How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

If God designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by God?

If it's immoral to make non-autotrophs, to have these "flawed" elements, or to die/go extinct, then God would be immoral. I don't see how those are necessarily immoral, but I'm open to hearing your case for them being so.

[Compassionist]

How can I or you or anyone else know anything objectively? My knowledge that I live on a planet is 100% subjective. I know that I live on a planet because I see the planet. I also saw the curvature of the planet while flying in planes. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. While it is possible that what we perceive through our senses is actually real. It is equally possible that they are simulations or hallucinations or dreams. I can't figure out how anyone can know anything objectively.

If all of this is a hallucination or simulation or dream, then this planet is subjective. If not, then it is objective. But if it is a hallucination or simulation or dream, there are still objective truths that could, conceivably, be known (who is dreaming, how the simulation is being run, etc.). We may not be the ones with such knowledge, but there is still the possibility of knowing something objectively even in those situations.

Given the fact that all our knowledge comes through our sensory perceptions, how can we know anything objectively? If our perceived reality is a simulation, how would we know how the simulation is being run?

[The Tanager]

Given the fact that all our knowledge comes through our sensory perceptions, how can we know anything objectively? If our perceived reality is a simulation, how would we know how the simulation is being run?

If our perceived reality is a simulation, then we probably would never know, unless we could get outside of it. Thats a big if, though, that I dont think is the most reasonable position to take as its the least parsimonious option. Thus, its more reasonable to believe we arent in a simulation unless evidence to the contrary can be presented.

That our knowledge comes through our sensory perceptions does not mean our knowledge is subjective. Of course we have access to our sensory perceptions and not someone elses. We are still sensing the world outside of us (at least unless it can be shown they arent working correctly). Our sensation is not a result of our personal feelings, tastes, or opinions (thats subjectivity), but on information outside of us (objectivity).

[Compassionist]

Given the fact that all our knowledge comes through our sensory perceptions, how can we know anything objectively? If our perceived reality is a simulation, how would we know how the simulation is being run?

If our perceived reality is a simulation, then we probably would never know, unless we could get outside of it. Thats a big if, though, that I dont think is the most reasonable position to take as its the least parsimonious option. Thus, its more reasonable to believe we arent in a simulation unless evidence to the contrary can be presented.

That our knowledge comes through our sensory perceptions does not mean our knowledge is subjective. Of course we have access to our sensory perceptions and not someone elses. We are still sensing the world outside of us (at least unless it can be shown they arent working correctly). Our sensation is not a result of our personal feelings, tastes, or opinions (thats subjectivity), but on information outside of us (objectivity).

Please see

We can't know whether our sensory perceptions are actually of a real world outside us or are simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams. It is simply impossible to know unless we are able to exit the simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams. It is possible that death provides us with that exit. I look forward to dying and finding out.

[Diogenes]

If God designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by God?

If it's immoral to make non-autotrophs, to have these "flawed" elements, or to die/go extinct, then God would be immoral. I don't see how those are necessarily immoral, but I'm open to hearing your case for them being so. [emphasis applied]

Yes, if a 'God' made animals knowing they would have to tear each other apart in order to survive, thereby unnecessarily introducing constant pain and terror to 'his creation,' then such a conscious creator must be an immoral god. Compassionist's question well shows the impossibility of positing a 'good' god as a conscious creator of all life on Earth.

Rather than steer us toward the idea of a god creating all and defining "right and wrong," the question reveals the fact there is no such God as is anthropomorphically described in the Bible, particularly in the Genesis creation myth. Fortunately we need do no violence to the laws of nature or logic to discover where morality comes from. 'Morality,' our sense of what is 'right and wrong,' comes from natural, evolutionary forces that gave certain social species a survival advantage from cooperation. At the lowest level, these 'morals' are only applied (and only make sense) within the species, or within the tribe (a social unit within a species).

Since the time of animal husbandry and the discovery much later, that nearly everything that happens on the planet affects all other organisms, there has been pressure to develop a more universal morality that goes beyond tribe and even beyond species. Jesus of Nazareth was one of the first religious leaders to recognize morality should be applied cross tribally ("everyone is your neighbor"). Even animals have developed a basic morality similar to that of humans.*

And some animals, like Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris, have developed morals or rules that foster at least symbiotic relationships that offer advantages to cooperating species.


_______________________

*... the empirical data, particularly what scientists have learned over the past two decades about cognition and emotion in a broad range of animal species, are highly suggestive, and moral terminology ("empathy," "fairness," "altruism") is already regularly used in the context of scientific discourse.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/can-animals-be-moral/

[Compassionist]

If God designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by God?

If it's immoral to make non-autotrophs, to have these "flawed" elements, or to die/go extinct, then God would be immoral. I don't see how those are necessarily immoral, but I'm open to hearing your case for them being so.

Autotrophs don't consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are ethical. Heterotrophs consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are unethical. Since God allegedly made unethical heterotrophs, God is evil.

Our imperfections harm us. Since God allegedly made us imperfect, God is evil.

Imperfections made 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth go extinct. Since God allegedly made imperfect organisms, God is evil.

[The Tanager]

What in that video do you see as good evidence for simulation theory to overcome it being less parsimonious? I agree its logically possible, but logically possible is not enough. The possible proof offered in the video (that I could see) was:

(1) Without much support, the claim that theistic and physical theories are confusing and that what "does make sense" is that the universe was sitting there dormant until someone, somewhere decided to boot up a program.

Theories can be confusing to people, sure, but they can also be understood. And all of space-time sitting dormant and then something within that space-time deciding to boot up a program is nonsense. If its sitting dormant, nothing could decide to do anything, much less boot things up.

(2) That false memories and deja vu can be explained by simulation theory. Yes, these areas dont disprove simulation theory, but thats not the task of the simulation theorist. The presenter even admits there are other perfectly good explanations of this that dont rely on simulation theory.

(3) The lack of extraterrestrial life is evidence for simulation theory because of some probabilistic calculations some people have made. Probability isnt a proof of truth.

(4) Some scientific laws, like a cap to the speed of light, is a good way to keep your sim from messing up. Again, the cap doesnt disprove simulation theory, but its not evidence for it against other theories, which are also logically consistent with it.

(5) Reality has "computer code" and math written into it. These are clearly metaphors; scientists arent saying you cut something open and see literal computer coding and mathematical equations. If true, this would possibly be evidence against atheism, but not in favor of simulation over intelligent design.

(6) The double-slit experiment proves simulation theory. This one needs better explaining as to why. First, Im not convinced everything is being understood and explained correctly. Second, there needs more explanation as to how other theories cant account for it.

(7) You cant disprove simulation theory. This is not a good reason to prove simulation theory.

Six of these are definitely not good reasons. One of them (#6) is unclear to me at the moment.

[The Tanager]

Autotrophs don't consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are ethical. Heterotrophs consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are unethical. Since God allegedly made unethical heterotrophs, God is evil.

Our imperfections harm us. Since God allegedly made us imperfect, God is evil.

Imperfections made 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth go extinct. Since God allegedly made imperfect organisms, God is evil.

Yes, if a 'God' made animals knowing they would have to tear each other apart in order to survive, thereby unnecessarily introducing constant pain and terror to 'his creation,' then such a conscious creator must be an immoral god. Compassionist's question well shows the impossibility of positing a 'good' god as a conscious creator of all life on Earth.

These assume that such causing of pain is immoral. Why do you think that?

[Diogenes]

Autotrophs don't consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are ethical. Heterotrophs consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are unethical. Since God allegedly made unethical heterotrophs, God is evil.

Our imperfections harm us. Since God allegedly made us imperfect, God is evil.

Imperfections made 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth go extinct. Since God allegedly made imperfect organisms, God is evil.

Yes, if a 'God' made animals knowing they would have to tear each other apart in order to survive, thereby unnecessarily introducing constant pain and terror to 'his creation,' then such a conscious creator must be an immoral god. Compassionist's question well shows the impossibility of positing a 'good' god as a conscious creator of all life on Earth.

These assume that such causing of pain is immoral. Why do you think that?

For the same reason even animals as well as all healthy humans do; we have empathy. We have a consciousness complex enough that we can (and often against our will, do) 'feel' another's pain because we imagine ourselves experiencing the same pain. "Pain" is defined as pain/discomfort, agony, suffering that is unnecessary. Because of our sense of empathy and reciprocity (shared by other animals) we see the gratuitous infliction of pain as evil.
If the pain or discomfort is necessary, such as the discomfort we can feel with exertion and lactic acid buildup in the muscles is not seen as immoral, but a necessary by product of something beneficial.

The problem with the 'God as good and creator' motif is that such an all powerful 'good' God would have been able to create animals that did not cause pain in order to live.

In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

https://www.livescience.com/24802-anima ... -book.html

Because even animals and virtually all human cultures share this same distaste for inflicting pain unnecessarily, we can accept this as a 'universal moral principal.' We don't need the invention of a 'god' to define morality. All we need is observation + logic. No magical or religious thinking is necessary.

[The Tanager]

For the same reason even animals as well as all healthy humans do; we have empathy. We have a consciousness complex enough that we can (and often against our will, do) 'feel' another's pain because we imagine ourselves experiencing the same pain. "Pain" is defined as pain/discomfort, agony, suffering that is unnecessary. Because of our sense of empathy and reciprocity (shared by other animals) we see the gratuitous infliction of pain as evil.
If the pain or discomfort is necessary, such as the discomfort we can feel with exertion and lactic acid buildup in the muscles is not seen as immoral, but a necessary by product of something beneficial.

The problem with the 'God as good and creator' motif is that such an all powerful 'good' God would have been able to create animals that did not cause pain in order to live.

What is your argument that it is unnecessary? We are talking about a complex world with the possibility of free will, of the limitations of matter, of the possible aims a creator could have that may outweigh other types of creations, etc. What is your argument that such cause of pain is unnecessary?

Because even animals and virtually all human cultures share this same distaste for inflicting pain unnecessarily, we can accept this as a 'universal moral principal.' We don't need the invention of a 'god' to define morality. All we need is observation + logic. No magical or religious thinking is necessary.

Why would blind evolution result in a universal moral principle unless there is moral truth built into reality, which goes against the theorys view that specific design isnt built into anything? But even putting that aside, the result of a universally shared moral principle among human cultures would NOT [*edited] give us objective morality. Atheism leads to morality being akin to music tastes; it would be completely subjective.