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]

That is because the earth is an object. We agree with that, correct?

I agree the Earth is an object/organized matter. I also think a strawberry is an object/organized matter. I also think the taste of a strawberry is an object/organized matter. But the shape of the Earth and the shape of the strawberry are objective features of reality, while the value of the taste of a strawberry (i.e., good or bad) is a subjective feature of reality.

The nature of reality is the reality of nature and is harsh on biological critters. Are you seriously claiming that nature is abusive and therefore wrong? (The OP certainly is suggesting that, would you agree?)
Or have you exampled "children" specifically because they are regarded as innocents?

I don’t think nature is a moral agent and so, it couldn’t be abusive.

Have you considered that this "nature of reality" re child abuse is subject only to human moral standards which are consistent with the subjective understanding/belief that it is far better not to abuse children re the overall objective wellbeing of humanity and is not something which has always been understood that way or even exampled in nature?

Yes, I have. Humans are moral agents. They should not abuse children, not because some humans have thought it shouldn’t be done, but the Creator of all designed reality in a way that humans are moral agents designed to flourish by not objectively harming other beings.

Can you showcase a perfectly unabused child in order to example this objective morality you believe exists in nature?

Morality is about what should be the case not what is the case. Why would I need to showcase an unabused child for that?

Mind is perfectly subjective.

In that, do you agree that you view God as a mind? If not, why not?

You’ve now defined in a circle. You defined ‘subject’ as mind and then, when asked to define ‘mind’ say “mind is perfectly subjective”. I can’t answer your question because your terms are not clear.

[boatsnguitars]

That is because the earth is an object. We agree with that, correct?

I agree the Earth is an object/organized matter. I also think a strawberry is an object/organized matter. I also think the taste of a strawberry is an object/organized matter. But the shape of the Earth and the shape of the strawberry are objective features of reality, while the value of the taste of a strawberry (i.e., good or bad) is a subjective feature of reality.

Really? A strawberry would taste differently in another reality? Would it be made of different chemicals? Wouldn't that make it a different fruit?
Is it an objective object or not?
And, given that the thing tasting it had objectively the same taste buds as us, why would it taste different? Chemicals are chemicals. They interact the same way.
Perhaps you are claiming that the brain of the Taster is different, but that's a given, as we all have slightly different brains (different chemicals) - but the chemical makeup of our brains is an objective fact.

I don't get to subjectively decide that I can smell like a dog.

However, I agree that each Subject has it's own Objective Nature. For more on how Primates taste:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1642694/

The nature of reality is the reality of nature and is harsh on biological critters. Are you seriously claiming that nature is abusive and therefore wrong? (The OP certainly is suggesting that, would you agree?)
Or have you exampled "children" specifically because they are regarded as innocents?

I don’t think nature is a moral agent and so, it couldn’t be abusive.

What makes humans moral agents, in your mind? (besides you believing they were made to be moral agents - which you haven't demonstrated).

Have you considered that this "nature of reality" re child abuse is subject only to human moral standards which are consistent with the subjective understanding/belief that it is far better not to abuse children re the overall objective wellbeing of humanity and is not something which has always been understood that way or even exampled in nature?

Yes, I have. Humans are moral agents. They should not abuse children, not because some humans have thought it shouldn’t be done, but the Creator of all designed reality in a way that humans are moral agents designed to flourish by not objectively harming other beings.

Yet, the Bible claims that one should beat children to keep them moral.
And, many people feel beating children is a way to keep them in line, or teach them valuable lessons about the cruelty of the world.
I don't, but it appears that your Toy Maker has given each "Toy" a subjective opinion of child abuse. (Or, there is no Toy Maker, and morals are Subjective).

Can you showcase a perfectly unabused child in order to example this objective morality you believe exists in nature?

Morality is about what should be the case not what is the case. Why would I need to showcase an unabused child for that?

So, not only do you have no evidence of your Toy Maker, or evidence the Toys understand their purpose, you can't even find one example of a Toy that 'gets it' - yet, you claim all these things.

When you don't have evidence to support your belief, it's time to change your belief.

Mind is perfectly subjective.
In that, do you agree that you view God as a mind? If not, why not?

You’ve now defined in a circle. You defined ‘subject’ as mind and then, when asked to define ‘mind’ say “mind is perfectly subjective”. I can’t answer your question because your terms are not clear.

I think he was perfectly clear and pointed out the inconsistency in your thinking. You are experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.

[The Tanager]

Really? A strawberry would taste differently in another reality? Would it be made of different chemicals? Wouldn't that make it a different fruit?
Is it an objective object or not?
And, given that the thing tasting it had objectively the same taste buds as us, why would it taste different? Chemicals are chemicals. They interact the same way.
Perhaps you are claiming that the brain of the Taster is different, but that's a given, as we all have slightly different brains (different chemicals) - but the chemical makeup of our brains is an objective fact.

I don't get to subjectively decide that I can smell like a dog.

You have misunderstood what I claimed. I was saying that strawberry does have an objective taste, yes, because of its chemical makeup. So, we agree there. But then I said “the VALUE of the taste of a strawberry (i.e., good or bad) is a subjective feature of reality.” The taste of a strawberry (an objective fact) tastes differently to different subjects unlike the shape of the Earth (an objective fact), which isn’t shaped differently to different subjects, even if one thinks it is flat and the other thinks it is round. That was the distinction I was making.

What makes humans moral agents, in your mind (besides you believing they were made to be moral agents - which you haven't demonstrated).

Give your evidence that electrons are real besides the evidence you would give for believing they are real and I’ll do what you request. I’ve already shared what I think would make something a moral agent. It’s fine that you reject that, but it’s silly to ask for me to share other reasons.

Yet, the Bible claims that one should beat children to keep them moral.
And, many people feel beating children is a way to keep them in line, or teach them valuable lessons about the cruelty of the world.

Even assuming you have understood the Bible correctly, what does the Bible have to do with this conversation?

I don't, but it appears that your Toy Maker has given each "Toy" a subjective opinion of child abuse. (Or, there is no Toy Maker, and morals are Subjective).

Yes, I agree God gives people free will.

So, not only do you have no evidence of your Toy Maker, or evidence the Toys understand their purpose, you can't even find one example of a Toy that 'gets it' - yet, you claim all these things.

When you don't have evidence to support your belief, it's time to change your belief.

I haven’t argued that God exists, so why would I have shared evidence for that? I haven’t argued that people understand their purpose, so why would I have shared evidence for that? I haven’t argued that someone gets it, so why would I have shared evidence for that?

And because I haven’t argued those things, what follows? Absolutely nothing. It is irrational for one to say what follows is that I have no evidence for such things.

On top of that, that’s not even what William and I were talking about. William asked me to show a perfectly unabused child to prove objective morality. That is completely irrelevant to proving objective morality because objective morality isn’t the belief that nothing immoral happens.

When you don’t understand the majority of points people make, it’s time to ask more questions before sharing your thoughts in response.

I think he was perfectly clear and pointed out the inconsistency in your thinking. You are experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.

Your conclusions are noted.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #611]

I agree the Earth is an object/organized matter. I also think a strawberry is an object/organized matter. I also think the taste of a strawberry is an object/organized matter. But the shape of the Earth and the shape of the strawberry are objective features of reality, while the value of the taste of a strawberry (i.e., good or bad) is a subjective feature of reality.

Which is what I was saying about lightbulbs and ideas.
An idea for a lightbulb remains an idea until it is made real by organizing matter.

Once a lightbulb is made real, it is a lightbulb. It is not an idea.

One can point at a lightbulb and agree that it was an idea which was made into a real and functionable object of organized matter. The object remains identifiable as a lightbulb, no matter its shape, size, color, or placement.

To add to that, you appear to be conflating the existence of the planet and its roundness with the existence of human morality.

I don’t think nature is a moral agent and so, it couldn’t be abusive.

It couldn't be abusive if what you think about nature is true.

Take the concept of the planet having a mind. Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

Yes, I have. Humans are moral agents. They should not abuse children, not because some humans have thought it shouldn’t be done, but the Creator of all designed reality in a way that humans are moral agents designed to flourish by not objectively harming other beings.

While this philosophy is a delightful idea to contemplate, to claim that humans are moral agents designed that way, appears false because not all humans behave as if they were.
I think the philosophy is also faulty because it is not able to see the nature of nature and thought involved with nature (subjective involved with objective). It actually takes serious thinking to understand what should or shouldn't be done in any given circumstance and avoiding all manner of abuse is extremely difficult, if not impossible - depending on one's definition of abuse.

So, thinking something ought or ought not be done is the nature of a human being, and aligns with developing reasons as to why something should be considered right or wrong. It is a thing which has to be learned, not a thing that is naturally there, otherwise we would not have to think about it at all, and would simply "do the right thing" in any and all given situations. Clearly we do not.

Clearly then, if the "Creator of all" designed objective reality and the way that human forms are designed, they are designed to be thinking agents - able to think about making the best decisions which would allow the best potential for everything to flourish by not objectively harming other beings, unless those other beings were a threat to humans, in which case, it could be wrong not to harm them.

But I don't think there is a case for the claim that humans are actually designed to be moral agents as the evidence doesn't show this to being the case, since humans are also able to be immoral agents. Thus, the claim that humans are designed by a creator to be moral agents is a logical contradiction.

Morality is about what should be the case not what is the case. Why would I need to showcase an unabused child for that?

That just digs a deeper hole because if humans were designed to be moral agents, they would be and so it would be the case.

You defined ‘subject’ as mind and then, when asked to define ‘mind’ say “mind is perfectly subjective”.

Correct. A subjective thing as is the mind, is not an object and so can only be a subject. In that, it may be possible for a mind to think objectively about itself - in the sense that "being objective" is normally understood, but even then, a mind can only be perfectly subjective about that.

[The Tanager]

Which is what I was saying about lightbulbs and ideas.
An idea for a lightbulb remains an idea until it is made real by organizing matter.

Once a lightbulb is made real, it is a lightbulb. It is not an idea.

One can point at a lightbulb and agree that it was an idea which was made into a real and functionable object of organized matter. The object remains identifiable as a lightbulb, no matter its shape, size, color, or placement.

Okay, so to try to bring it back, you speak of morals (ideas) and moral standards (writing those ideas down or speaking them), but I think there is a third thing, a moral truth that those ideas and standards can be right or wrong about. For instance, the fact abusing the child objectively damages that child’s objective health and goes against the abuser’s objective purpose as a moral agent.

Which points to a fourth thing that I would call the moral standard: the thing responsible for the objective nature and purpose, whether that is God, the Universe, or whatever.

To add to that, you appear to be conflating the existence of the planet and its roundness with the existence of human morality.

No, it’s called an analogy, when you compare two distinct things in a specific way.

It couldn't be abusive if what you think about nature is true.

Take the concept of the planet having a mind. Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

Yes, if it is a moral agent.

While this philosophy is a delightful idea to contemplate, to claim that humans are moral agents designed that way, appears false because not all humans behave as if they were.

…

But I don't think there is a case for the claim that humans are actually designed to be moral agents as the evidence doesn't show this to being the case, since humans are also able to be immoral agents. Thus, the claim that humans are designed by a creator to be moral agents is a logical contradiction.

Oh, you are understanding “moral agent” as an antonym of “immoral agent”. It’s not. The antonym of a “moral agent” is an “amoral agent”. Calling a moral agent a “moral” agent isn’t saying that agent is never immoral, but that it can make moral decisions. Those decisions could be moral or immoral. An “amoral” agent is one that can’t make either moral or immoral decisions.

Does that clear things up? Do you still think a creator designing beings to be moral agents is a logical contradiction? If so, help me see why.

Correct. A subjective thing as is the mind, is not an object and so can only be a subject. In that, it may be possible for a mind to think objectively about itself - in the sense that "being objective" is normally understood, but even then, a mind can only be perfectly subjective about that.

I'm not sure we aren't talking past each other here. Two sets of questions:

(1) Is my mind an object to your mind? Why or why not?

(2) Is Mind responsible for Earth being an object/organized matter?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #615]

Oh, you are understanding “moral agent” as an antonym of “immoral agent”. It’s not. The antonym of a “moral agent” is an “amoral agent”. Calling a moral agent a “moral” agent isn’t saying that agent is never immoral, but that it can make moral decisions. Those decisions could be moral or immoral. An “amoral” agent is one that can’t make either moral or immoral decisions.

Does that clear things up? Do you still think a creator designing beings to be moral agents is a logical contradiction? If so, help me see why.

Okay thanks for clearing that up.

It appears that the use of language is largely the reason for this confusion. Saying that a "moral" agent can be "immoral", quite rightly appears contradictory.

It appears what we are talking about is the creator designed humans to be Intentional Thinking Agents.

If you can agree to using this phrase, we can proceed and I will answer your other points and questions in my next post.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #616]

I can try to remember to use that, yes.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #617]

If you can agree to using this phrase, we can proceed and I will answer your other points and questions in my next post.

I can try to remember to use that, yes.

The important thing here is that we agree. What is being spoken of here is the creator designed humans to be Intentional Thinking Agents.

Re your for instance, the fact abusing the child objectively damages that child’s objective health and goes against the abuser’s objective purpose as an Intentional Thinking Agent.
This implies damage to both parties, would you agree?

You don’t think nature is an Intentional Thinking Agent and so, it couldn’t be abusive if what you think about nature is true.

Me: Take the concept of the planet having a mind. Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

You replied "yes", (if it were an Intentional Thinking Agent) which implies that you think some minds are not able to intentionally think.

We can focus more on that if necessary but for now I would like you to say why - if the planet were an Intentional Thinking Agent - you would think of it as abusive.

A subjective thing as is the mind, is not an object and so can only be a subject. In that, it may be possible for a mind to think objectively about itself - in the sense that "being objective" is normally understood, but even then, a mind can only be perfectly subjective about that.

I'm not sure we aren't talking past each other here. Two sets of questions:

(1) Is my mind an object to your mind? Why or why not?

(2) Is Mind responsible for Earth being an object/organized matter?

Re 1. No. You are not an object to me. I answered in that way because I do not view someone having a mind but being a mind.
Even so, I cannot see you as an object, because your mind is not easily able to be viewed by the physical restraints of my human instrument. Minds are not visible.
If I were able to scan the brain that you have, with current scientific machines, and could see activity associated with mind interaction with your brain, what I would "see" is evidence that the mind you are is physical since there is physical interaction occurring and my philosophy requires that mind has to be physical in order to interact with and organize matter.
However, I still cannot agree to therefore understand you (the mind you are) as being an object in the sense that we might agree "objects" are, and this is for the particular reason that while a mind may be physical, it is also sentient, intelligent, consciousness and objects without minds are not.

Bear in mind that while I attempt to explain this, (through the objects I have available to do so), I am aware that the dualist thinking re objectivity and subjectivity are - perhaps faulty ways in which to view reality. In that, I am open to further discussion.

What I have stated and will continue to claim, is that consciousness (sentience et al) is perfectly subjective, and so - IF minds are indeed physical, then objectively speaking, I could agree that minds are objects on the premise that all physical things are objects, even that they are subjective viewed by consciousness acknowledging their existence.

Which might have one asking why I answered "no" to your question - but as I explained, mind as object is different from all other things which are mindless objects - assuming there are objects which are mindless.

Re 2. Yes, Mind is responsible for Earth and the whole universe of organized matter.

[The Tanager]

Re your for instance, the fact abusing the child objectively damages that child’s objective health and goes against the abuser’s objective purpose as an Intentional Thinking Agent.
This implies damage to both parties, would you agree?

I agree.

You don’t think nature is an Intentional Thinking Agent and so, it couldn’t be abusive if what you think about nature is true.

Correct.

Me: Take the concept of the planet having a mind. Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

You replied "yes", (if it were an Intentional Thinking Agent) which implies that you think some minds are not able to intentionally think.

Why does thinking the planet having a mind could be thought of as abusive imply some minds are not able to "intentionally think"?

Re 2. Yes, Mind is responsible for Earth and the whole universe of organized matter.

I must be missing something in your claims because it seems to me that you believe something that is subjective can produce an objective feature of reality (what you just said above). Yet, you previously asserted that morality cannot be an objective feature of reality because it is produced by something that is subjective. That seems to contradict. Can you help me see what I’m misunderstanding about your specific two claims here?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #619]

Why does thinking the planet having a mind could be thought of as abusive imply some minds are not able to "intentionally think"?

I was just wanting to make sure that you don't think some minds are unable to intentionally think. It appears that you wouldn't argue it that way, so take from that, that if the planet had a mind, then you understand that this means that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

If this is correct, can you provide some reasons as to why this is so, and further to that say whether you think all forms of abuse are indeed "wrong".

I must be missing something in your claims because it seems to me that you believe something that is subjective can produce an objective feature of reality (what you just said above). Yet, you previously asserted that morality cannot be an objective feature of reality because it is produced by something that is subjective. That seems to contradict. Can you help me see what I’m misunderstanding about your specific two claims here?

I don't think morality (as in actually understanding what is right and wrong) can be an objective feature (a real object which can be pointed to) of reality because if it were, then we should be able to point to such as evidence of what is right and wrong, and we (humans) would not need to disagree.
Since there doesn't appear to be such an object, and since we humans collectively disagree on what is right or wrong, I conclude that no mind - including the creator's - has organized matter to show any object which we can call an example of right or wrong, that everyone could therefore agree to and know without doubt what is right from what is wrong.