https://youtu.be/wgsBtYDHcaU

what philosophy books do you recommend for a beginner? and fyi im currently reading the courage to be disliked!

I'm reading and writing about Nietzsche's Death of God and the ethical systems preceding the enlightenment. One major problem that we face is the lack of, for the lack of a better term, "grounding" of current moral system. Consider the three major ethical traditions now

Utilitarianism - Any high level version i.e. Rule Utilitarianism will collapse into Act Utilitarianism

Deontology - Lack of context in making ethical decisions

Virtue Ethics - Slightly better but still relativistic.

Furthermore, both 1 and 2 don't have axioms that appeal to fundamental moral intuitions. Before even talking about what is moral, we have to examine whether morality is objective. This is where a lot of the criticism occur especially from Moral Anti-realists or immoralists.

I believe we're looking at the issue in a different angle. We don't need to prove that Morality is objective, in its complete epistemological sense. That problem of true objectivity may never be solved. Science, for example, is reasonably objective. Mainly due to the problem of induction. If we prove that Morality is objective in an equivalent manner, there could be a ground to based it off on. Here's my Primitive Argument. Feedback very much appreciated.

Preliminaries

Let C denote the context (i.e. the circumstance being referred to). Let K be the set of knowns (i.e. everything the rational agent knows about C; sensory inputs and common virtues are examples of this). Let M denote the method grounded in rationality and H be the hypothesis i.e. a questions that has either true or false answers. The conventional usage of mathematical functions maybe used here. Either M(C, K, H) = true or M(C, K, H) = false

Virtue : A Quality deemed to be Good

Vice: A Quality deemed to be Bad

True Objectiveness : The Statement at hand is known to be true, or false, regardless of what any rational agent might ascertain.

Lemma 1: Any Scientific conclusion doesn't hold the property of "True Objectiveness"

Proof. Let's take a hypothetical context C. The knowns while using the scientific method are the senses, denoted here by K_{S}. Assume we reach a conclusion M(C,K_{S}, H), regarding hypothesis H, B for instance. Let's say a non-human being approaches with a new sense S_{N} and analyzes the context. There is very well the possibility that M(C, K_{S} + {S_{N}}, H) offers a new conclusion - B_{N}. Hence, we can't claim complete objectivity over the scientific method.

Note that this is a different way to put forth the problem of induction.

Reasonable Objectiveness : Science is assumed to be reasonably objective

Theorem 1 (The Cultural Argument): There are a set of moral knowns, M_{K} either virtues or vices, that are part of human essence

Proof. Let's outline the argument.

Premise 1: Morality is a concept that exists in human society

The idea of what one ought to do exists in society, whether the answer maybe agreed upon or differs.

Premise 2: Significant differences in Morality can be seen across different cultures

Cultures could mean anything from Religion, Tribes to even different languages. For instance, the morality of Buddhism and Islam is significantly different due to the cultural differences (religion here)

Premise 3: Throughout human cultures, a common set of virtues or vices are shared

There are cultural arguments to be placed here. But inductive anthropological evidence is already present.

Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/701478

Conclusion: Common set of moral knowns are independent of culture and therefore part of the human essence

Primitive Moral Method: The Right thing is to uphold the moral knowns, unless conflicting virtues and/or vices exist in the context.

Lemma 2: Primitive Moral Method is reasonably objective"

Proof. Suppose the primitive moral method isn't reasonably objective. That means the answer, it only applies to moral questions with answer by definition, must be conflicting dependent on observers. But both the observers can't be human, because inductive anthropological evidence dictates that they share the common virtues necessary. Hence a non-human agent who is rational has to exist with a new moral known M_{N} , that must gather new conclusions. But this is the reasonable objectivity permitted by the scientific method. Therefore, a contradiction arises. Q.E.D.

After this I have a similar argument where morality of specific context require upholding virtues embedded in that social context i.e. the telos. For instance, Schools are for learning, Hospitals are for healing etc. Here an equivalency can be drawn between this and language, similar to Wittgenstein.

Goal is to show that a moral method like that is reasonable objectivity similar to science and language. Hence if we reject it, we have to reject science and language.

Would love some feedback. Thank you!

[deleted]

>I think I actually over estimated your analytical skills.

What would you classify as narcissistic tendencies?

>How can I trust your assurances?

I have no reason to lie to some dipshit on the internet who I am only interested in communicating with at a base level for my own scientific purposes.

>You have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about anything scientific and what's worse a highly illogical mind.

But I make more than you do. So, what's that tell you about society, or really the worth of your overall opinion on the subject?

>Uh huh. Sure you did.

See the two statements above.

>you are not a nice person now.

See the three statements above.

>It's the only one you gave more than a one word answer to, and you answered with an insult.

I think I actually over estimated your analytical skills.

>I don't think that at all.

Do you eat pork? What does the Quran have to say about that?

>But not you?

no not me.

> I can assure you I do not meet the clinical definition or anything close to it.

How can I trust your assurances? You have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about anything scientific and what's worse a highly illogical mind.

>I have a plethora of Psychologists who have said so.

Do you now.

>I got sued and paid for a couple of lawyers' and multiple psychologists vacations and kids' college funds.

Uh huh. Sure you did.

>I wasn't always such a nice person.

you are not a nice person now.

>What makes you think I am defensive?

It's the only one you gave more than a one word answer to, and you answered with an insult.

What would you classify as narcissistic traits?

>and you think this being actually cares about you, what you eat, who you have sex with and why, where you touch yourself on your own body etc that's pretty narcissistic.

I don't think that at all.

>You certainly seem to be.

But not you? I can assure you I do not meet the clinical definition or anything close to it. I have a plethora of Psychologists who have said so. I got sued and paid for a couple of lawyers' and multiple psychologists vacations and kids' college funds. I do not question at all where I clinically lie on any of those scales. I wasn't always such a nice person.

Your freedom of speech ends at the point where it infringes on someone else though. Passing judgement on someone else can also be called libel, or slander.

>Why is this the question that makes you defensive?

What makes you think I am defensive?

>Do you not think you have exhibited a very clear pattern of narcissistic traits in this conversation?

Not at all.

>That people are narcissistic.

You certainly seem to be. Maybe it's a trait common in religious people. After all if you think there is some omniscient omnipresent being that created the universe and you think this being actually cares about you, what you eat, who you have sex with and why, where you touch yourself on your own body etc that's pretty narcissistic.

Freedom of speech.

Where does it explicitly say that?

>I think you know less about psychology than you know about physics.

Why is this the question that makes you defensive? Do you not think you have exhibited a very clear pattern of narcissistic traits in this conversation?

>Nonsense.

No.

>What is that?

That people are narcissistic.

The constitution of the united states.

Who endowed you with this right?

>One trait of a narcissist is that they always approach the world in very black or white thinking. Only absolutes. What do you think about that?

I think you know less about psychology than you know about physics.

>Would that be the role of god if they did exist?

No. Also god doesn't exist

>Are you the god of yourself?

no.

>I think that your position is a further leap from where humanity stands with its current knowledge of the universe than mine is.

Nonsense.

>I have my own hypothesis as to why it is the preferred stance.

What is that?

>More than zero. You have given me no respect at all.

One trait of a narcissist is that they always approach the world in very black or white thinking. Only absolutes. What do you think about that?

>I judge people like I am a human being who judges people based on the things they say and do.

Would that be the role of god if they did exist?

>I don't have a universe.

Are you the god of yourself?

>Then why do you believe such silly things?

I think that your position is a further leap from where humanity stands with its current knowledge of the universe than mine is. I have my own hypothesis as to why it is the preferred stance.

>You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?

Nope, read all the replies again, from the very top.

>These are very sweeping judgements.

They are highly specific judgements.\

>You yourself exhibit the exact opposite of everything you just described me as, no?

No.

>Why do you think it is your job and or right to pass such sweeping judgements on people?

I don't think it's my job. I do however have the right to judge anybody I want. Do you think I shouldn't have this right?

>How much respect do you think you inherently deserve?

More than zero. You have given me no respect at all.

>Have I thrown an insult or two in? Yes.

Yes you have.

>But you exist.

This is true.

>You judge people like you are god.

There is no god. I judge people like I am a human being who judges people based on the things they say and do.

>Why are you not the god of your own universe?

I don't have a universe.

>No.

Then why do you believe such silly things?

>I see no evidence of this.

I'm not interested in your opinion on this particular subject honestly. I am on the more general subject.

>You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

How much respect do you think you inherently deserve? I have certainly treated you with magnitudes more respect than you have me. Have I thrown an insult or two in? Yes.

>There is no god.

But you exist. You judge people like you are god. Why are you not the god of your own universe?

>Can you prove gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe?

No.

You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?

And yet, for those of us who do enjoy life, this is justified.

Now this puts you in something of a state if we take you at your word- you're surrounded by a planet full of psychopaths who will gleefully bring into existence those who suffer just to share what they deem a pleasure with others, generation after generation, era after era.

And yet, you wish to continue living among such sadists. Why is that?

These are very sweeping judgements. You yourself exhibit the exact opposite of everything you just described me as, no? Do you ever actually reflect on that? Why do you think it is your job and or right to pass such sweeping judgements on people?

>But I try to be.

I see no evidence of this.

>I've treated you with a lot of respect,

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>What gives you the inherent right to judge anyone? God.

There is no god.

>My only argument here is that I personally find it odd that science always comes tantalizingly close to these answers. Like 98%. But never 100%.

That's not an argument.

Can you prove gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe?

>Part of what I just said was a lie.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Huh?

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Another anti science stance I see.

>Personally, I am an empath.

I believe you believe that.

> Doesn't mean I can't have narcissistic tendencies.

Certainly not.

>I am not always a good person either as you have pointed out, but I try to be.

You are not trying hard enough.

But according to negative utilitarianism, if we just blow up earth, then nobody will ever suffer again, thus ending the problem of suffering.

The only counter against this is majority rule, as in the ok-ish lives of the majority overrule the suffering of the minority, which is something that society have been doing since forever. Though I find this argument not so convincing.