I think I understand it more as an acknowledgment of a world of being outside of subjectivity. As far as I can see a move like that is needed in order to escape utilitarianism and solipsism (D.C. Schindler writes beautifully about this and calls it “misology”).

I don’t think we can continue to deny that what humans care about is not implicitly part of all of our rational systems. I see where the concern about mysticism arises, but I also tend to think that once we enter into serious thought about these questions we are properly in mystical or religious territory and that’s ok.

I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether, because the modern meaning is more confusing than quantum mechanics.

I prefer the phrase "To each their own".

Different people need different things to live a good life, equality is meaningless if you give everyone the same thing but still cant fulfill people's specific needs, it would be a huge waste and inefficient.

Equality has become a buzzword that lazy activists use to demand for vague utopian goals that are detached from reality and they dont wanna do the actual hard work of finding out what specific people actually need.

>Nothing is ever "required"

I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic.

>No, because "should" is a myth.

Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective. What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious. But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do. If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say.

>i.e. me being evil and immoral.

This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm). I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence. If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective.

>"Do they?"

Yes.

>"What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence?"

The definition for the Sun used to involve "orbits the Earth" so I will say this instead:

You know what they are. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy is not benevolence.

>"In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound."

I disagree. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.

>"Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is."

No, because "should" is a myth.

>"If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad"

You mean "morally good" and "morally bad"? Why would I bother with that? I already have this: Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.

Why would I involve it being "objectively morally bad" when "bad" immediately leans into subjective thought, "Objectively bad for what? The arms? The victim's feelings? The universe? Social coexistence?" In other words: Bad has to do with consequences (which leads into the idea of utilitarianism) or it has to do with (for lack of better phrasing) universal "laws" (which leads into the idea of deontology).

>"but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective."

Nothing is ever "required", "requirement/need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "require" air to avoid becoming a drowned corpse, he desires to avoid it and can't avoid it without air consequentially he desires air. The "requiring" is just a fictional relationship in his imagination.

Totally equality would mean everyone is literally the same person. That's not desirable or even possible. Too much inequality, however, and people have a hard time relating to one another, which inhibits social cohesion.

Using metaphors to describe elusive truths might be useful, but doesn't it lead to mysticism or religion where both end up having their own specific instructions on truth debatted among its priests and scolars ?

Also, relying on emotions to build the foundations of truth might seem dangerous, especially in our current context where our perceptions are altered by engagement-driven algorythms. It feels "good" and it feels "right" to hate the enemy, whether they are libs, republicans, taliban or anyone from another tribe.

Maybe we need reason now more than ever before. And that's not an invitation to hardcore utilitarism either. But instead having the courage to say : "I don't know what that is" instead of using metaphorical shortcuts to comfortable truths.

>benevolence and malevolence exist objectively

Do they? What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence? In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound. Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is. The existence of benevolence or malevolence has no effect on this. If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad, but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective.

Summary: Many have proposed their own justifications for fundamental human equality (rational faculties, moral sense, homicidal capabilities, something metaphysical etc.), although all are insufficient in some way. Yet equality is still not a useful fiction, as others have argued. What we have in equal capacity is our conscious freedom—our experience of agency. This equal freedom ensures that we are equal when bargaining in the social contract. Yet this is the limits to the extent of human equality, as inequalities can be justified in the social contract.

Of course there is. A 6 year old has bodily autonomy.

Yet I'm not forced to donate organs to save them.

>"In what way does it exist outside of the mind?"

In a nutshell; benevolence and malevolence exist objectively hence good and evil exist objectively hence morality (moral and immoral) exists objectively.

>"Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans."

The concept of the horse is not the same thing as the horse.

And arguably a dinosaur choosing to eat another dinosaur alive when it could kill it was strictly speaking evil.

>"If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?"

The same way it always exists; Rape would be immoral because it would be evil because it would be malevolent. That there is no longer anyone in existence to be malevolent or benevolent does not erase that from reality. Nor did organic life bring it into reality, it was always there.

Kind of like... hmm... "Organic life would grow because organic life would have genetics." Organic life actually existing is irrelevant.

In what way does it exist outside of the mind? Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans. If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?

3 of them, if you're Catholic

In the (or a) knowledge version of the surprise quiz paradox, we ask whether the student can know there will be a surprise during a certain finite period. Suppose the student knows at the outset (Monday). Suppose he then knows at the end of Thursday that there’s been no quiz. Can we then rule out Friday as a quiz day by deducing that the student knows there’ll be a quiz Friday?

The critical question is what the student knows on Thursday. Does the student know everything he knew on Monday? If just some, what specifically does he know?

The argument is alluring because we have just supposed the student knows various things on Monday. There’s probably some convention about hypotheticals that if you suppose an aspect of the setup it remains supposed. So the argument assumes that at the end of Thursday it remains supposed that the student knows there’ll be a surprise quiz this week.

Supposing the student knows on Thursday there’ll be a surprise quiz this week, and none has happened, it does follow that the student knows there’ll be a quiz on Friday. But it also follows that the student doesn’t know there’ll be a quiz Friday. Since the student knows the quiz will be a surprise, and knowledge that P entails P, it follows that the quiz will be a surprise. So a contradiction follows: the student knows there’ll be a quiz and not-(the student knows there’ll be a quiz).

That’s no skin off the student’s back. He’s trying to show knowledge of a surprise quiz is impossible. Deriving a contradiction from a supposition is a great way to way to show the supposition is false.

But the real lesson is that we’ve granted the student too much. It is a convention of made up situations that if they are made up some way, they remain made up that way. But there’s no requirement that suppositions remain constant. We just can’t add the supposition that the student knows there has been no quiz by Thursday to the supposition that he knows there’ll be a surprise quiz. The student can’t know all of that. The student can’t know [(there’ll be a quiz this week) & there hasn’t been a quiz by Thursday & I don’t know in advance the day the quiz will happen on].

Just b/c it’s possible to know there’ll be a surprise quiz on Monday, it doesn’t follow that it’s also possible to know there’s a surprise quiz etc. on Thursday.

Kripke says you tweak the scenario so that the student knows axiomatically that there’ll be a quiz. In that way he knows some of what he knew Monday, but not all. He knows the important part from the perspective of inferring that he knows there’ll be a quiz on Friday. He knows there’ll be a quiz this week. So then he knows there’ll be a quiz Friday.

Why should we care about this setup? What seemed intriguing to many of us was the possibility of proving lack of knowledge with a setup that more or less tracks life.

I will look up to this piece. Never heard of her.

>"Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review."

Not at all, you're missing my point; If you're not even awake enough to actually correctly read the sense of myth I cited or take on board anything I've said about concepts then you're giving me no indication that you're trying for anything but to troll with feigned ignorance and strawman arguments.

>"I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical."

I didn't say they were*, I'm saying you're (possibly deliberately) misreading what I've said and asking for proof that belongs in a different conversation ("Is everything an illusion?")

>"These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study!"

Yes, but you're clearly not understanding why I shrug them off in terms of this conversation.

>"That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me."

What do I care? I'm saying I don't care what club you're in in terms of this conversation because that has no bearing on there being inconsistencies in what I've said.

>"In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic!"

I know but what do I care? Rape is objectively evil, it still would be if there were only two lifeforms in the universe or zero lifeforms in the universe. And I've more or less said that already so it was decidedly not without argument.

>"Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?"

That depends on which conclusion is in question.

>"For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter."

I didn't say you were doing that particularly or for that particular reason.

>"I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either."

I didn't say you prompted me to break down any rudimentary concepts for you so that's more (deliberate?) misreading from you. I said "prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth."

In other words, I had already broken down the rudimentary concept of myth.

>"I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.".

That crux is you've been Mr Magoo from the getgo and all throughout and never getting to any actual inconsistencies due to just trying to invoke neighboring but irrelevant philosophical issues.

In other words: Brother, you asked me to prove horses are real. So asking I prove atoms and radiation are real when I was saying breaking a mirror unleashing seven years bad luck is not the same as splitting the atom unleashing radiation, the former is a fiction and a myth. You said "I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical." You said this with a straight face?

• Until now.

The symbolism is strong, but the engeneering is stronger

Having pre-determined responses/judgements for some things, helps you with being consistent and removes the mental load of having to make a decision.

That’s why the foundation is the first thing to start.

When Iris Murdoch published The Sovereignty of Good, she no longer believed in moral philosophy. During English philosophy's linguistic turn, large parts of our moral vocabulary were thrown out. Systems of ethics were contrived to take the place of good and evil. It was such a dead end that Murdoch left Oxford to spend the next few decades writing novels instead.

Before she went, she gathered three of her essays together in The Sovereignty of Good, arguing that moral philosophy must embrace metaphor and emotion. We won't learn much by thinking about moral behaviour in terms of an unhindered will that bursts into the world at explicit moments of choice. Rather, it is how we think about and look at the world that conditions how we behave: "visible acts of will" emerge in ways which "are often unclear and often dependent on the condition of [our psyche] in between the moments of choice."

Instead of rationalising every choice and action, Murdoch invites us to still our minds and attend to the world that exists apart from us. That is the only motive we need to be good. Once we witness the light shining through reality, we are drawn to imitate or attain it. Having personally observed certain broadly manifested concepts--truth, justice, greed, etc.--we develop an idiosyncratic vocabulary to understand them. This is where we need metaphors. Philosophy can help us to examine and clarify them.

Though goodness may elude us, having acknowledged its distant star we may begin the journey towards it, seeking "a distant transcendent perfection, a source of uncontaminated energy, a source of new and quite undreamt-of virtue."

It’s not one of the commandments. Half of the commandments are about God himself.

BTW none of the commandments forbid rape or slavery out child abuse.

Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review. I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical. These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study! That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me.

In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic! Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?

For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter. I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either. I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.

In any case, if this be the beginning of your philosophical journey, then I implore you to at least entertain other ideas and continue to examine your own; if this be the end, then I hope there is peace in your resolute thoughts.

The argument against that would be that the value is on the capacity of consciousness and that sleeping people can be brought back to a state of consciousness. But yeah, we could debate this for hours.

>"I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments"

Okay, I see that.

>"- better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement."

Would it be a "value statement" to say that we navigate better when we are not hallucinating things that are not there? I don't think so, seems to be more about the nature of what navigation is to me. Kind of like seeing works better if you're not cutting your eyes with a razor blade at the time.

>"Prove this."

No. You know what a horse is. There are only about seven things we can know for certain exists beyond doubt i.e. not as parts of some 'The Matrix-type illusion' but this is not a conversation about "Are we on a planet or more like brains in a jar fed sensory data?"

>"Another assumption."

(sigh) No, it is not. Imagine we went extinct then a hundred years later aliens land and pick up a Superman comic. They decipher English and begin to grasp it is about a humanoid from another planet that came to this planet and from its Sun gained powers beyond the local humanoids. Communication is the sharing of concepts. Concepts are one of the few indestructible things there are. They can be lost to us physical beings but they can never be destroyed.

>"Another assumption."

No, rape is evil, this is not something just in our minds, that is objective fact. It would remain true if we humans went extinct and then ages later some other species got the exact same sapience as us and rape existed just like now. 'Rape is evil' would remain true today even if all life in the universe had gone extinct a very long time ago.

>"It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism"

I don't care about labels and clubs like that.

>"I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours."

I don't care about "philosophical minds of the past". I don't care if it was David Hume that said "You cannot get an ought from an is" or someone else, what I care about is what that means and how it fits with what else I understand about the truth.

>"This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object."

What do I care, if you can't even follow the logic of the person you are speaking with without going "You can't say that is fact because no one can prove it." and "Those are assumptions you're making, you can't possibly know them to be facts." etc.?

>"More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be."

Nothing ever "must" be done. Our ancestors could have gone sterile and our species would be extinct by now.

>"Where did I say I was smarter than you,"

You didn't.

>"and how is that even relevant?"

Did you just skim my last post for things to go "Prove it." and "No one can know that yet and no one might never figure it out." about?

>"The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas."

I wasn't talking about your ideas, I was (obviously) talking about your post prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth. Observe;

You said this: "You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."

This, what you were referring to, was what I cited: "A myth is a fiction believed by a large number of people (in the present or in the past) to be a non-fiction."

It's right there: or in the past. The past includes ancient Greece.

So your ideas (or them getting special credence) have zip to do with you making me go "Did this person leave their brain at home or am I being trolled with feigned ignorance?"

>"The ideas should have merit on their own,"

"Should" is a myth. And I guess "merit" would be too since it would be a form of "deserving" which is (drum roll) another myth.

>"and “stand trial” as you say."

I don't think that's the same as what I was referring to. I was referring to them standing trial to be decided as fiction or non-fiction, not if they "merit" something. But I guess you don't mean it like that, you mean in terms of plausibility and truth in which case I take it back, it is the same.

>"Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect."

That on other hand is wise of you. I hope that is true of me as well.

>"The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid."

I was not saying you were incoherent.

Nah I just live on an moral hammock in the ethical tropics. If a storm knocks down my tree I'll just tie to another.

There's no rules. Do whatever you want. People have succeed doing the complete opposite of what other successful people do and vice versa. It's all random sh*t.