0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 02:25:10The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. And there's the nub of the problem. One conscious entity could indeed have a unique goal, but there is no evidence that two such entities can share the same goal because life (which I think must precede consciousness, however you define that) is essentially competitive.
The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity.
The notion of wholly collaborative identical twins alone in a hostile universe is more like science fiction or philosophy than practical ethics. I have no time for either genre of fiction.
So is your simplified universe infinitely and benignly resourced, or hostile?
Most of the universe is frankly indifferent to anything you might describe as a conscious being.
Is there a way to put this blog on ignore so it does not show up when I look at unread posts? When I click the box under the "ignore topic" it doesn't seem to do anything.
As far as we know, the only things that could fit that description are a transient phenomenon on the surface film of a rock in a very minor galaxy. The serious physics and chemistry are going on elsewhere.
That's why I said that most part of universe is hostile to conscious beings. I don't think that causing almost instant death can be classified as indifferent.
There is a significant distinction. Hostility implies intent, or at least the existence of an agent. Most of the universe is a vacuum which clearly cannot sustain life and will quickly kill most if not all living things because life depends on transpiration, but you can't consider an infinite nothingness to have agency or intention. Even among the very stupid you can distinguish between an indifference to illegal immigrants (no benefits, let them starve) and Teresa May's hostile environment (hunt then down and deport them, even if they are not actually immigrants).
No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.
No,
Quote from: Just thinking on 18/06/2021 22:46:53No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.I'm sorry to have missed this one. Could you please elaborate what your reasoning? What do you mean by love? What do you mean by respect? Why a moral standard must be derived from love? Why a moral standard must be derived from respect? What would you do in case they are conflicting to each other? Why a moral standard must not be derived from something else?
as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.
Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard
first blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion.
The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.
Quote from: Just thinking on 20/06/2021 09:26:23as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.You should know that the existence of many bad things doesn't prove that good things don't exist. You can prove the nonexistent of something by demonstrating that its existence creates logical contradiction, such as married bachelor.