without presupposition, and moreover, the choice to do so.
You would rather deal in faith than logic, and that is neither intrinsically immoral nor moral, nor does it indicate hate or intellectual deficiency. It is just one way to approach the question. The fact that I chose the converse, is likewise neither moral nor immoral, nor does it indicate hate or intellectual deficiency.
We simply approach questions about deities and religious texts differently. You think you have found an answer, and use belief that the answer is true as your starting point. Alternately, I use the requirement for empirical evidence as my starting point. In the absence of such evidence, I leave the question open as unproven for all religions, all the while acknowledging that they differ from each other. meanwhile, I use skepticism and logic to test proposed answers.
-
Why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you have a mental block?
I actually do understand your point of view, I just acknowledge that it is unsupported by any evidence. As a result, I do not behave, think, or write as if it is true.
There is no reason to act like we are enemies, throw insults around or attribute base motives. We are on this site to interact with people with whom we disagree. Enjoy it and be friendly about it.
You are trying to deny that God who is the Creator of All Things is God. That is why you use a straw man which you say is a god named God but is not actually God. Duh. Nobody is arguing that a thing which is not God cannot be God. You are arguing against your own consciously created straw man, it's a childish game you are playing and it's boring.
You are applying rules of grammar to falsely defined words. God is God, not "a" god named God. Your "rules of grammar" are a deception and you are only fooling yourself...if you have really succeeded in fooling yourself enough to believe that you have the right to exist outside of Hell and are not condemned in death.
You say these immoral people will die out? ROFLOL, their children follow the same path as we see with ever growing welfare roles. What will die out will be our nation and our quality of life.
That is exactly my point!
Societies that permit disadvantageous and damaging behaviors to flourish, or (as in the case of our "ever growing welfare roles,") that reward disadvantageous and damaging behaviors will inevitably decline and die out.
The myth of Sodom and Gomorrah illustrates this metaphorically. The fall of the western Roman Empire due to licentious rulers and slavery is a historical illustration of this.
-
Moral restraint from promiscuous lifestyles would solve most of our problems, but mankind wants none of it.
While I favor "restraint from promiscuous lifestyles," I am not so sure it is the panacea you propose.
My observation is that our overarching problem is that the morality of some people directly supports the protection of other people from the consequences of their own disastrous decisions.
BECAUSE of the KINDNESS of responsible and MORAL people, we care for irresponsible people, protecting them from the most painful natural results of their irresponsibility. Our welfare system (including food stamps, WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, housing, etc.) is a direct result of Christian morality in action; it is a society-wide program to care for the poor, as per Biblical mandate.
This morally directed kindness dictates feeding and housing people who need it so that they do not starve or die in the streets.
As a result, the promiscuous and irresponsible dumbasses never have to learn. Irresponsible people continue to be irresponsible people, and all the while, they make ever more irresponsible people.
It is an unintended consequence of Christian Morality, and as you say, "what will die out will be our nation and our quality of life."
That is why I favor ethics over morality. Because ethics are shaped by logic, information, and consideration of the ends we want our behavior to fulfill, ethics can direct behavior so that it does not indirectly support or reward irresponsibility (as the morality-based Welfare system does) or cruelty (as the morality-based Inquisition did.)
I guarantee you that my ethics are in most ways, identical to your morality. The difference is that designed into it is a set of stated ends, and there are stated limits and qualifiers to prevent the most obvious of unintended consequences.
Your premise of Christian morality being the cause of these bloated Socal programs, is distorted reasoning.
I will agree that social programs helping the poor may have had some roots from our nation's Christian charity, and that the concept of helpng those who can not help themselves has always been a fundamental part of the Christian faith.
What has happened since then has been distorted by a Godless Progressive political movement.
Where you are getting off track is combining Christian charity with this politcal Socialistic Progressive Political correct ideology.
The Left and the Democrat Party has taken our nation's core Christian values of charity for those who can't help themselves, and turned it into Government programs funded by mandated taxes from Americans.
The true reasons for the unending creation of social programs, is the Left's political strategy of buying votes from people living off redistributed wealth. It's a big part of the Socialist ideology.
Every election we hear the same rhetoric from Democrats of how the GOP does not care for the poor, and only care about the wealthy. It's all politics and has little to do with the type of charity spoken to in the Christian faith.
There are many verses in the Bible speaking to accountbility for one's choices in life. There are verses that say a lazy man will go hungry. Does that sound like the no fault food stamp programs for able bodied people today?
The Bible speaks often to the consequences of immoral lifestyles. It in no way supports the no fault anything goes mentality of our culture today. These no fault social programs are a direct result of politics, not our Christian heritage.
Our Christian faith has been distorted by the Left to facilitate their politcal goals.
Actually, the political correctness and the modern version of progressivism did not start until the mid to late 1980s, decades after these social programs were started.
These programs were started in the late 60's and early 70's when the vast majority (between 87-95%) of Americans where Christian. The people who proposed these programs and who voted for them were Christians.
It is possible, but not certain, that they were a reboot of the original Progressive concept, which was supported primarily by Christians. The roots of American Progressivism are in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when over 97% of Americans were Christian.
Christian values are the ones the original American Progressives held.
AGAIN, you are comparing the Christians from our past who believed in charitable helping of those who COULD NOT HELP THEMSELVES. These Christians had no problem shaming irresponsible immoral behavior and would never create social programs to enable that type of irresponsibility.
The new age Christians today go to Liberal Churches supporting abortions, supporting Gay Pastors, supporting feminist women Pastors, etc. etc.
They have distorted the Christian faith to sanction their Progressive no fault thinking.
You mention percentages of people who IDENTIFY as Christians. The majority of these people could not care less what the Bible actually teaches. I will agree with you that these false Christians are a part of the Problem.
These Christians had no problem shaming irresponsible immoral behavior and would never create social programs to enable that type of irresponsibility.
I am not saying these programs were created "to enable that type of irresponsibility," but rather that the irresponsibility is an unintended consequence of the Christian charity that underlies giving things away to people in need.
I think that we agree that the moral concept is what provided the initial impetus for the programs, despite the fact that it is not what manages or guides them.
More to the point, whenever I talk of the need to end all of these social welfare programs, the objections (voiced as often by Christians as by non-Christians) always appeal to fundamentals of Christian morality to argue against cutting the purse strings.
I also agree with you that the removal of shame from the process is a problem.
You mention percentages of people who IDENTIFY as Christians. The majority of these people could not care less what the Bible actually teaches. I will agree with you that these false Christians are a part of the Problem.
I don't pretend to know what people actually think and feel.
Doctrinally, the cutoff for being a Christian is belief in what is enumerated in the Nicene Creed.
Certainly it is not up to somebody else's judgment as to whether a person actually is a Christian. Unless God comes down and personally weighs in on the subject, the best we get is whether people identify as Christians.
There is no disputing the fact that politically correct Liberal Churches have grown in the past decades.
Any true Christian who has read the Bible and comprehends the written word, understand when false Christians try to twist it's intent.
Take Homosexuality for example. It is a clearly spoken to in the New Testament as being a sin. This has been excepted doctrine for thousands of years.
Along comes this Progressive anti God political correct movement, and in all their arrogant elitist bigotry, they declare the Bible no longer completely inspired by God, but rather some being written by man.
In all their arrogance, they say we are the enlighened ones who will ascertain it's true meaning. We will tell you which verses are from God and which ones not.
They ridicule and judge any Christian who actually believes the words written in the Bible. They call us Fundamentalists as if to say we are all extremist Christians who are stupid enough to actually believe the scriptures as written.
I would have more respect for these people if they had just simply said we don't agree with what the Bible says, so therefore we are not Christians.
They could have created a new age man made cult (which they did, but still called it Christianity) and worshipped at the alter of political correctness. BUT NO! They wanted to transform the Christian faith to fit man's desires in life. They no longer wanted their lifestlye choices to be called sinful.
Even the Pope is starting to water down the Bible's words by speaking to other paths to heaven, being more inclusive to other religions, and not staying strong on the Christian faith when speaking to Christ being the only way to salvation.
God does not have to personally come down and weigh in on any subjects. He weighed in thousands of years ago when he inspired those words in the Bible. The world just no longer wants to hear about those common sense moral values.
There will always be fringe groups who try to change the Constitution, the Bible, etc. etc. to fit the new age culture. As soon as a people go down that slippery slope, you might as well burn the Constitution, because it is no longer the core of our nation's laws.
The Left calls the Constitution a living document for the express purpose of transforming it to fit their ideology.
The same with the Christian faith. As soon as you allow new age false Christians to go down the path of denying this verse or that verse, you have destroyed the integrity of the entire Bible. This is the Left's goal.
Remember the OJ Simpson trial? Remember all the evidence showing his guilt? What did his lawyer have to do to get him found not guilty?
He had to make the obvious evidence to OJ's guilt worthless. His strategy was to paint the Cop who found the evidence as being a racist, and whala, the evidence was no longer worth the paper it was written on.
Do you understand the comparisons I am making? The anti God Left has demonized those who actually believe the Bible as written. Just as that lawyer told the jury to ignore the evidence from this so called racist cop, the Left is sayng don't believe a word from these fundamentalists. They are homophobes and can not be believed.
This is what the Left is doing to the scriptures. They have taken verses from the Bible, and simply state that this no longer means what it actually says. They say this was written by homophobic men, not God.
He had to make the obvious evidence to OJ's guilt worthless. His strategy was to paint the Cop who found the evidence as being a racist, and whala, the evidence was no longer worth the paper it was written on.
Hello From:
Nahhhh... They had to paint the cop who found the evidence as a LIAR and they used race to PROVE it..
I dunno about you, but if you were charged with a crime, and the lead cop LIES, and LIES and LIES some more from the witness stand, and you could PROVE he's a liar, are you just gonna stand there???
First if all, the lawyer wanted to show the cop was a racist, and then this would explain why he would lie about OJ. The entire cases revolved around showing the cop to be a racist and this fact would explain the so called planted evidence.
I think the lawyer did what he was paid to do. The evidence was overwhelming against OJ, so the Lawyer had to make the cop to be crooked.
Nahhh... They PROVED the cop to be crooked. His name is Marc Furhman.. He's a legal expert for FOX News these days.. That's not surprising.. He's a LYING prick.. In the OJ trial, in his testimony, under OATH, Furhman said he NEVER used the word "nigger".. Then the defense played tapes of him saying the word OVER, and OVER and OVER again.
Look.. I think OJ is guilty. But, because of this LYING, SLEAZY, RACIST cop, he got off.. When the LEAD cop is PROVEN to BE a liar ON the witness stand, you simply CAN'T believe ANYTHING coming out of his mouth, and the jury didn't..
Newsflash, Black people call each other "nigger" all the time. Are they racist?
I don't now if the cop was racist or not, but the evidence against OJ was not all from that one cop.
They never proved the evidence was planted. You could use that argument in any murder trial. There has to be proof he planted evidence or tried to frame a suspect.
I have yet to find any subject that is your thing.
Newsflash, there is not a person in this world that has not lied. Under your ludicrous suggestion, no person can ever be proven guilty because the accuser has been proven a liar.
You insist nobody can know anything about a thing you call god.....I agree with you on that since the thing you call god is whatever you want it to be and you have not told anybody what it is....but it sure is not God. You know as well as I do that the thing you call "god" is not God, and to that I say "duh".
You insist nobody can know anything about a thing you call god...
Actually, what I insist on is evidence. I don't know whether or not anybody can know, but I don't see any evidence that any of the people who talk or write about various gods, actually do know what they are talking about.
...I agree with you on that since the thing you call god is whatever you want it to be and you have not told anybody what it is....but it sure is not God. You know as well as I do that the thing you call "god" is not God, and to that I say "duh".
The propositions that God is actually a god, and that either exist in objective reality is something for which I have no evidence one way or another. In place of evidence people simply convey rumors, often in self-righteous tones.
If all the rumors agreed, I would have some reason, however scant, to suspect they all are talking about the same thing, and therefore that the information might be correct.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Were I to judge by the variety of descriptions of God and the differences in what people say God wants/demands, I would believe that they are all talking about different gods, and conclude that God is merely a very common name among gods ( sort of like Mike or Chin is among humans).
Do you want evidence that sinners are worthy of eternal damnation in the fire of Hell? Do you want evidence that the fire of Hell is real and sinners there fry like eternal sausages?
It is you who proposes that God is a god, and if God is a God, then the thing you call "God" is not actually God the creator of all things but is a god which is a thing created. Your avoidance of simple logic mimicking people who feign themselves to be wise is really quite childish, the same as those who put themselves forward or are upheld by people like you to be leaders.
Of course there is no evidence that God is a god because a god is only a created thing. God is the Creator of all things. The fact that all things are created is evidence of God. Pseudo-scientists and pseudo-intellectuals desperately cling to nonsensical beliefs regarding the origin of matter or the reality of individual personage. If they concede that all things are created by God, then they know it is foolish to not fear God. They walk according to their lusts and do not want God telling them what they can or cannot do and they are bound for the fire of Hell where they will get what they want: they want reality to be void of anything good which is evidence of God's goodness, and that reality can only be found experiencing eternal damnation in the fire of Hell.
If all the "rumors", whatever you are referring to, were in agreement they would either all be true or they would all be false. God gave you powers of reason like His own to distinguish truth from lies. If you want to know the truth and seek it wholeheartedly you will find it and know God loves you and gave Himself for you as the propitiation for your sins when He came down from heaven as the God the Son, Jesus, to die in your place to redeem you from the curse of sin and death. He has the right to forgive you and keep you forever out of Hell with Him in Heaven while leaving those who will not receive Him in the fire of Hell forever because He paid the price of eternal death with His own divine innocent blood.
He wants to be your life, to give you eternal life, but you are free to choose self-satisfaction and insist nothing good comes from God and have your desire in the fire of Hell. You are choosing it for yourself, deny it all you want, all the way to the fire of Hell if you want to. The people who you parrot, your anti-Christ atheistic and agnostic leaders, have done you no favors in leading you in the dark of "I cannot know the truth". The truth is that now you are condemned in death on your way to Hell and you will know it if you will not believe it before you experience it.
I doubt that anything I have said will have any affect on you and you will continue to walk according to your lusts, scoffing at the truth, so pardon me if I seem to be ignoring you from here on out.
It is you who proposes that God is a god, and if God is a God, then the thing you call "God" is not actually God the creator of all things but is a god which is a thing created. Your avoidance of simple logic
Actually, I proposed no such thing.
What I think you are referring to is primarily a discussion of the rules of capitalization in English regarding what is meant by god with a lower case g vice God with an upper case G. Those rules exist precisely because there is are a lot of both polytheist and monotheistic religions, and as such there is a lot of disagreement on the topic of deity. (I pointed out the nature of the disagreement.)
The disagreement has two main aspects.
-- 1 Whether monotheism is an objectively accurate perception of the universe.
-- 2 Which of the many concepts of the singular deity is actually correct, if monotheism turns out to be the case.
In reading my discussion, you seem to have taken offence at the fact that I acknowledged that there is no empirical evidence that settles either question, but that the degree of disagreement on number 2, implies that the various religions are not actually talking about the same particular deity.
-
If all the "rumors", whatever you are referring to, were in agreement they would either all be true or they would all be false.
By rumors I mean unsupported statements, and statements based on other statements or texts that are not supported by empirical evidence.
I do not know you, personally, nor do I have any evidence of who you are. If someone said NowASaint is a blonde Christian woman, and someone else said NowASaint is a brunet Muslim man, and someone else said NowASaint is a chimpanzee who types on Create Debate in between typing acts of Hamlet, then the obvious conclusion is that at least one of the following is true.
-- A There are multiple folks named NowASaint.
-- B At least two (and possibly three) of these people do not actually know NowASaint.
In the absence of empirical evidence to settle who in option B is correct, it makes no sense to believe any of them.
...you will continue to walk according to your lusts, scoffing at the truth, so pardon me if I seem to be ignoring you from here on out.
I am unsure as to which lusts you are talking about.
You seem to be the one scoffing at the truth. I am acknowledging the truth that we don't actually know (have evidence for) the answers to these questions.
At some point you chose to believe something you do not actually know. That is how faith works, and it is fine if that is what you want.
Why do you scoff at the truth that we do not know the answers, nor even know who might have them?
What possible reason do you have for calling me childish simply because I acknowledge that we do not know?
Why be on a debate site if you are going to ignore people you disagree with?
You reject the truth so you cannot know it. To say "the truth is that we don't know the answers" is to admit that you do not know the truth. The truth is knowing, not knowing is uncertainty. You want to be uncertain, you don't want to know the truth of you would seek it until you know you have found it. You can know the truth and be one hundred percent certain of it.
It's just a waste of time to go back and forth with people like you who walk according to their lusts. There is no argument against the truth, so why should I keep listening to you when you are not listening to me? You reject everything I say, you love your sin more than life and you're on your way to Hell. Until you are ready to listen which by your attitude may well be never, it's just a waste of time trying to reason with you. you are unreasonable and it's best for me to move on and leave you behind and let you find out for yourself if you really do have the right to exist outside of Hell. Let me know if you realize that you do not have that right; then we can talk.
When you say that you "acknowledge that we do not know", you are including me in your "we", and that is childish. I know why we are here, I know what the meaning of life is, I know where I am going and I know how I'm getting there. You do not know, I know. When you say "we" can't know, you are being childish, like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and making noises to prevent himself from listening. It's the same childish behavior of the phony admired leaders you parrot; leaders who are blind saying they cannot see and you follow them saying "we cannot see". I see, I know the truth. I guess you just have to find out the hard way.
Pardon me if you get the impression that I am ignoring you, no point in wasting time with you though I do enjoy talking about the truth. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me." You reject the truth, you're on your way to Hell, and you can just find out for yourself, can't you?
I don't believe in god or morals. I am an ethical agnostic.
I think it is irrelevant whether those things are moral simply because those behaviors are all so obviously stupid, selfish, short-sighted, and self-destructive.
Thanks for proving my point. Mankind without God does not believe in morals. They believe in their own selfish desires and gleefully live their promiscuous lifestyles regardless the damge to our children and families.
I am confused. How did I prove your point? You listed a bunch of "immoral" behaviors, and I replied that morals are not required for people to decide not to do things that are stupid, selfish, short-sighted, and self-destructive.
I am pretty sure we agree on what behaviors are most desirable. We only disagree on whether morality is a necessary factor in behaving in a way you would call "righteous."
Mankind without God does not believe in morals. They believe in their own selfish desires and gleefully live their promiscuous lifestyles regardless the damge to our children and families.
I think it is obvious that this is true in SOME cases. I think it is equally obvious that it is NOT true in ALL cases. As a blanket statement, this is patently false.
There are people who believe in morals, but not God. I know many of them. They are indistinguishable in their behavior from most of the Christians I know. They are kind, faithful, temperate, and responsible people who do right by all who know them.
There are people who do not believe in morals, but rather believe in ethics, and do not at all give themselves over to selfish behavior, promiscuity, or intemperance. I am one such person and I know others. I do not behave the way I do because of some religion's insistence that these are mandated behaviors. I behave the way I do because I recognize (by observation and critical thinking) which behaviors support my ability to function in society in a way that promotes health, peace, prosperity, and happiness for the greatest possible number of people. Belief in a god is IRRELEVANT to my behavior. Belief in morals are IRRELEVANT to my behavior. Living consciously and with self-reflection and self-control, however, is RELEVANT, and that is how I choose to do things you would call "moral" and to eschew behaviors you would call "immoral."
-
I think it is likewise obvious that many people who believe in both god and morals continue to cater to their own selfish desires and gleefully live their promiscuous lifestyles regardless the damage to their children and families, and for that matter to their societies.
The story of cruelty and selfishness that comprises Medieval history is the story of an entire continent run by people who believed both in God and in morals, but who consistently gave themselves over to their own selfish desires and gleefully lived their promiscuous lifestyles regardless the damage to their children and families..
If you read my other posts on this thread, I think you will better understand what I am talking about, regardless of whether you agree.
Christianity is not insisting that immoral behavior is mandated. It is the OBVIOUS consequence when a moral vacuum has been created by the Godless Political correct Left.
All these so called moral people you speak to, that have no faith in God's moral values, are no where to be found.
You see your worldly moral values have no problem accepting abortion on demand when you vote for those who keep it legal.
Your so called kind of moral person is silent while millions of children's lives are ruined by immoral parents who abandoned them. Oh you say you would not abandon your child, but you are silent when it comes to shaming those who do.
If you refuse to live a promiscuous life, it is because you are either married, and or have grown up with the remnants of our Christian heritage.
You say....."I recognize (by observation and critical thinking) which behaviors support my ability to function in society in a way that promotes health, peace, prosperity, and happiness for the greatest possible number of people."
It's funny how with all your observation and critical thinking, you support abortions when voting for politicians who keep it legal for even viable babies. Is that promoting peace and happiness to those babies? Oh, I forget, in your worldly moral values, an unborn child deserves none of those rights you speak to.
See how it works when man sets the moral values.
Without God, your so called morals are like rags as it says in the Bible.
You think you are a good person, but when it comes right down to humanity, you support abortion for the convienence of others to abort those burdens you don't want to pay for.
You were correct. The wisdom you just espoused was worth about two cents.
You have yet to show me one Godless person who possesses the common sense moral values to understand that people living promiscuous lifestyles is immoral and should be shamed for all the broken families and abandoned children they create.
Obviously you and the vast vast majority of Atheists need a book becuase in your world, killing viable special needs babies and all other viable babies, is ok.
As the Bible says, your so called goodness is like rags.
Christianity is not insisting that immoral behavior is mandated
You misunderstood me. I apologize if I was unclear.
It is moral behavior that is mandated. Morals always come from some higher power, religious dogma, universal societal mandate, etc. Often it is obeyed blindly, and without consideration of the consequences. (Refer to my earlier post about the Inquisitor's diary entry.)
By contrast, ethical behavior is chosen without mandate, and are considered, organized, and explained such that the ethical system actually works for the individual and greater good in support of worthy values.
As Excon said, "Some people need a book to tell them how to behave, and some don't." The fact is that the folks who actually need the book are not particularly likely to do what it says.
Your so called kind of moral person is silent while millions of children's lives are ruined by immoral parents who abandoned them. Oh you say you would not abandon your child, but you are silent when it comes to shaming those who do.
What you say indicates that you just believe unsupported stereotypes, and have bought the fallacious garbage that only Christians behave the way you want them to.
You do not know me, so here is some information about who I am with regard to your stereotypes and with regard to children.
I did not procreate, but instead I raised another man's son. The bio-dad is a worthless POS who couldn't be bothered to spend the time or energy a child requires. He figured that the $265/month the State of California had to garnish from his paycheck (when he had a job) counted as fathering. When it became apparent that he wanted nothing to do with his son, I "shamed" him, to his face and in front of his parents, who raised this selfish, irresponsible wuss, and who constantly defended him. All three were Christians, but apparently that Christian morality did not make the difference one would have hoped.
I had a career of teaching. Everything I taught was undergirded by conservative values: honesty, hard work, individual responsibility, accountability for the consequences of our actions. At that job, I never got a chance to shame the dickheads who abandoned their kids (they never showed up the Parent-Teacher conferences) but I was there for the kids: 2 hours before school, during lunchtime, and 3-4 hours after school (It adds up to 12-13 hour days). Some of my students still keep in touch because I am a father figure to them.
After that, I worked for Child Protective Services (CPS) in Texas. I actually had to deal with, and try to fix the results of the irresponsible procreation, and otherwise "immoral" behavior that you rightfully decry. Again, 12 hour days, but without summer breaks. This time I could actually take people to court and shame them on the record, but none of that had any long-term effects. After parenting classes, anger management courses, 12 Step programs, and various permutations of these, they were the same worthless and neglectful bastards they had been before.
The ones who believed in god and morality, and who insisted on going to Christianity-based counseling, etc. were no better than the Atheists, Hindus or Muslims. The fact is that being Christians MADE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in whether or not they were irresponsible and abusive, and it made no difference in whether or not they abandoned their kids or suckled on the Welfare teat.
I resigned after a year because t is also very frustrating to constantly deal with people who need to be beaten, spayed and neutered, but be legally prevented from doing it myself.
(The CPS system is ineffective at dealing with the problem. It turns out that it is impossible to fix someone else's family. It is also very expensive to try. CPS is a well intentioned waste of money. It is even less effective than religion at getting people to be decent.)
See how it works when man sets the moral values.
My experience (and history) demonstrate that religion based morality is not at all more useful than non-religious ethics in solving the problems that you and I are both concerned about.
I have no doubt that homosexual promiscuity plays a large part in the spread of aids just as heterosexual promiscuity plays a large part in the spread of STD's in that community.
To deal with such problems it is education that is required, not shaming. If readily available means to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies were used, then we would see a great reduction in such problems.
Morals, like beauty, are in the eye or mind of the beholder and the examples you posted strike me as being irresponsible rather than immoral and many people who don't believe in your god cannot be acused of doing any of the things you listed, so does that make them moral?
What I would call immoral is gratutitous violence, slavery, rape, murder and the sexual abuse of children. If we could eradicate these evils from society then the world would be a much better and safer place for us all.
You are gleefully blind to the damage from this promiscuous self love culture.
There are litterally millions more broken families, unwed mothers living off welfare, fatherless children, etc. etc. than there were when shaming immorality was not considered unpolitically correct.
Do you care about these millions of children living miserable lives on Government assistence?
The crimes you listed as being immoral (which I agree with) have NOTHING to do with these broken homes and gernerational Government dependence.
You, like so many today, refuse to listen to anything that suggests the irresponsibility of man's choices. Our culture is dying because of it, and people like you are too insecure to listen to society telling tell it like it is.
Shaming DOES WORK and it's time we got back to common sense. Parents shame their
children for their own good. It works!
Society should be shaming those choosing to live irresponsibly while running down to tax payers after purposely choosing lifestlyes creating their own problems.
I believe in safety nets for those who can't help themselves. I believe in food bank lines and shelters for generational able bodied Government dependents. Tough love wll get them into jobs, not never ending food stamps and social programs.
People like me are instantly ridiculed as some bible thumping lunatic who wants to judge people and tell them how to live.
You come on this website saying that we need to follow the bible and that we need to shame people into living the right way. You are a bible thumping lunatic because you say you thump your bible. You see accused of telling people how to live because you tell people how to live.
Just for your knowledge, shaming people is NOT TELLING THEM HOW TO LIVE! It's trying to educate them to the dangers of immoral irresponsible lives that do so much harm to our children aour nations.
I thought you were big on educating people to the irresponsibility of not usng birth control, as do I. I guess it is ok when YOU tell people how to live! HYPOCRITE!
In your hypocritical thinking, your type of shaming is ok, but Christians doing it is wrong.
Here's a newsflash to the hypocrite. Educating people to the irresponsibility of getting drunk, followed by one night hook ups, abandoning their children, dangers of sex swapping parties, etc. etc. would be doing the exact same thing as sex education.
Fools on the Left refuse to speak to these other issue of immoral irresponsible lifestlyes.
Now you will say that sex education is not shaming people, but simply educating them. ROFLOL, why do people like you refuse to support educating others to the dangers of all these promiscuous lifestlyes I speak to?
Where were the education programs telling Gays the irresponsibilities and dangers of sex swapping parties, or telling people to stop getting drunk, and not having one night hookups, etc. etc.
Oh I forget, the Godless hate getting educated to moral values and their many benefits.
Just for your knowledge, shaming people is NOT TELLING THEM HOW TO LIVE! It's trying to educate them to the dangers of immoral irresponsible lives that do so much harm to our children aour nations.
You are too stupid to call anyone else a fool. You don't tell people how to live, you just tell people how not to live. It's the same thing.
I thought you were big on educating people to the irresponsibility of not usng birth control, as do I. I guess it is ok when YOU tell people how to live! HYPOCRITE!
I am not the one complaining that people are mad at for me educating them. You claiming that me educating people is telling people how to live, but you telling people how to live is not is the hypocrisy. Sorry, I am done here. I can't keep reading what you write. You never get anything right. You claim that conservatives want to reduce the government, but the only issue you care about is giving the government power over abortion. You think Soros are bad, but you don't want to prevent pregnancies. It never ends.
I seriously stooped reading the rest of your "argument". For each of the rest of your paragraphs my response is "no, FromWithin. That's the exact opposite of house the world works. Add always you don't understand anything that really happens."
When I show people their hypocrisy, they always clam up, such as when I ask them why they support killing viable special needs babies (Down syndrome special olympic kids). They refuse to respond because they know I am right about their inhumanity.
You moron. I demonstrated that you have no clue what hypocrisy is.
You have caused so many unwanted pregnancies it's insane. Your abortion rhetoric is destroying the nation. The only shred of humanity that you have is from saying that we need to reduce the size of the inhuman government. You give that up when you demand the government be put in charge of abortion. You have absolutely no humanity.
Speaking of hypocrisy, bragging that you don't talk to people who you think are deceptive, then criticizing someone who stupid talking to you is massively hypocritical. Especially since I proved how you are completely wrong just by reading 2 paragraphs.
ROFLOL, for the last time, one of the few things Goverment MUST DO, is protect innocent life.
But, you haven't asked for the government to prevent unwanted pregnancies. So, you don't actually believe that's true.
For you to keep saying pro life people want bigger Government makes you a complete moron!
You aren't pro life. You are pro government regulation. You want bigger government. Only a complete moron would say that only asking for more government isn't asking for more government.
Do you like Government making laws protecting your life? You complete idiot, I guess you are for bigger Government.
You are against the government protecting your life. A complete idiot is someone who says that they are against the government protecting them, then song that's what the government is for.
Get some semblance of a brain!
You keep accusing me of having the stupid positions you have. If you think the strawman arguments you make for me are brainless it's because it is your argument.
As always, no response to supporting abortions for viable unborn special needs bbies.
If God wanted them to live He wouldn't have made them deformed.
I differentiate between morals and ethics. (I know in common parlance the two are often synonymous, but for the sake of avoiding equivocation, the distinction is useful.)
-
My Definitions:
Morals are standards of behavior dictated by some higher power (God, society, tradition, etc.) as universal requirements for human behavior. Morals presuppose that some higher power knows better than individuals how each human's life ought to be ordered.
Ethics are standards of behavior individuals (or organizations) develop as a structured system in order to shape behavior with consistency in accordance with consciously selected values and priorities. Ethics presuppose personal freedom and individual responsibility for living conscious and directed lives.
NOTE: I do not include situation ethics in my definition of ethics. Situation ethics are applied without consistency across all situations, but rather to situations according to the particular needs or desired ends at that moment or for that type of situation.
Consider that Hannibal Lector is clearly immoral according most societies' standards, and amoral in his outlook. He is, however, ethical; he has a code of behavior that is consistent, and which is based on his values and priorities.
-
So, why be moral?
1-To gain the social/financial/security benefits of conforming to societal norms.
2-To avoid the work of reflecting deeply on your values and priorities, and the trouble of working out what behavior is required to live in accordance with your values and priorities.
Islam has moral standards, Christianity has moral standards, Society has moral standards. The religious moral standards have differences that will never come together with the other religion OR society. They have been different for centuries, will be different for MORE centuries. Society, for the most part have similar rules overall. Societal rules have legal teeth, robbery, murder, rape, protection of property and self, etc..
"Why be moral"?? Why NOT be animals!? Sorry, DUMB QUESTION(s)!
"Why be moral"?? Why NOT be animals!? Sorry, DUMB QUESTION(s)!
Actually, I am not so sure "Why be moral?" is a dumb question.
Various sets of moral standards, which you acknowledge differ from each other, also differ over time. These are not constants based on some universal exemplar that we can all obey to make the world what we want it to be.
Consider the sources of moral standards you named. Islam, Christianity, and countless societies have used their moral standards to justify some unspeakably cruel things.
I went to an exhibit on torture in the Museum of Man in San Diego in 2001 or 2002. It displayed around a hundred actual instruments of torture (that had actually been used on real people) complete with explanations of how, where, when, and by whom they were used. Many were from the Inquisition or the period of the Protestant Reformation.
As horrible as the torture devices were, the piece that disturbed me most was a translated excerpt from an Inquisitor's diary. My memory is not exact, but the words were to the effect of the following.
Today, as I broke the bones and wove the limbs of the subject through the spokes of the wheel, she begged and pleaded for me to kill her and release her from her torment. I did not relent, but kept at my work, knowing that this foretaste of the tortures of hell was a merciful inducement for her to repent and seek the truth of Jesus Christ, and be saved from eternal damnation.
I will sleep well tonight, secure in my righteousness, knowing that today I did the LORD's work.
That last line demonstrates that this is an example of an actual Christian moral standard in action.
Jihadi terrorism is an effect of Islamic moral standards.
The eleventh commandment, which said, "Thou shalt honor and obey thy master and thy overseer," was taught to many American slaves. It is an example of a society's moral standards.
Although moral standards differentiate us from animals, that is not necessarily to our credit.
If you follow objective morals, virtue, there will be consequences which are generally positive and beneficial for you materially and emotionally. If you don't, the consequences will be detrimental though at times you may find pleasure in indulging in immoral actions....poison in the water is not always noticeable but it's fruit is always destructive.
If you follow objective morals, virtue, there will be consequences which are generally positive and beneficial for you materially and emotionally. If you don't, the consequences will be detrimental though at times you may find pleasure in indulging in immoral actions....poison in the water is not always noticeable but it's fruit is always destructive.
Following a moral code cannot earn you a place in Heaven, forgiveness, or eternal life. We have all broken that High Code, we all are guilty of immoral acts and all deserve to die and burn in Hell. Justice must be satisfied and One, Jesus Christ, took our place and suffered our punishment so that by Him God is satisfied to forgive us if we will repent of our sins and believe from our hearts that He conquered death and lives as God the Son, and open our hearts to Him and receive Him by faith as our Savior. You will find God reasonable if you will be reasonable with Him, He wants you to have eternal life and that is the gift of God through Jesus Christ the Lord.
Still trying to instill fear in the minds of people I see. No doubt you tell the same fear mongering crap to children and to me that is tantamount to psychological abuse of those children who are vulnerable and impressionable at such a young age and as we are on the subject of morals, filling children's heads with fear of eternal pain and torture is as immoral as it gets.
Lacking sufficient instinct to guide our every decision, rational animals need some other guide for conduct if we are survive and thrive. Morality evolved because it fulfills this purpose. The extent to which a given moral code fulfills the purpose that morality as such serves, is the extent to which a given moral code should be followed
For now, I'll assume point 1 and 2 are correct, although you know I don't like them.
Point three and the conclusion bother me though.
3) "Because it is significant, I do my best to... etc"
Which you follow with:
"Because it is significant I shoulddo my best to ... etc"
My problems:
1). In premise 3, is it really because your experience is 'objectively significant' that you do your best to give yourself pleasure + avoid suffering, or is it just because your experience is significant to you? (I suppose a way to rephrase my original question could be: "Why should you care about what's significant objectively?") If it is only because it is significant to you then the conclusion doesn't follow immediately, you must add another premise to say that other's experiences are significant to you, which answers why you (specifically you, Winston) should be 'moral.' It won't however answer why everybody should be moral in every situation, only why people should be moral in a situation where they value an affected party's experiences. That doesn't fully answer the question.
2) My second issue is with the unjustified insertion of the word "should" in your conclusion, where it wasn't present in premise 3. If you add it into your premise three then you need to justify that as well, taking into account what I brought up in my first problem with your argument.
P.S, Thanks for writing a clearly laid out/structured argument, it makes life a lot easier for me.
"1). In premise 3, is it really because your experience is 'objectively significant' that you do your best to give yourself pleasure + avoid suffering, or is it just because your experience is significant to you?"
It is of course significant to me, however this significance is objective. The reason for this is because experience itself is objectively significant. As we've already discussed at length only consciousness itself and conscious experiences create significance.
"(I suppose a way to rephrase my original question could be: "Why should you care about what's significant objectively?")"
Because if something is significant it is significant; it's tautological. We care about things because they have significance.
"If it is only because it is significant to you then the conclusion doesn't follow immediately, you must add another premise to say that other's experiences are significant to you, which answers why you (specifically you, Winston) should be 'moral.' It won't however answer why everybody should be moral in every situation, only why people should be moral in a situation where they value an affected party's experiences. That doesn't fully answer the question."
It's irrelevant whether people recognize or fail to recognize the significance of other entities' experiences. This is because other entities' experiences will have significance regardless of our recognition. We should recognize the significance of other entities' experiences because if we impartially compare their experiences' significance to ours we find they are equally significant.
"2) My second issue is with the unjustified insertion of the word "should" in your conclusion, where it wasn't present in premise 3. If you add it into your premise three then you need to justify that as well, taking into account what I brought up in my first problem with your argument."
Should is used because the conclusion is prescriptive in nature, whereas premise 3 was descriptive in nature. It's certainly true that premise 3 could be changed to be prescriptive in nature if it was the item in question, as follows.
1) My experience has objective significance.
Therefore:
3) Because it is significant I should do my best to give myself pleasure and avoid suffering
This makes me realize that I actually should have made premise 1) "The valence of my experience, and the magnitude of the valence of that experience is objectively significant".
"Because if something is significant it is significant; it's tautological. We care about things because they have significance."
"It is of course significant to me, however this significance is objective"
"It's irrelevant whether people recognize or fail to recognize the significance of other entities' experiences. This is because other entities' experiences will have significance regardless of our recognition. We should recognize the significance of other entities' experiences because if we impartially compare their experiences' significance to ours we find they are equally significant."
I think we might be getting back to the crux of the argument. Firstly, aren't significance, or value, or importance all subjective terms? In this case significance can't be objective.
We only care about things that are significant to us, I don't think it makes sense to say we do or should care about things because they are objectively significant, because as soon as somebody 'fails to recognize' the significance of something it is no longer objectively significant. For something to be objectively significant it's level of significance can't be influenced by opinion, but significance is just the value that somebody assigns to something. If people assign different values to something then significance is subjective by definition. I am certain that I assign different levels of values to some things than you.
Significance is by definition a matter of opinion. The value that something is held to deserve, or something along those lines is a definition of significance. Value is subjective, it has to be. I don't see how it's debatable.
Anyways, even if something was objectively significant, I don't see where the should comes from. Why not just say "screw it, I don't care?"
I don't think its' possible to say that somebody should do something full-stop (or period if you prefer that term). It only makes sense if there is a goal in mind, e.g. you should do 'x' to achieve 'y.' If a person's goal differs from that of moral actions (to cause net benefit to conscious entities, etc) then what reason can you give them to be moral if being moral doesn't coincide with their goals? You can't just talk about significance as they'll just say "I don't care - it's not significant to me."
"I think we might be getting back to the crux of the argument. Firstly, aren't significance, or value, or importance all subjective terms? In this case significance can't be objective."
If we view both my and your experience impartially (objectively) then we find the significance of the valence and magnitude of the valence of our experiences are equal. I don't deny the existence of subjective significance and imagined significance but there also is objective significance. This is because all conscious experience has significance that is indisputable when viewed impartially.
"We only care about things that are significant to us, I don't think it makes sense to say we do or should care about things because they are objectively significant, because as soon as somebody 'fails to recognize' the significance of something it is no longer objectively significant. For something to be objectively significant it's level of significance can't be influenced by opinion"
Objective significance isn't affected by anyone's (or everyone's) failure to recognize it. A fact doesn't cease to be a fact just because nobody believes it.
"significance is just the value that somebody assigns to something. If people assign different values to something then significance is subjective by definition. I am certain that I assign different levels of values to some things than you."
That's imagined value, (or subjective value if correctly assigned) not objective significance. As an example of imagined value (as opposed to subjective value), one might believe that buying a doll will make them happy. Upon buying the doll they find that it doesn't make them happy. They were wrong about the subjective value of the doll to them. If they had been made happy by the doll it would have had subjective value to them. An example of objective significance, however, would be that a positive experience of a given magnitude is positive to that extent for every conscious entity. While it's possible to transform an experience that should be negative into one that's positive (such as with masochists) it isn't possible to enjoy a negative experience.
"Significance is by definition a matter of opinion. The value that something is held to deserve, or something along those lines is a definition of significance. Value is subjective, it has to be. I don't see how it's debatable."
I don't like to use the word value here because it has already got a positive valence and is usually used subjectively (there are objective functional values). It doesn't fit as well as significance, though I suppose it might work in some contexts. Significance is also a synonym for "meaning" (among others) whereas value is not and "meaning" is a more apt descriptor than value when discussing consciousness. If all consciousness ceased to exist, never to return again, that would be objectively significant because significance itself would cease to exist (also note that value wouldn't fit here).
"Anyways, even if something was objectively significant, I don't see where the should comes from. Why not just say "screw it, I don't care?"
I don't think its' possible to say that somebody should do something full-stop (or period if you prefer that term). It only makes sense if there is a goal in mind, e.g. you should do 'x' to achieve 'y.' If a person's goal differs from that of moral actions (to cause net benefit to conscious entities, etc) then what reason can you give them to be moral if being moral doesn't coincide with their goals? You can't just talk about significance as they'll just say "I don't care - it's not significant to me.""
The only reason to do anything is because of the significance of the outcome. Impartially speaking, our own conscious experience has the same objective significance as that of others. As such, we should endeavor to enhance the experience of others in the same manner we do for ourselves.
"we find the significance of the valence and magnitude of the valence of our experiences are equal."
I don't dispute this, I just say that zero (objective significance) = zero (objective significance). Note that it is an objective truth that subjective significance exists, but I don't think that it is an objective truth that objective significance exists.
"This is because all conscious experience has significance that is indisputable when viewed impartially."
It is indisputable that all conscious experience at least has subjective significance (we agree in this at least, right?). It is not indisputable that conscious experience has objective significance, because I'm disputing it now.
"An example of objective significance, however, would be that a positive experience of a given magnitude is positive to that extent for every conscious entity. While it's possible to transform an experience that should be negative into one that's positive (such as with masochists) it isn't possible to enjoy a negative experience."
No, because it's only that entity (and perhaps some others who find it significant) who finds that significant. It is objectively true that a positive experience is positive to said entity, and a negative experience is negative to said entity, but that has nothing to do with objective significance, only subjective significance. It is only that entity's opinion that it is significant that they are having a good/bad experience, and it isn't necessarily significant objectively. For it to be objectively significant it must be possible to conclude, without emotion or opinion, that the event is 'significant.' I don't see how something can be seen as significant without opinion being taken into account. It may be objectively true that the earth orbits the sun, but it's not objectively true that that's significant. It is only significant to those affected by it, and it is their opinion that it's significant.
"The only reason to do anything is because of the significance of the outcome. Impartially speaking, our own conscious experience has the same objective significance as that of others. As such, we should endeavor to enhance the experience of others in the same manner we do for ourselves."
I think the only reason to do something is because of the significance to oneself of the outcome of that something. Objective significance doesn't have to play into a reason to do something. I can have reasons to do things regardless of some objective significance.
Why are things significant to people?
Significance is nothing but opinion. Nobody's opinion about significance should be more valid than another's and this means that nothing is objectively significant, because it's always possible for somebody to disagree.
"Objective significance isn't affected by anyone's (or everyone's) failure to recognize it. A fact doesn't cease to be a fact just because nobody believes it."
But I'm saying the fact doesn't even exist in the first place. (Excuse me if I've used this following example before) It's like saying chocolate is tasty, and then telling people that it's an objective fact, regardless of their disagreeing with it, even though their disagreeing with it immediately renders the statement only a subjective one. For chocolate to be objectively tasty, it would need to be impossible for somebody to disagree, which clearly isn't the case. This is exactly the same as significance, significance is just as subjective as taste. If you say that the fact you like (or dislike) ice-cream is significant, and then I say: "I don't think it's significant," it's automatically only a subjective statement that you made in the first place about the significance of you liking ice-cream, not an objective one. Who's to say what's significant and what's not? As long as it's possible for one to disagree with a statement about significance, significance is only subjective, because significance, importance, meaning, or whatever you want to call it are just opinions. It is different from the fact that earth orbits the sun because that in no way depends on opinion. I don't see how significance can be anything but an opinion.
Can you offer a specific circumstance where significance has nothing to do with opinion or emotion?
"I don't dispute this, I just say that zero (objective significance) = zero (objective significance). Note that it is an objective truth that subjective significance exists, but I don't think that it is an objective truth that objective significance exists.
It is indisputable that all conscious experience at least has subjective significance (we agree in this at least, right?). It is not indisputable that conscious experience has objective significance, because I'm disputing it now.
No, because it's only that entity (and perhaps some others who find it significant) who finds that significant. It is objectively true that a positive experience is positive to said entity, and a negative experience is negative to said entity, but that has nothing to do with objective significance, only subjective significance. It is only that entity's opinion that it is significant that they are having a good/bad experience, and it isn't necessarily significant objectively. For it to be objectively significant it must be possible to conclude, without emotion or opinion, that the event is 'significant.' I don't see how something can be seen as significant without opinion being taken into account. It may be objectively true that the earth orbits the sun, but it's not objectively true that that's significant. It is only significant to those affected by it, and it is their opinion that it's significant."
To demonstrate the objective significance of conscious experience I'll give an example. Two individuals each have a negative experience of equal magnitude. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst possible experience each of these experiences rates at exactly 7.45. Since the valence and magnitude of the valence of conscious experience has significance we can see that when viewed impartially (objectively) both experiences have equal significance. As such, objectively speaking, both experiences have significance and this significance is equal. The fact that only the experiencer is affected by an experience doesn't detract from the objective significance of the experience. When we take ourselves out of our biased perspective that only our own experience has significance we can see that every entities experience is equal in significance. Now, you state that neither experience has objective significance, but the valence and magnitude of the valence of the experience is objective, not subjective. The things that cause the experience to have valence are subjective but the valence itself is an objective fact and everybody experiences suffering of magnitude 7.45 as the same. Therefore, since the valence and magnitude of the valence is what gives the experience significance, the significance of both is equal.
"I think the only reason to do something is because of the significance to oneself of the outcome of that something. Objective significance doesn't have to play into a reason to do something. I can have reasons to do things regardless of some objective significance."
You asked why we should do something just because it is objectively significant so I explained that the significance of actions are the only reason to undertake actions.
"Why are things significant to people?
Significance is nothing but opinion. Nobody's opinion about significance should be more valid than another's and this means that nothing is objectively significant, because it's always possible for somebody to disagree. "
If you have the opinion that your suffering isn't significant does it actually cease to matter, or would you still feel it's significance? There is simply no way to remove the significance of your experience.
"But I'm saying the fact doesn't even exist in the first place. (Excuse me if I've used this following example before) It's like saying chocolate is tasty, and then telling people that it's an objective fact, regardless of their disagreeing with it, even though their disagreeing with it immediately renders the statement only a subjective one. For chocolate to be objectively tasty, it would need to be impossible for somebody to disagree, which clearly isn't the case."
To be a pedant you mean "it would need to be impossible for somebody to dislike the taste of chocolate." There isn't anyone that enjoys negative experience and dislikes positive experience and so the analogy doesn't hold. People disagree on what constitutes each, of course, but they don't enjoy negative experience and hate positive experience.
"This is exactly the same as significance, significance is just as subjective as taste. If you say that the fact you like (or dislike) ice-cream is significant, and then I say: "I don't think it's significant," it's automatically only a subjective statement that you made in the first place about the significance of you liking ice-cream, not an objective one. Who's to say what's significant and what's not? As long as it's possible for one to disagree with a statement about significance, significance is only subjective, because significance, importance, meaning, or whatever you want to call it are just opinions. It is different from the fact that earth orbits the sun because that in no way depends on opinion. I don't see how significance can be anything but an opinion."
You cannot enjoy negative experience and hate positive experience and therefore it cannot be subjective. To use your example of ice-cream I personally dislike mint ice cream while others enjoy it, this is subjective. When I eat mint ice cream I have an experience that is negative in valence while those who enjoy it have a positive one. Subjectively we differ on what stimuli produce an experience of a particular valence of a particular magnitude. Experiences of a particular valence of equal magnitude are the same for everyone however.
"Can you offer a specific circumstance where significance has nothing to do with opinion or emotion?"
While emotional states influence conscious experience the emotional state itself is not the conscious experience. As such, emotion is only tangentially related to conscious experience (and thereby significance, because consciousness is the only known source of significance). Opinion/taste only influences what stimuli cause conscious experiences to have a given magnitude of a given valence, it doesn't relate to significance itself.
"Two individuals each have a negative experience of equal magnitude. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst possible experience each of these experiences rates at exactly 7.45."
Okay.
"Since the valence and magnitude of the valence of conscious experience has significance we can see that when viewed impartially (objectively) both experiences have equal significance."
Not quite. They have equal levels of valence/magnitude/significance to each individual, but objective significance can't come from the individual. It's only their opinion that it's significant that they had a good (7.45) experience. It is objectively true that they had an experience of 7.45 out of ten on the scale you gave, but how good an experience somebody has has nothing to do with objective significance. They seem to have equal subjective significance (significance to those individuals), yes.
"but the valence and magnitude of the valence of the experience is objective, not subjective. The things that cause the experience to have valence are subjective but the valence itself is an objective fact and everybody experiences suffering of magnitude 7.45 as the same."
Yes, but this has nothing to do with objective significance.
"Therefore, since the valence and magnitude of the valence is what gives the experience significance, the significance of both is equal."
I see no evidence that the significance is anything other than to the individual, or that valance and its magnitude create objective significance. The significance to the individuals is equal, yes, but that's not objective significance. For something to have objective significance it has to be of undeniably equal significance to everybody, not just an individual. There is no objective significance to anything if it is possible for people not to think it is significant. I may not think it is significant that somebody experiences 7.45 of 10 on that scale, even if they think it is significant. My opinion that it is insignificant is no worse or better than their opinion that it is significant, making it subjective. It may be significant to the person experiencing something, but the neighbor's cat doesn't think it's significant, and thus significance is influenced by opinion. The cat would have to find that person's experience equally significant to the person, even though it's not having the experience itself. The cat doesn't care and thus significance/importance are subjective.
I should clarify I still dispute that conscious experience has objective significance.
Can you define objective significance because I think there may be some confusion between us. When I talk about objective significance I mean something free from the individual. Something equally significant/important to every conscious being, or perhaps significant independent of the mind, as another definition of objective mentions.
I'll answer the last paragraph first because I think the questions you raise help the discussion.
"Can you define objective significance because I think there may be some confusion between us. When I talk about objective significance I mean something free from the individual. Something equally significant/important to every conscious being, or perhaps significant independent of the mind, as another definition of objective mentions."
I'd define objective facts as impartial and unchanged by perspective, they can only be seen one way: factually. On the other hand subjective opinions are dependent on perspective and can be seen many different ways, none of which are right or wrong. When talking about objective significance I'm not saying that my experience is significant to you. My point is that the conscious experience of all, when viewed impartially, is objectively significant and is the only thing that has significance.
I appreciate that a given conscious experience only affects it's experiencer (as it is only acting upon them in particular in that instance). The significance of this experience to it's experiencer is objective, though, and is the same when experienced by any experiencer. I feel this also leads to where we may also have gotten sidetracked: in our conceptualization of conscious experience itself. I'm viewing conscious experience as a whole: in terms of the broad phenomenon as it relates to all conscious entities. In other words, when I talk about the significance of conscious experience, I'm not talking about an isolated experience or experiencer, I'm talking about conscious experience in it's entirety. I'm also attempting to view it impartially: taking my own perspective and the individual perspectives of others out of the equation. When all experiential input factors are the same, regardless of the experiencer, the output is always the same. If it were subjective, one would expect the same inputs to produce different outputs.
"They have equal levels of valence/magnitude/significance to each individual, but objective significance can't come from the individual."
I'm saying that when we view the significance impartially we can see they are equal in significance. While it's true that an experience only affects the experiencer, the significance of this experience is objective. Now, I appreciate that subjective can mean in regards to the individual however all individuals are equally affected by their own experiences: there is no subjectivity. Let us take an example: drowning will kill any human, is it then correct to say that drowning is subjectively bad for one's health, because it only affects the person being drowned? While only the experiencer is immediately affected by their own experiences, the significance of different individuals' experiences, compared impartially, is the same.
"It's only their opinion that it's significant that they had a good (7.45) experience."
How is it their opinion if it's impossible to interpret in any other way? Conscious entities are incapable of making their experience insignificant. While they could hold the opinion that their experience has no significance, it would still have significance. In the same vein, people might hold the belief that they would survive being drowned, but they would perish nonetheless.
"It is objectively true that they had an experience of 7.45 out of ten on the scale you gave, but how good an experience somebody has has nothing to do with objective significance. They seem to have equal subjective significance (significance to those individuals), yes."
When viewed impartially all experience is significant. If something holds true across all individuals in all possible situations it's objective. One definition of objective is "Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". Regardless of one's personal feelings, interpretations, prejudice, bias etc. the significance of one's experience doesn't change.
"I see no evidence that the significance is anything other than to the individual, or that valance and its magnitude create objective significance. The significance to the individuals is equal, yes, but that's not objective significance. For something to have objective significance it has to be of undeniably equal significance to everybody, not just an individual."
Speaking of conscious experience as a broad phenomena, it is indeed of equal significance to everybody. This is exactly why I mentioned the case of equally significant experiences. When we look at singular instances, like with the drowning analogy, it is of course only affecting the individual. When we see conscious experience in general as affecting all conscious entities in the same manner, however, we can see that it is indeed objectively significant. Of course a singular conscious experience would only immediately affect the experiencer because the experiencer is the object being acted upon. When we look at conscious experience as a whole, however, it is acting upon every conscious being in existence. This is always significant to the being acted upon and therefore conscious experience is objectively significant; it's never not significant to the object entity.
"There is no objective significance to anything if it is possible for people not to think it is significant."
Firstly people can be wrong about what they think is significant to them. Also, as we know, people are inclined to think that only what's significant to them personally has significance. However, impartially speaking, is the source of significance not objectively significant? What makes it's significance subjective?
"I may not think it is significant that somebody experiences 7.45 of 10 on that scale, even if they think it is significant. My opinion that it is insignificant is no worse or better than their opinion that it is significant, making it subjective."
It isn't about them thinking it's significant to them, it's factually significant to them. Nobody is capable of having an experience that lacks significance.
"It may be significant to the person experiencing something, but the neighbor's cat doesn't think it's significant, and thus significance is influenced by opinion. The cat would have to find that person's experience equally significant to the person, even though it's not having the experience itself. The cat doesn't care and thus significance/importance are subjective. "
The cat's belief that something isn't significant has no bearing on it's actual significance. I appreciate what you mean though, it has no significance to the cat as far as we can tell. To this I would reply that, speaking broadly, experience has significance to all conscious entities and from this we can extract that all experience is significant when viewed impartially. Whether I am enjoying myself or not is significant and the same holds true for all conscious entities. It is of consequence whether a given entity is having a positive or negative experience because it is significant to that entity. This is an unchangeable objective fact that holds true for all conscious entities. As such it cannot be subjective whether or not the experience of a conscious entity is significant, nor is the significance simply subjective.
"The significance of this experience to it's experiencer is objective, though, and is the same when experienced by any experiencer."
I have no problem with that statement.
"I feel this also leads to where we may also have gotten sidetracked: in our conceptualization of conscious experience itself."
I believe you are correct there. It's always good to define the terms.
"I'm viewing conscious experience as a whole: in terms of the broad phenomenon as it relates to all conscious entities. In other words, when I talk about the significance of conscious experience, I'm not talking about an isolated experience or experiencer, I'm talking about conscious experience in it's entirety."
I really don't understand what you mean by conscious experience in its entirety. Conscious experience is a group of individual conscious experiences, not one 'hive mind' to use a term from movies about aliens. I know this isn't what you mean, but it is what it sounds like to me, and I don't know what you mean. Looking at conscious experience as a whole is the same as looking at 'society' as a whole, it's messy, because society isn't one mind with a specific stance on each issue.
"I'm also attempting to view it impartially: taking my own perspective and the individual perspectives of others out of the equation."
This may be problematic, because in practice every conscious entity's individual perspective is part of the equation.
"When all experiential input factors are the same, regardless of the experiencer, the output is always the same. If it were subjective, one would expect the same inputs to produce different outputs."
This is fine. The level of significance to an individual can be measured objectively. This doesn't mean the significance of that individual's experience is objective, because it wouldn't be necessarily significant to other individuals.
Let me try another example. Joe's wife, Sally, dies. To Joe this is extremely significant, at 10/10 on the significance scale. To his friend Bob the significance of Sally's death is only a 7/10 on his significance scale, while to Nick, who has never heard of Sally or Joe or Bob, the significance is a measly 0/10.
The input is the same for all three measures of significance; the event of Sally's death, but the significance is different. The only change to the equation is the experiencer, and this is the sole cause of the differing significance. This is exactly what we would expect if significance was subjective. What on the scale of significance would Sally's death be objectively? You can't have significance without an experiencer to quantify the significance, and no experiencer's idea of significance is more valid than another's, so how do you decide the objective significance? For something to be objectively true it must be the same no matter who observes it, e.g, 5+5=10, no matter who looks at it, even if they think it's something different. 5+5=10 doesn't need an experiencer to remain true. In the same way if nobody experienced the event of Sally's death (ignore Sally) there could be no form of significance, objective or subjective. I think that for something to be objective it must exist free of the mind (among other things perhaps), and significance does not exist free of the mind.
An analogy could be relativity in physics. It is objectively true that my velocity relative to the earth is roughly zero m/s, and objectively true that my velocity relative to the sun is something much bigger than zero, around 30,000 m/s. Both of those statements are objectively true, and I think this is on par with you saying: "The significance of this experience to it's experiencer is objective, though, and is the same when experienced by any experiencer," but I don't have an objective velocity, it is subjective. What do you compare it to? (Note my velocity isn't influenced by personal feelings or opinions, yet it is still subjective) For something to be objective, I think it (perhaps among other things) requires that it is not influenced by perspective.
"How is it their opinion if it's impossible to interpret in any other way?"
Other people will interpret that individuals experience as having different levels of significance. The individual experiencing has no more say in how significant his experience is than I do.
"If something holds true across all individuals in all possible situations it's objective."
Of course significance doesn't hold true and equal across all individuals in all possible situations, as the example of Sally's death's significance to Joe, Bob, and Nick.
"When we look at conscious experience as a whole, however, it is acting upon every conscious being in existence. "
I don't get this bit.
"...therefore conscious experience is objectively significant; it's never not significant to the object entity."
That's fine, but it is only to the object entity. Who's to say that their experience is significant. Their opinion is no more valid than mine, and mine may differ. Significance is subjective.
"It isn't about them thinking it's significant to them, it's factually significant to them."
Fair enough, and everything event a factual level of significance to everybody, but those levels are different for each person with the same event. See Sally, Joe, Bob, and Nick again.
"Nobody is capable of having an experience that lacks significance."
Nobody is capable of having an experience that lacks significance to themselves, yes.
Significance has to be to somebody correct? One can't just claim something is significant, they need to state that it is significant to somebody. If so I think it follows that the significance of an event is different depending on who that somebody is, and is therefore subjective.
"It is of consequence whether a given entity is having a positive or negative experience because it is significant to that entity."
I'm not sure what you mean by 'it is of consequence.' If you mean 'it is significant' then I think that it still only follows that it is significant to that entity, not significant objectively.
Going back to the debate topic; Why be moral, even if conscious experience is of objective significance? What if I go ahead and say "Sure, it's objectively significant, but I don't care! Can you offer me any good reason to be moral anyways, regardless of my lack of caring? If not then there is only reason to be moral if you care about others experience (which sounds like a correct assessment). It being objectively significant wouldn't be reason enough to make somebody to whom other's experience isn't significant try to be moral anyway (I think the existence of such entities proves significance to be subjective, but I digress). If there is only reason to be moral if you care about others experience, then there is no reason to be moral (if morality is minimizing net negative conscious experience, etc) other than because it is what you want/care about, a rather egoistic view in the end.
"I really don't understand what you mean by conscious experience in its entirety. Conscious experience is a group of individual conscious experiences, not one 'hive mind' to use a term from movies about aliens. I know this isn't what you mean, but it is what it sounds like to me, and I don't know what you mean. Looking at conscious experience as a whole is the same as looking at 'society' as a whole, it's messy, because society isn't one mind with a specific stance on each issue."
I mean I'm looking at the sum of all conscious experience rather than an individual conscious experience. So I'm looking at the base phenomenon itself instead of an individual instance of the phenomenon. It's like how in order to study family relationships one would study a large number of families to get a representative sample instead of just one family.
"This may be problematic, because in practice every conscious entity's individual perspective is part of the equation."
Of course, and it's never possible to view anything entirely impartially. I'm making an attempt to do so though, by looking at commonalities across all conscious experience. One such commonality is significance.
"This is fine. The level of significance to an individual can be measured objectively. This doesn't mean the significance of that individual's experience is objective, because it wouldn't be necessarily significant to other individuals."
I'm not saying it's significant to other individuals, I don't believe this is what makes something objectively significant. Perhaps a better way of explaining it would be the following: it matters if I am suffering; my suffering has consequences that are significant. As such, it also matters if others are suffering; their suffering has consequences that are significant. If we leave the word objective out of the equation do you agree with these statements?
"Let me try another example. Joe's wife, Sally, dies. To Joe this is extremely significant, at 10/10 on the significance scale. To his friend Bob the significance of Sally's death is only a 7/10 on his significance scale, while to Nick, who has never heard of Sally or Joe or Bob, the significance is a measly 0/10.
The input is the same for all three measures of significance; the event of Sally's death, but the significance is different. The only change to the equation is the experiencer, and this is the sole cause of the differing significance. This is exactly what we would expect if significance was subjective. What on the scale of significance would Sally's death be objectively? You can't have significance without an experiencer to quantify the significance, and no experiencer's idea of significance is more valid than another's, so how do you decide the objective significance?"
The significance to Joe, Nick and Bob certainly is subjective. The significance to the consciousness itself (Sally), however, isn't. Whether a conscious entity can experience or not is significant in and of itself, without anybody else needing to subjectively deem it significant. If all consciousness ceased to exist, never to return again, surely that would be an objectively significant event since consciousness is the only source of significance/meaning.
"For something to be objectively true it must be the same no matter who observes it, e.g, 5+5=10, no matter who looks at it, even if they think it's something different. 5+5=10 doesn't need an experiencer to remain true. In the same way if nobody experienced the event of Sally's death (ignore Sally) there could be no form of significance, objective or subjective. I think that for something to be objective it must exist free of the mind (among other things perhaps), and significance does not exist free of the mind."
This is exactly where we diverge, and don't get me wrong because I do appreciate that you have a point. Consciousness certainly is the source of significance, however if we view consciousness as a whole, we can look at the significance of conscious experience objectively. When we do this we see that all conscious experience (of equal valence etc.) is equally significant and that it is significant. This is because we can see that it matters whether we personally are having a good or bad experience. Further it's not just that it matters to us either, it matters because the experience of conscious entities has significance. Perhaps if different words were used we might be able to reach agreement on this point?
The only thing to have objective significance is the conscious experience itself. All else draws a different, second order, subjective significance from it's interaction with consciousness. So in your example the death of the unconscious zombie Sally had no objective significance. The experience that the death caused to Joe and Bob, however, was objectively significant.
"An analogy could be relativity in physics. It is objectively true that my velocity relative to the earth is roughly zero m/s, and objectively true that my velocity relative to the sun is something much bigger than zero, around 30,000 m/s. Both of those statements are objectively true, and I think this is on par with you saying: "The significance of this experience to it's experiencer is objective, though, and is the same when experienced by any experiencer," but I don't have an objective velocity, it is subjective. What do you compare it to? (Note my velocity isn't influenced by personal feelings or opinions, yet it is still subjective) For something to be objective, I think it (perhaps among other things) requires that it is not influenced by perspective."
I don't believe the significance of conscious experience is influenced by perspective. One cannot reduce the significance of their experience by changing their perspective. One can certainly change the valence and magnitude of the valence of the experience. This is achieved by reinterpreting the stimuli that caused the experience. However, one cannot change the significance of an experience of a given valence and magnitude. I appreciate that others cannot always see the significance of the experience of others, but recognition (or a lack of) doesn't change the fact. In the stated analogy you objectively have that given velocity relative to the sun.
"Other people will interpret that individuals experience as having different levels of significance. The individual experiencing has no more say in how significant his experience is than I do."
I appreciate that other people can subjectively deem the persons experience to have differing levels of significance. The person having the experience, however, has no such luxury.
"Of course significance doesn't hold true and equal across all individuals in all possible situations, as the example of Sally's death's significance to Joe, Bob, and Nick."
That's a different, second-order subjective significance that derives it's significance from the objective significance of their conscious experience. When we give different individuals an experience equal in magnitude and valence however...
"I don't get this bit."
What I mean is that conscious experience itself is like a universal force acting on every conscious entity in an equal and consistent manner.
"That's fine, but it is only to the object entity. Who's to say that their experience is significant. Their opinion is no more valid than mine, and mine may differ. Significance is subjective."
It's like how non zombie-theorists infer that other people are conscious because they themselves are conscious and other humans we have the same brain structures and act similarly. It matters whether we are suffering or not and therefore the same holds true for other people.
"Fair enough, and everything event a factual level of significance to everybody, but those levels are different for each person with the same event. See Sally, Joe, Bob, and Nick again."
In that case we are talking about second-order significance that is deriving significance indirectly from it's effect on conscious experience. Every individual experiences a conscious experience of a given valence and magnitude in the same way.
"Nobody is capable of having an experience that lacks significance to themselves, yes.
Significance has to be to somebody correct? One can't just claim something is significant, they need to state that it is significant to somebody. If so I think it follows that the significance of an event is different depending on who that somebody is, and is therefore subjective."
Just because consciousness creates significance (because nothing matters without an effect on a conscious entity) doesn't mean that significance only exists within an individual's perspective. This is why I look at consciousness as a whole to impartially look at objective significance. My previous example shows this: if all consciousness ceased to exist it would be an objectively significant event.
"I'm not sure what you mean by 'it is of consequence.' If you mean 'it is significant' then I think that it still only follows that it is significant to that entity, not significant objectively."
Yes, "It is of consequence" in this context is supposed to mean "it matters", or "it's significant". In my mind the experience of a conscious entity is significant because I'm aware of the fact that it matters whether I have a good or bad experience. Therefore the same must hold true for others. Now, I can see how you can say it only matters to me but once again conscious experience acts on all conscious entities in the same way. It's like with the drowning example I gave, we can see that drowning is objectively harmful to the health of lunged mammals, yet it only harms the person being drowned at the time.
"Going back to the debate topic; Why be moral, even if conscious experience is of objective significance? What if I go ahead and say "Sure, it's objectively significant, but I don't care! Can you offer me any good reason to be moral anyways, regardless of my lack of caring? If not then there is only reason to be moral if you care about others experience (which sounds like a correct assessment). It being objectively significant wouldn't be reason enough to make somebody to whom other's experience isn't significant try to be moral anyway (I think the existence of such entities proves significance to be subjective, but I digress). If there is only reason to be moral if you care about others experience, then there is no reason to be moral (if morality is minimizing net negative conscious experience, etc) other than because it is what you want/care about, a rather egoistic view in the end."
Well as I said before the only reason to do anything is because it's significant, so if something is objectively significant it should be reason enough to want to do it. That said, taking on responsibility for the suffering (and pleasure) of others gives one's life incredible meaning and is the path to great emotional fulfillment. Hedonism is enjoyable and all, but it's ultimately empty and leaves one feeling empty and unfulfilled.
"I don't believe this is what makes something objectively significant. "
I've probably asked you this before, but what do you think makes something objectively significant?
"Perhaps a better way of explaining it would be the following: it matters if I am suffering; my suffering has consequences that are significant. As such, it also matters if others are suffering; their suffering has consequences that are significant. If we leave the word objective out of the equation do you agree with these statements?"
But why does it matter that you are suffering? I agree that if it does 'matter' that you are suffering then it 'matters' if others are suffering, but why does it 'matter' (e.g. why is it significant) if you suffer?
"The significance to the consciousness itself (Sally), however, isn't."
That's fine.
"Whether a conscious entity can experience or not is significant in and of itself, without anybody else needing to subjectively deem it significant. If all consciousness ceased to exist, never to return again, surely that would be an objectively significant event since consciousness is the only source of significance/meaning."
I still am not convinced that consciousness is a source of objective significance, conscious beings may think their experience significant, but what backs that up? Isn't it just the opinion of conscious entities just that (an opinion) and therefore subjective. For something to be objectively true, I think it needs to be independent of the mind/consciousness, e.g, 1+1=2.
"When we do this we see that all conscious experience (of equal valence etc.) is equally significant and that it is significant."
All conscious experience (of equal valence etc.) is equally significant to the experiencer. Why is it objectively significant that it is significant to the experiencer?
"This is because we can see that it matters whether we personally are having a good or bad experience ... it matters because the experience of conscious entities has significance."
These statements are equivalent to saying that it is significant because it is significant, which is circular, and needs a clearer argument.
"I don't believe the significance of conscious experience is influenced by perspective. One cannot reduce the significance of their experience by changing their perspective. One can certainly change the valence and magnitude of the valence of the experience. This is achieved by reinterpreting the stimuli that caused the experience. However, one cannot change the significance of an experience of a given valence and magnitude. I appreciate that others cannot always see the significance of the experience of others, but recognition (or a lack of) doesn't change the fact. In the stated analogy you objectively have that given velocity relative to the sun."
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, or if you are misunderstanding me, because I entirely agree with the point I think you are trying to make here, I just think that this doesn't mean significance is objective. The way I'm looking at it, a certain event (e.g; Sally's death) has objective levels of significance to certain entities, but since these levels vary, overall significance is subjective. It can't be said that 'Sally's death was significant' overall. I see no evidence that anything is significant overall, or universally.
Maybe my use of words "overall" and "universally" clarify what I mean by objective significance? Significance/importance must be to something, e.g. "x is important for y," "x is significant for y," I think the fact that significance of Sally's death varies between different perspectives is evidence enough that the something can't be objectively significant.
"I appreciate that other people can subjectively deem the persons experience to have differing levels of significance. The person having the experience, however, has no such luxury."
Again, I have no problem with such statement. I just see no reason to think that the level of significance the experiencer gives to something is no more valid a level of significance to give it than what somebody else gives it. Everybody in my earlier example 'experiences' Sally's death, the same event. The level of significance of that experience to each person is objective yes, but I don't see how that gives the event of Sally's death objective significance. Without the experiencers there would be no significance, subjective or objective, and for it to be objectively significant it shouldn't need minds/experiencers. Significance needs minds, and is therefore a perfect example of a subjective phenomena. One definition of objective is "not dependent on the mind for existence." Significance, as you've stated previously, is dependent on the mind for any form of existence. Do you challenge that definition? (It's only one of google's definitions, not the best dictionary, but a start.)
"What I mean is that conscious experience itself is like a universal force acting on every conscious entity in an equal and consistent manner."
That's fine, but why is it significant?
"Every individual experiences a conscious experience of a given valence and magnitude in the same way."
Again, I've no problem with this statement.
"if all consciousness ceased to exist it would be an objectively significant event."
I don't see this. What is so significant about consciousness? The way you word it makes it sound as if consciousness is significant to the universe, but the universe doesn't care.
"It's like with the drowning example I gave..."
Drowning causes an objective level of harm to an individual, yes, and this is the same as saying that equal valence etc experiences are of equal significance to different experiencers, and I have no problem with that. I appreciate your point, but I think the analogy falls a little short, because significance/importance is, at its essence, a matter of opinion, (net) physical injury is not.
"I've probably asked you this before, but what do you think makes something objectively significant?"
I'm saying that the significance isn't affected by perception in the same way that second-order significance is. One can see the loss of $20 as significant or insignificant if they change their perspective. However when one loses $20 and is distressed as a result, this distress is objectively significant because it's not possible to reinterpret their negative experience as insignificant. The significance of the negative experience isn't subjective, therefore, because changing one's perception has no effect on it's significant. There is also the matter of impartiality: viewing the effect of conscious experience on consciousness as a whole rather than on a singular conscious entity. When we view conscious experience in this manner, we see conscious experience as having an objectively significant effect on consciousness.
"But why does it matter that you are suffering? I agree that if it does 'matter' that you are suffering then it 'matters' if others are suffering, but why does it 'matter' (e.g. why is it significant) if you suffer?"
Can you not feel it yourself that there is significance to whether you are suffering or experiencing pleasure? Do you not act as if your own suffering and pleasure matters? If it doesn't matter then, assuming you aren't a masochist, why are you averse to the idea of being tortured for the rest of your life?
"I still am not convinced that consciousness is a source of objective significance, conscious beings may think their experience significant, but what backs that up? Isn't it just the opinion of conscious entities just that (an opinion) and therefore subjective."
Conscious experience applies this effect on all consciousnesses in all situations. There's never a time that a conscious experience isn't significant (which is practically a tautology since conscious experience is the source of significance). As for being an opinion, this would mean that one could alter the significance of their own conscious experience directly, which isn't possible, by changing their perception of the conscious experience. One can alter the second-order significance of the event that caused the experience and thereby indirectly affect the conscious experience's valence and magnitude of it's valence. One cannot alter the first-order significance of the conscious experience's valence and magnitude of it's valence, however.
"For something to be objectively true, I think it needs to be independent of the mind/consciousness, e.g, 1+1=2."
As for independence from consciousness, since we're talking about a phenomena that is dependent on consciousness for it's existence I don't see how this could be possible. Conscious experience is created by interactions between consciousnesses and reality after all. In addition, significance only exists in relation to consciousnesses. This is also why I view conscious experience as a whole to impartially infer what is actually significant in and of itself. The answer to which is that the magnitude and valence of the experience of conscious entities is what is significant. All else derives it's significance indirectly from it's interaction with conscious experience.
"All conscious experience (of equal valence etc.) is equally significant to the experiencer. Why is it objectively significant that it is significant to the experiencer? "
The conscious experience itself is objectively significant, for the reasons detailed above. It matters that conscious entities are experiencing pleasure or suffering because it is the only thing that matters; it's tautological.
"These statements are equivalent to saying that it is significant because it is significant, which is circular, and needs a clearer argument."
Actually in the quoted text I first gave an a posteriori observation "This is because we can see that it matters whether we personally are having a good or bad experience". Following this I expanded with a priori reasoning to expand that since all consciousnesses are the same in this regard that the same applies to them also "Further it's not just that it matters to us either, it matters because the experience of conscious entities has significance." As for stating that the experience of conscious entities has significance, while I appreciate that the point of contention is the objective nature of this significance, the fact that conscious experience is significant isn't in question. I do, however continue this point in the next paragraph: "The only thing to have objective significance is the conscious experience itself. All else draws a different, second order, subjective significance from it's interaction with consciousness. So in your example the death of the unconscious zombie Sally had no objective significance. The experience that the death caused to Joe and Bob, however, was objectively significant." This draws the distinction between the objective significance of the conscious experience itself and the second-order subjective significance these people gave to Sally's death.
"I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, or if you are misunderstanding me, because I entirely agree with the point I think you are trying to make here, I just think that this doesn't mean significance is objective. The way I'm looking at it, a certain event (e.g; Sally's death) has objective levels of significance to certain entities, but since these levels vary, overall significance is subjective. It can't be said that 'Sally's death was significant' overall. I see no evidence that anything is significant overall, or universally."
You're talking here about the second-order subjective significance, not the conscious experience itself. The only reason the death of Sally has no objective significance in itself is because she is a non-conscious zombie. In this example Joe's opinion of the significance of her death is completely subjective. His conscious experience's significance, however, is objectively significant and this significance isn't changeable.
To needlessly complicate things, if we had all available information, we could make an accurate assessment of the significance of Sally's death by determining the net effect on conscious entities. This isn't about their subjective opinion of the significance, it's about the effect that the death had on the experience of all conscious entities. So we might find that overall there was a net positive effect on all conscious entities. This isn't about conscious entities' general opinion of the effect but the actual effect itself.
"Maybe my use of words "overall" and "universally" clarify what I mean by objective significance? Significance/importance must be to something, e.g. "x is important for y," "x is significant for y," I think the fact that significance of Sally's death varies between different perspectives is evidence enough that the something can't be objectively significant."
This is their subjective opinion of the significance, but if we could see how consciousnesses as a whole are affected we could find the objective significance of the event. My perception of what you are saying is that people can have different opinions on the significance of an event. As a result the significance of an event is subjective because people don't agree. My contention is that if all the information was available we could find the actual significance of an event by calculating it's net effect on conscious entities. This doesn't mean their opinions, it means the actual effect on their conscious experience.
Further, it seems obvious to me that since my conscious experience has significance that the experience of others also has significance. As aforementioned, I don't hold this significance to be subjective because it isn't directly changeable by a change in perception. If it were subjective one would surely be able to change their perception and thereby change it's significance. While one may state that a conscious experience isn't viewed as significant to another uninvolved entity, if the exact same conscious experience were acting upon that entity then they would be aware of it's significance. It makes me think of how sound waves reaching one's ears is necessary to hear music but even when one isn't close enough to receive the sound waves the music is still playing.
"Again, I have no problem with such statement. I just see no reason to think that the level of significance the experiencer gives to something is no more valid a level of significance to give it than what somebody else gives it. Everybody in my earlier example 'experiences' Sally's death, the same event. The level of significance of that experience to each person is objective yes, but I don't see how that gives the event of Sally's death objective significance."
This is their opinion that you're talking about, which has no direct effect on the significance. The net positive or negative effect that the event had on consciousness as a whole was objectively significant, however.
"Without the experiencers there would be no significance, subjective or objective, and for it to be objectively significant it shouldn't need minds/experiencers. Significance needs minds, and is therefore a perfect example of a subjective phenomena. One definition of objective is "not dependent on the mind for existence." Significance, as you've stated previously, is dependent on the mind for any form of existence. Do you challenge that definition? (It's only one of google's definitions, not the best dictionary, but a start.)"
I wouldn't say it is dependent on the mind, but dependent on consciousness itself. The definition I found on google was " Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual". I think it's obvious that it is "actual" and while one might say that significance is dependent on a mind for existence (only because consciousness is considered a part of a mind) this would apply also to conscious experience itself. One's own conscious experience isn't subjective though; it's not open to different interpretations.
Further the example given is "a matter of objective fact" and it is an objective fact that conscious experience has significance (even if you question the objectivity of this significance). I'd prefer the definition on the same page "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". I reject the definition that you give but I can see how using that definition you could come to such a conclusion. A very similar definition I found is "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book." I'm sure that we can agree that the significance of our conscious experience isn't dependent on our thoughts and feelings, despite consciousness being considered part of the mind. I think when one uses the definition you cite they mean exactly this: not affected by thoughts and feelings (I'm not sure what else fits the definition).
"That's fine, but why is it significant?"
It's the only thing that is significant and is from whence everything derives it's significance.
"I don't see this. What is so significant about consciousness? The way you word it makes it sound as if consciousness is significant to the universe, but the universe doesn't care."
Consciousness is essential for significance to exist in the universe, therefore if all consciousness ceased to exist so would significance. Surely the event that causes significance itself to cease to exist is significant?
"Drowning causes an objective level of harm to an individual, yes, and this is the same as saying that equal valence etc experiences are of equal significance to different experiencers, and I have no problem with that. I appreciate your point, but I think the analogy falls a little short, because significance/importance is, at its essence, a matter of opinion, (net) physical injury is not."
I've given examples of subjective significance (opinions of what is of significance) and objective significance (the conscious experience itself) to illustrate that one's opinion of the significance has no bearing on the actual significance. When someone suffers it is not that it's their opinion that their suffering has significance, their suffering has actual significance that is directly caused by the magnitude and valence of the experience. This significance isn't changeable. Their opinion of the significance of an event is completely different to the actual significance of an event, as measured by the net impact on conscious entities.
I must ask, do you care about the experiences of other conscious entities besides yourself and if so, why? Is it because you think it is of significance whether that entity is having a pleasant or unpleasant significance? My personal answer to this question is yes, I think there is a significant difference between their experience of suffering and their experience of pleasure. The reason for this is because I am aware that this holds true for myself and I am so similar to them. This is also why I don't subscribe to zombie theory (the theory that I am the only conscious entity and everybody else simply pretends to be conscious). Since other humans are so similar to me it makes sense that they would be conscious too.
I completely agree that the degree of significance of somebody's experience to that person (or to somebody else) is an objective fact. This doesn't mean it is 'objectively significant' though. Let my try a clearer definition. For an event to be 'objectively significant' it must have the same level of significance from any perspective, even perspectives incapable of perceiving significance, e.g. a stone. Even though the level of significance to somebody of something is an objective fact, the level of significance of somebody's experience is not objective because they aren't the only thing that exists. If Joe has an experience that to him is a 9 out of 10 on his significance scale, there is still no evidence that the true significance of that experience is 9 out of 10 on the universal scale for significance. I don't see how the whole universe could agree on the significance of Joe's experience so I don't see how anything could even exist on the universal significance scale, and I therefore don't see how something could be objectively significant. I thought that for something to hold any objective significance it needs to be important to the whole universe, and nothing is important to the whole universe, because not the whole universe can hold something as significant.
"Can you not feel it yourself that there is significance to whether you are suffering or experiencing pleasure? Do you not act as if your own suffering and pleasure matters? If it doesn't matter then, assuming you aren't a masochist, why are you averse to the idea of being tortured for the rest of your life?"
Of course I feel that my suffering matters, etc, and act accordingly, but my feelings have absolutely no bearing on whether it is actually important. It is important to me, as other's suffering is important to them, but that means nothing. For it to be objectively significant it must be significant to the whole universe, which it certainly isn't.
"One can alter the second-order significance of the event that caused the experience and thereby indirectly affect the conscious experience's valence and magnitude of it's valence. One cannot alter the first-order significance of the conscious experience's valence and magnitude of it's valence, however."
Because different perspectives exist nothing is objectively important overall. The first and second order would have to agree. How could one say that WWII was objectively important when the tree in my garden doesn't think so? The universe doesn't care and it was only important to (some of) us humans, therefore it wasn't objectively significant.
"As for independence from consciousness, since we're talking about a phenomena that is dependent on consciousness for it's existence I don't see how this could be possible. Conscious experience is created by interactions between consciousnesses and reality after all. In addition, significance only exists in relation to consciousnesses. This is also why I view conscious experience as a whole to impartially infer what is actually significant in and of itself. The answer to which is that the magnitude and valence of the experience of conscious entities is what is significant. All else derives it's significance indirectly from it's interaction with conscious experience."
Which is another reason why objective significance can't exist...
The net significance of an event to conscious experience as a whole I suppose might even be objective, just add up all the significance to each individual, etc, but this is still not objective significance, because that net significance could be seen as insignificant, etc. I still don't see how the whole of conscious experience actually matters. If we all disappear, the universe doesn't mind, and therefore we are not objectively significant.
"It matters that conscious entities are experiencing pleasure or suffering because it is the only thing that matters; it's tautological."
Saying something matters because it matters proves nothing, it's circular reasoning. Why does it matter? If something matters to us that's not grounds for saying it 'matters.' It needs to be important to everything in the universe or else it's not important objectively.
"the fact that conscious experience is significant isn't in question."
Well, I'm questioning it.
"To needlessly complicate things, if we had all available information, we could make an accurate assessment of the significance of Sally's death by determining the net effect on conscious entities. This isn't about their subjective opinion of the significance, it's about the effect that the death had on the experience of all conscious entities. So we might find that overall there was a net positive effect on all conscious entities. This isn't about conscious entities' general opinion of the effect but the actual effect itself."
The above quote rests on the assumption that the net significance etc to conscious entities is objectively significant. I would argue that it's not. There needs to be a reason for why it matters what the net significance to conscious entities is, and I don't think that reason has been provided. Also, I don't think that net significance is the same as objective significance, because one can again say that the net significance is not significant.
"My contention is that if all the information was available we could find the actual significance of an event by calculating it's net effect on conscious entities. This doesn't mean their opinions, it means the actual effect on their conscious experience."
Again about net significance. I agree that we could add up individual significance to get net significance, but I don't see how this is objective significance. Why is net significance to conscious entities objectively significant? The universe still doesn't care.
"One's own conscious experience isn't subjective though; it's not open to different interpretations."
Again, I agree with this, but it's not what I'm talking about.
"it is an objective fact that conscious experience has significance"
It is an objective fact that conscious experience has significance to the experiencers.
"A very similar definition I found is "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book." I'm sure that we can agree that the significance of our conscious experience isn't dependent on our thoughts and feelings, despite consciousness being considered part of the mind. I think when one uses the definition you cite they mean exactly this: not affected by thoughts and feelings (I'm not sure what else fits the definition)."
I mean that objective significance requires that things remain significant even if you take the perspective away from conscious entities. This requirement is of course not satisfied
"[It is significant because] It's the only thing that is significant and is from whence everything derives it's significance."
Again, your argument here is circular. I reject the claim that conscious experience is significant.
"I must ask, do you care about the experiences of other conscious entities besides yourself and if so, why? Is it because you think it is of significance whether that entity is having a pleasant or unpleasant significance? "
I care, and it is because of my empathy. I feel that their experience is significant, just as I feel my experience is significant. My feelings have no bearing on the truth however.
I'm going to create a debate about this, it would be worthwhile to hear the other's opinions.
"This doesn't mean it is 'objectively significant' though. Let my try a clearer definition. For an event to be 'objectively significant' it must have the same level of significance from any perspective, even perspectives incapable of perceiving significance, e.g. a stone. Even though the level of significance to somebody of something is an objective fact, the level of significance of somebody's experience is not objective because they aren't the only thing that exists."
If that's your definition of objective significance, as with the past definition given, I can see why you would say that conscious experience isn't objectively significant. I don't believe these definitions encapsulate what I am saying when I say something is objectively significant. To avoid repetition I'll give the definition I'm using later (I gave it in my previous post).
"If Joe has an experience that to him is a 9 out of 10 on his significance scale, there is still no evidence that the true significance of that experience is 9 out of 10 on the universal scale for significance. I don't see how the whole universe could agree on the significance of Joe's experience so I don't see how anything could even exist on the universal significance scale, and I therefore don't see how something could be objectively significant. I thought that for something to hold any objective significance it needs to be important to the whole universe, and nothing is important to the whole universe, because not the whole universe can hold something as significant."
We're definitely conceptualizing objective significance differently. When I think of objective significance I don't think of objective significance as something everything has to acknowledge. I conceptualize it as something that is significant regardless of any acknowledgement. The definitions I'd use, for examples, are " not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" or "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." When I'm talking of objective significance I'm talking about what actually matters; what's actually of significance regardless of one's perceptions etc. What actually matters is conscious experience. Whether you acknowledge it of not your experience is of significance because it affects you in a manner that is significant. The same applies for when someone doesn't acknowledge the significance of the experience of another: it's still significant regardless.
"Of course I feel that my suffering matters, etc, and act accordingly, but my feelings have absolutely no bearing on whether it is actually important. It is important to me, as other's suffering is important to them, but that means nothing. For it to be objectively significant it must be significant to the whole universe, which it certainly isn't."
Here's where the problem of definitions is coming in again. If something matters, then it matters. Under my definitions, if that significance isn't affected by personal feelings, interpretations, prejudices etc. (subjective interpretation) then it's objective. When a conscious entity has an experience that is of significance and this significance isn't affected by subjective interpretation I term that objective significance. An example of subjective significance would be the significance one gives to an event, object etc. due to their subjective interpretation. The only thing that has objective significance is conscious experience.
"Because different perspectives exist nothing is objectively important overall. The first and second order would have to agree. How could one say that WWII was objectively important when the tree in my garden doesn't think so? The universe doesn't care and it was only important to (some of) us humans, therefore it wasn't objectively significant."
When I think of something being deemed significant by the entire universe I believe this to be irrelevant to whether it factually matters. This is because things can factually matter without being acknowledged. An example could be someone failing to notice that good diet and exercise has significance, which later causes them to suffer a long painful death. It clearly matters whether someone is tortured to death and it's not that our empathy makes it matter to us, it's that our empathy allows us to see that it matters. Empathy, after all, is the ability to put ourselves in another's place. It doesn't force us to see the other's experience as significant, it allows us to see other's experience as significant. There is clearly a significant difference between the experience of suffering and pleasure. Perhaps if I used the word factual instead of objective we could reach some agreement? I am after all using the word objective in a manner that is synonymous with factual.
"Because different perspectives exist nothing is objectively important overall."
I've went over times when one's perspective is at odds with what is actually significant. One's perspective doesn't change reality.
"The first and second order would have to agree. How could one say that WWII was objectively important when the tree in my garden doesn't think so? The universe doesn't care and it was only important to (some of) us humans, therefore it wasn't objectively significant."
I appreciate that significance is dependent on consciousness because nothing can matter at all without having an effect on a consciousness. This doesn't mean that a consciousness' perspective can render another consciousness' experience insignificant, however. Your tree has an opinion but opinions don't change reality. The only thing that matters is the conscious experience itself.
"Which is another reason why objective significance can't exist... The net significance of an event to conscious experience as a whole I suppose might even be objective, just add up all the significance to each individual, etc, but this is still not objective significance, because that net significance could be seen as insignificant, etc."
I disagree, since we aren't looking at the perspective of the consciousnesses in question, we're looking at the experience itself. Once again, it's not that the consciousnesses are perceiving their experience as significant, it's that their experience is significant regardless of their perception.
"I still don't see how the whole of conscious experience actually matters. If we all disappear, the universe doesn't mind, and therefore we are not objectively significant."
It's significant because without consciousness nothing would matter anymore. The universe as a whole may as well cease to exist if consciousness doesn't exist (assuming it could never return).
"Saying something matters because it matters proves nothing, it's circular reasoning. Why does it matter? If something matters to us that's not grounds for saying it 'matters.'"
Nothing has any significance without consciousness, so how can consciousness, the source of significance, not matter? As we are conscious entities that can experience both pleasure and suffering we are aware that there is a significant difference between the two. We are aware that our experience matters and as a result we know that the experience of others matters. Once again, remember that consciousness is the only reason anything is of any significance, without it everything is pointless and meaningless.
"It needs to be important to everything in the universe or else it's not important objectively."
Only under your conceptualization of objective significance.
"The above quote rests on the assumption that the net significance etc to conscious entities is objectively significant. I would argue that it's not. There needs to be a reason for why it matters what the net significance to conscious entities is, and I don't think that reason has been provided. Also, I don't think that net significance is the same as objective significance, because one can again say that the net significance is not significant.
Again about net significance. I agree that we could add up individual significance to get net significance, but I don't see how this is objective significance. Why is net significance to conscious entities objectively significant? The universe still doesn't care."
I still don't see how conscious experience, the only reason that the universe isn't pointless, meaningless and insignificant, isn't significant. Do you think that nothing at all factually matters? I personally think that my experience and the experience of others matters, for the reasons outlined above. As for saying net significance isn't significant, I'm sure you mean objectively significant under your definition, but is it factually significant? Does it actually matter?
I'd also like to ask what would a significant life constitute in your eyes? In my estimation a significant life is a life that affects other conscious entities (in a positive and/or negative way).
"Again, I agree with this, but it's not what I'm talking about."
One of the definitions of objective is that it isn't open to different interpretations.
"It is an objective fact that conscious experience has significance to the experiencers."
In my mind it is of significance period, not simply of significance to the experiencers. When I think of what actually matters in this reality, I can only see one thing: conscious experience. Everything else only matters insomuch as it interacts with consciousnesses.
"I mean that objective significance requires that things remain significant even if you take the perspective away from conscious entities. This requirement is of course not satisfied"
I've given examples for when one's perception of the significance isn't in line with the actual significance. If you were to take perspective away from a conscious entity it's conscious experience would still matter. Unless you mean perspective as in it's ability to consciously experience, in which case since it couldn't consciously experience and thus we couldn't see if it's conscious experience was significant or not.
"Again, your argument here is circular. I reject the claim that conscious experience is significant."
We agree that conscious experience is significant (at least subjectively). I also think we agree that conscious experience is from whence everything derives it's significance (at least subjectively). It's not circular, it's tautological that the source of significance is significant. How is it not significant to give significance to the universe?
"I care, and it is because of my empathy. I feel that their experience is significant, just as I feel my experience is significant. My feelings have no bearing on the truth however."
If you'll allow me to continue this train of thought, why do you feel that their experience is significant? Empathy only allows you to understand what they are experiencing, it doesn't make their experience significant.
"I'm going to create a debate about this, it would be worthwhile to hear the other's opinions."
I agree, I'll check it out and chime in when I next get some free time.
Sorry for late response. I think we've hit a stalemate about most points, but I'll reply to this question: "If you'll allow me to continue this train of thought, why do you feel that their experience is significant? Empathy only allows you to understand what they are experiencing, it doesn't make their experience significant."
What is significant to the people I care about is significant to me because those people are significant to me. To an extent I care about almost everybody, I just care about some more than others. I suppose I was unclear writing that "I feel that their experience is significant," it should have been that "I think and feel that people's experience is significant to me as an extension of the fact that they are significant to me, and their experiences are significant to them."
I suppose empathy is the main factor here. I don't feel their experience is objectively significant, just significant to some.
Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important. One can fail to acknowledge the importance of something, yet it will still be important.
I'd also like to note that in my personal experience the deepest satisfaction one can achieve is through positively affecting others, not just oneself.
Winston you say .....Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important. One can fail to acknowledge the importance of something, yet it will still be important......
Well it does mean it isn't important to you and people who think like you .
It's not a failure to acknowledge the importance of something to deem it unimportant , it's to acknowledge to oneself that something is indeed unimportant from their point of view ; can you not think of several examples ?
I of course accept that different people will consider different things important. I also accept that people can deem something unimportant to them and be correct. However, when you state:
"Well it does mean it isn't important to you and people who think like you ."
I must dispute, because despite one's belief that a healthy diet isn't important it will still impact one's life. Since one cannot cause their own experience to be unimportant to them, the effect that their lack of a healthy diet has is important: because it affects their experience. This happens regardless of the individuals recognition of the importance of a healthy diet. In other words, the individual believes it to not be important to them, but they are in this instance incorrect. I accept that people can hold such beliefs and be correct though.
"But whether it impacts ones on ones life does not make it important , it impacts on their life but it bothers them not making it unimportant to them ."
This is false, one cannot make their experience of suffering insignificant. One can potentially avoid or alleviate suffering, but they cannot cause their experience of the suffering to not be significant. To be clear, the significance of the lack of a healthy diet is created by the associated negative experiences and possible death of the entity.
"Regarding ones own experience being important to one that depends solely on the importance you give any given experience ."
You cannot cause your experience to not have significance. Once again, you can alleviate or avoid suffering but you cannot change it's significance. Note that suffering isn't pain, it's experience that is negative in valence. It's possible, as with masochists, to enjoy pain, but it's not possible to enjoy suffering.
It's not false , you keep shifting the goalposts as it's now changed into suffering and its significance .
I used to have an unhealthy diet and it had little or no importance to me at the time , I didn't suffer either or had no experience of suffering ; what you're attempting to do is to tell me it should have held importance to me because it was unhealthy and doing me damage .
Of course you can cause your experience to have no significance everything is giving importance by us and how much importance we give to each experience ; also you're incorrect when you say suffering is negative , some of the greatest lessons learned in life come through suffering
"It's not false , you keep shifting the goalposts as it's now changed into suffering and its significance ."
The post I was responding to (that you in turn responded to) was about the significance of the experience of conscious entities.
"I used to have an unhealthy diet and it had little or no importance to me at the time , I didn't suffer either or had no experience of suffering ; what you're attempting to do is to tell me it should have held importance to me because it was unhealthy and doing me damage ."
What I'm saying is that if one has an unhealthy diet and believes that it isn't of any significance (importance), it doesn't change that it is significant because it eventually leads to health problems. These health problems cause negative experience (and possibly death) which is why the diet itself was significant, regardless of our recognition.
"Of course you can cause your experience to have no significance everything is giving importance by us and how much importance we give to each experience"
You're jumping into a conversation late so I don't blame you for misunderstanding. Our own experience has a significance that we cannot change. Now, one could fail to have a positive experience from a phenomena that would usually elicit a positive experience, but one cannot fail to enjoy a positive experience.
"also you're incorrect when you say suffering is negative , some of the greatest lessons learned in life come through suffering"
I completely agree, but we're talking about the negative experience in and of itself. We're discussing it as an isolated phenomenon, without any of the good or bad effects that it may have on future experience. I conceptualized morality in the below debate which is where this discussion started. Negative experiences that cause one to learn and thereby have a net positive effect through affecting future outcomes are a net good. I talk about this and more in my original post in this debate:
Yes Winston I know that , I was merely addressing the point you made regarding importance , your comment was .......
Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important. One can fail to acknowledge the importance of something, yet it will still be important...........
You're changing the term importance into significance , but either way you are still incorrect because whether an unhealthy diet leads to health problems , it's not important to one if one does not see it as so
Going on your logic the same criteria can be used by vegetarians opposed to meat eating , anti abortion supporters etc ,etc .
Winston I'm misunderstanding nothing I'm merely addressing one point you made ; also on your last point I was addressing once again the one point as in your claim .... suffering is negative which I don't agree with
"You're changing the term importance into significance ,"
The only reason I used the word importance instead of significance was because Mack used it to mean significance. They are synonyms though I prefer the word significance in this context.
"but either way you are still incorrect because whether an unhealthy diet leads to health problems , it's not important to one if one does not see it as so "
Until they experience illness, which is a negative experience and as we know the magnitude and valence of one's experience has intrinsic significance/importance (even if you don't agree that it's objective). As such it is important, regardless of their recognition, because they cannot cause their experience of ill-health and death to be unimportant to them.
"I was addressing once again the one point as in your claim .... suffering is negative which I don't agree with"
In and of itself it's negative though, right? I agree that suffering can be completely necessary and incredibly beneficial which is why I referenced the initial debate where I go into this. However if we take suffering in and of itself, without any positive side-effects, it's negative.
Your statement was ......Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important. One can fail to acknowledge the importance of something, yet it will still be important...........
If I insert the word significant iinstead of important I still maintain my position is correct .
You say ..... until they experience illness ....again this is totally shifting the goalposts , if I go through life not in the least worried about my diet only to be told several years later I'm very ill and it was brought on by a poor diet I'm now confronted by facts I was unaware of which are of significance now .
You keep saying ' regardless of their recognition ' this is untrue if they do not have recognition of their condition how can they acknowledge it ?
But we cannot take suffering in and of itself without analysing and attempting to understand it , isn't that what humans do as in try to make sense of experiences that trouble them ?
"You say ..... until they experience illness ....again this is totally shifting the goalposts , if I go through life not in the least worried about my diet only to be told several years later I'm very ill and it was brought on by a poor diet I'm now confronted by facts I was unaware of which are of significance now ."
It's not shifting the goalposts, it's demonstrating how one can fail to recognize that something is important to them. If something has a delayed effect that results in significance then it has a second-order significance. Perhaps a clearer example would be someone who has no friends because they drive everyone away with an annoying habit. They may think that whether they continue the annoying habit or not is insignificant, yet their lack of friends causes them suffering and therefore is significant. As such the annoying habit has second-order significance despite their recognition of it's significance (actually third-order, since their conscious experience is the source of the significance). This is because the annoying habit is causing their lack of friends which in turn is causing them to suffer and their suffering is significant (at the least to them).
"You keep saying ' regardless of their recognition ' this is untrue if they do not have recognition of their condition how can they acknowledge it ? "
My whole point is that significance doesn't have to be recognized to exist. Surely it is significant (at the very least to oneself) whether one suffers or experiences pleasure?
"But we cannot take suffering in and of itself without analysing and attempting to understand it , isn't that what humans do as in try to make sense of experiences that trouble them ?"
I completely agree but rather than viewing it holistically in this instance I'm looking at suffering with a reductionist approach. I do also give a holistic view in my OP on the debate I linked previously.
You say ......It's not shifting the goalposts, it's demonstrating how one can fail to recognize that something is important to them.......
But again it's not important to them as they attach no importance to it ; there are plenty of things in life one may not recognise as important and therefore they are indeed unimportant to them as in they give it no further thought .
For something to be important would mean we are constantly aware of it until we do something about it .
We give things significance , if we do not recognise the significance of something , to us it's not significant because we do not give it recognition .
"But again it's not important to them as they attach no importance to it ; there are plenty of things in life one may not recognise as important and therefore they are indeed unimportant to them as in they give it no further thought ."
This can happen, but I gave examples where they would be wrong in their assessment of the significance of something.
"For something to be important would mean we are constantly aware of it until we do something about it .
We give things significance , if we do not recognise the significance of something , to us it's not significant because we do not give it recognition ."
We are incapable of causing our own suffering/pleasure to be insignificant and therefore things which affect our conscious experience have a second-order significance. This is whence everything derives significance from; it's relationship to conscious experience.
You can be wrong in your assessment of something this is true , but this has no bearing on how important something is or is not to you , as I keep saying it is us who give our experiences significance.
I feel we are going around in circles at this stage and will leave it at that for now
Are we really moral? Or is that just a mental defense mechanism? Nobody thinks they're the bad guy. Even the Nazis thought god was on their side. Even ISIS thinks eradicating infidels is the ultimate good deed.
I propose that we're not moral creatures at all. We are social creatures, so we have every have every selfish reason to be civil to those around us. But in a wider scope? I think how we define morality is based on our ideals as individuals and as a species. Some people think that our purpose is to worship a higher power, to such a degree that they'll kill nonbelievers and believe that to be justified. Some people believe that their country holds ultimate authority, and have no problem slaughtering civilians for the sake of a war over oil or some shit. Our morality, I think, is based on what ends justify what means for what ultimate purpose, and that is subjective from individual to individual. Maybe the people who say they're moral because they don't kill people over petty differences are just using what they think is "the moral high ground" as a pedestal, to feel superior- maybe they're just as selfish as everyone else.
People believe what they have to in order to justify animal behavior. We didn't have the witch hunts because we believed in witches, we believed in witches so we could have witch hunts.
