What's the point of living...

[2ndRateMind]

...if one doesn't leave the world a better place?

I really think this is a key moral consideration.

If one lives out one's life for one's own pleasure, and leaves the world in no better state than one found it, what would be, objectively, the manifested purpose of one's being?

On the other hand, if one achieves some tiny, marginal, incremental improvement on society, that others can build upon in their turn, one has served humanity, even if that service does not go recognised.

So, what otherwise would be the point of living, for all you erudite contributors to this forum?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Uh huh. How can we tell what really is good? We need two things; to listen considerately to all sides of the great, democratic debate, because everyone brings their own particular wisdom and experience to it, and to love goodness. And even combined, these things will not determine goodness for us, but they will at least leave us open to appreciating it.

Listening and debating can get you what I think is good, what he thinks is good, what she thinks is good, what they think is good. How are you going get from what people agree is good, to what really is good?

I'd turn this around. The fact that someone thinks something is good, does not mean that it is not objectively good. The fact that we both understand what we mean by good, even as qualified by the adjectives subjective and objective, suggests that these are terms with purchase and traction on reality.

That much is fine. We can and should all work towards what I think is good. Just don't call it objectively good.

You have not demonstrated this, yet, or even provided any reasons why it might be so.

That's easy. Objective goodness implies objective value. Values depend on evaluator, and what depends on evaluator is by definition subjective. Furthermore, there is no difference between objectivism and subjectivism in practice. Even if there is an objective goodness, we don't know what it is. All we have to work with is, what we think really is good. And that in practice is no different to not having an objective goodness and working with what we think is good subjectively. As such objective goodness should be discarded as demanded by occam's razor because it is an extra unknown.

Or do you think it merely subjective opinion that it is generally better to die aged 78 than aged 25? And that whether this difference is progress or regress is merely more subjective opinion?

Yes. People objectively lived to an older age, and that is subjectively better. Whether this is qualify as progress or regress is merely subjective opinion. Incidentally, it is progress in my opinion.

[2ndRateMind]

Uh huh. How can we tell what really is good? We need two things; to listen considerately to all sides of the great, democratic debate, because everyone brings their own particular wisdom and experience to it, and to love goodness. And even combined, these things will not determine goodness for us, but they will at least leave us open to appreciating it.

Listening and debating can get you what I think is good, what he thinks is good, what she thinks is good, what they think is good. How are you going get from what people agree is good, to what really is good?

Uh huh. This is why I think consensus approximating objective goodness may take some time. The good is a qualitative thing, realisation of which depends on appreciation, which depends in turn on the individual being morally adequate to that qualitative judgment. It is specifically not a logical thing, which one can prove or disprove, and is or is not, and not a quantitative thing either, which one can simply measure. But the fact that the good cannot be proven or measured does not mean it is not a significant dimension of human existence, and part of our objective reality.

I'd turn this around. The fact that someone thinks something is good, does not mean that it is not objectively good. The fact that we both understand what we mean by good, even as qualified by the adjectives subjective and objective, suggests that these are terms with purchase and traction on reality.

That much is fine. We can and should all work towards what I think is good. Just don't call it objectively good.

I never did.

You have not demonstrated this, yet, or even provided any reasons why it might be so.

That's easy. Objective goodness implies objective value. Values depend on evaluator, and what depends on evaluator is by definition subjective.

Uh huh. But we are talking about the possibility of degrees of goodness that do not depend on evaluators, that simply are. The closest analogy I can think of is in aesthetics, where (one might contend) a delivered Mozart symphony is superior to a 6 year old's recorder recital. Or where a Turner water-colour just is better than some casually scribbled graffiti.

Or do you think it merely subjective opinion that it is generally better to die aged 78 than aged 25? And that whether this difference is progress or regress is merely more subjective opinion?

Yes. People objectively lived to an older age, and that is subjectively better. Whether this is qualify as progress or regress is merely subjective opinion. Incidentally, it is progress in my opinion.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. It is not merely that people who live longer think that is better, but that, on the whole, it actually is better.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

The good is a qualitative thing, realisation of which depends on appreciation, which depends in turn on the individual being morally adequate to that qualitative judgment.

That right there, means it is subjective - it depends on individuals.

It is specifically not a logical thing, which one can prove or disprove, and is or is not, and not a quantitative thing either, which one can simply measure. But the fact that the good cannot be proven or measured does not mean it is not a significant dimension of human existence, and part of our objective reality.

Not logical, cannot be proven or disproven; not quantitative, cannot be measured, these are the hallmark of subjectivism.

Uh huh. But we are talking about the possibility of degrees of goodness that do not depend on evaluators, that simply are. The closest analogy I can think of is in aesthetics, where (one might contend) a delivered Mozart symphony is superior to a 6 year old's recorder recital. Or where a Turner water-colour just is better than some casually scribbled graffiti.

But aesthetics, including music and visual art ARE subjective. Things doesn't get any more subjective than aesthetics, and if that counts as objective then nothing is subjective.

[2ndRateMind]

The good is a qualitative thing, realisation of which depends on appreciation, which depends in turn on the individual being morally adequate to that qualitative judgment.

That right there, means it is subjective - it depends on individuals.

It is specifically not a logical thing, which one can prove or disprove, and is or is not, and not a quantitative thing either, which one can simply measure. But the fact that the good cannot be proven or measured does not mean it is not a significant dimension of human existence, and part of our objective reality.

Not logical, cannot be proven or disproven; not quantitative, cannot be measured, these are the hallmark of subjectivism.

Uh huh. But we are talking about the possibility of degrees of goodness that do not depend on evaluators, that simply are. The closest analogy I can think of is in aesthetics, where (one might contend) a delivered Mozart symphony is superior to a 6 year old's recorder recital. Or where a Turner water-colour just is better than some casually scribbled graffiti.

But aesthetics, including music and visual art ARE subjective. Things doesn't get any more subjective than aesthetics, and if that counts as objective then nothing is subjective.

As I said before, the fact that I think something subjectively good, does not mean it is not also objectively good. If you cannot or will not see this, that there are qualitative considerations that bear down on humanity, and that these are quite as objective as the logical and quantitative dimensions of human experience, then I really think that there is no point in continuing this discussion further. I just pity you the conceptual poverty of your world.

Best wishes, and good night, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

As I said before, the fact that I think something subjectively good, does not mean it is not also objectively good.

And as I said before, if something is subjectively good, and you can't know what objectively good is, then objective goodness is spurious. It is an extra unknown that does not give you any more explanatory power, and should be discarded according to the principle of parsimony / Occam's razor.

You were trying to make a case for objective goodness yet everything you highlighted point towards subjective goodness. You cannot salvage that by pointing out subjective goodness doesn't preclude objective goodness.

If you cannot or will not see this, that there are qualitative considerations that bear down on humanity, and that these are quite as objective as the logical and quantitative dimensions of human experience, then I really think that there is no point in continuing this discussion further. I just pity you the conceptual poverty of your world.

Don't pity me. My world has all the same practical implications as one with objective goodness, with the added benefit of parsimony.

[2ndRateMind]

As I said before, the fact that I think something subjectively good, does not mean it is not also objectively good.

And as I said before, if something is subjectively good, and you can't know what objectively good is, then objective goodness is spurious. It is an extra unknown that does not give you any more explanatory power, and should be discarded according to the principle of parsimony / Occam's razor.

The concept of an objective goodness is far from spurious. On the contrary, in the world according to 2RM, it is a target we all ought to aim for. Whereas, for those who think goodness entirely subjective, and that any opinion is as good as any other, there is no reason why political totalitarianism, or religiously inspired extremism, or massive disparities in wealth, should be avoided. These are not objectively bad and wrong, whatever objective disbenefits they inflict on society, just a matter of the preferences of some, which are no better or worse than the preferences of some others.

You were trying to make a case for objective goodness yet everything you highlighted point towards subjective goodness. You cannot salvage that by pointing out subjective goodness doesn't preclude objective goodness.

Uh huh. But there is a certain wisdom in not mistaking the wood for the trees.

If you cannot or will not see this, that there are qualitative considerations that bear down on humanity, and that these are quite as objective as the logical and quantitative dimensions of human experience, then I really think that there is no point in continuing this discussion further. I just pity you the conceptual poverty of your world.

Don't pity me. My world has all the same practical implications as one with objective goodness, with the added benefit of parsimony.

Intellectual parsimony is only a benefit when it replaces conceptual extravagances, not when it rules out important aspects of reality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

The concept of an objective goodness is far from spurious. On the contrary, in the world according to 2RM, it is a target we all ought to aim for.

This objective goodness in practice, is no different from my personal subjective goodness. It too is a target we all ought to aim for.

Whereas, for those who think goodness entirely subjective, and that any opinion is as good as any other, there is no reason why political totalitarianism, or religiously inspired extremism, or massive disparities in wealth, should be avoided. These are not objectively bad and wrong, whatever objective disbenefits they inflict on society, just a matter of the preferences of some, which are no better or worse than the preferences of some others.

And that in practice, is no different to how different objectivists disagree on what the objective goodness is, who cannot agree on whether political totalitarianism, or religiously inspired extremism, or massive disparities in wealth, should be avoided. For all you know these things maybe objectively good and right, but either way it doesn't help when people insist that whatever disbenefits they inflict on society, is the one and only objective goodness, which is objectively better than the falsehood of others.

A side note: You said any opinion is as good as any other. This isn't true according to subjectivism. One opinion is better than another, which one is better depends on who you ask.

Uh huh. But there is a certain wisdom in not mistaking the wood for the trees.

Sure, but how long are you going to wait until you give up on the wood when all you have is a tree? You pointed out how goodness depends on individual, is not logical, is not measurable, and is analogous to aesthetics. You are doing my work for me arguing for subjective goodness.

Intellectual parsimony is only a benefit when it replaces conceptual extravagances, not when it rules out important aspects of reality.

Well, given the lack of practical difference between the two model of goodness as I point out above, objective goodness is looking very much like a conceptual extravagance, isn't it?

[2ndRateMind]

The concept of an objective goodness is far from spurious. On the contrary, in the world according to 2RM, it is a target we all ought to aim for.

This objective goodness in practice, is no different from my personal subjective goodness. It too is a target we all ought to aim for.

I dare say we should. I have enough respect for you to think that goodness according to Bust Nak may well be an improvement on the status quo. But sooner or later, as progress progresses, we are going to come across the dilemma as to whether we should continue to pursue what you think is good, as opposed to what really is good.

Whereas, for those who think goodness entirely subjective, and that any opinion is as good as any other, there is no reason why political totalitarianism, or religiously inspired extremism, or massive disparities in wealth, should be avoided. These are not objectively bad and wrong, whatever objective disbenefits they inflict on society, just a matter of the preferences of some, which are no better or worse than the preferences of some others.

And that in practice, is no different to how different objectivists disagree on what the objective goodness is, who cannot agree on whether political totalitarianism, or religiously inspired extremism, or massive disparities in wealth, should be avoided. For all you know these things maybe objectively good and right, but either way it doesn't help when people insist that whatever disbenefits they inflict on society, is the one and only objective goodness, which is objectively better than the falsehood of others.

Perhaps not. But these things will be disentangled, the subjective ideas of good, from the objective reality of good, in due course of time. Or so I believe, barring catastrophe.

A side note: You said any opinion is as good as any other. This isn't true according to subjectivism. One opinion is better than another, which one is better depends on who you ask.

Exactly. All opinions of the good carry the same weight, no matter how depraved that opinion might be.

Uh huh. But there is a certain wisdom in not mistaking the wood for the trees.

Sure, but how long are you going to wait until you give up on the wood when all you have is a tree? You pointed out how goodness depends on individual, is not logical, is not measurable, and is analogous to aesthetics. You are doing my work for me arguing for subjective goodness.

On the contrary, I have many trees, seven billion of them, or thereabouts, that being the global human population. Each tree contributes to the idea that there is, in total, a wood. And I am not doing your work for you, just conceding what is obviously true, so we don't need to debate extraneous matter.

Intellectual parsimony is only a benefit when it replaces conceptual extravagances, not when it rules out important aspects of reality.

Well, given the lack of practical difference between the two model of goodness as I point out above, objective goodness is looking very much like a conceptual extravagance, isn't it?

I still think there is a significant difference between what I might think to be good, and what you might think to be good, and what really is good. And you have yet to explain why what really is good cannot or does not exist, why all goodness is simply a matter of opinion. If objective goodness does not exist, then what, precisely, are people who disagree about what constitutes the good, disagreeing about?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

I dare say we should. I have enough respect for you to think that goodness according to Bust Nak may well be an improvement on the status quo. But sooner or later, as progress progresses, we are going to come across the dilemma as to whether we should continue to pursue what you think is good, as opposed to what really is good.

How is that different in practical terms, to making progresses and eventually coming across a dilemma as to whether we should continue to pursue what really is good according to you and what really is good according to someone else? You said objective goodness is not logical or measurable, remember? There will bound to be different conclusions of what really is good, really is. And if you can come up with a method to settle the disagreement, the same method would work equally well for settling difference in opinion of what one think is good.

Perhaps not. But these things will be disentangled, the subjective ideas of good, from the objective reality of good, in due course of time. Or so I believe, barring catastrophe.

This too is no different from most convincing, most agreeable preference rising to the top in due course of time, barring catastrophe.

Exactly. All opinions of the good carry the same weight, no matter how depraved that opinion might be.

But they don't carry the same weight though. You just put gave more weight to my opinion, over a more depraved opinion, when you granted me that goodness according to me may well be an improvement on the status quo. My opinion has more weight than one that worsen things below the status quo.

On the contrary, I have many trees, seven billion of them, or thereabouts, that being the global human population. Each tree contributes to the idea that there is, in total, a wood. And I am not doing your work for you, just conceding what is obviously true, so we don't need to debate extraneous matter.

By appealing to humanity, you are arguing for subjectivism. Concede to this obvious truth, you are thinking like a subjectivist: This wood you are seeing, is subjective goodness.

I still think there is a significant difference between what I might think to be good, and what you might think to be good, and what really is good.

Granted there is a significant difference, just not a practical one.

And you have yet to explain why what really is good cannot or does not exist, why all goodness is simply a matter of opinion.

I am standing by my earlier argument: objective goodness implies objective value, but value cannot exist without an evaluator. What depends on evaluators, is by definition subjective. Objective goodness is therefore an contradictory concept and cannot exist. You remember that part of our conversation, right?

You suggested there could be goodness that do not depend on evaluators, and as an example you referred to aesthetics. In turn I argued that it is self defeating since aesthetics do in fact depend on evaluator and hence subjective.

If objective goodness does not exist, then what, precisely, are people who disagree about what constitutes the good, disagreeing about?

When one person says vanilla tastes the best and another says chocolate is better, what are they disagreeing about? They are disagreeing on their opinion.

[2ndRateMind]

I dare say we should. I have enough respect for you to think that goodness according to Bust Nak may well be an improvement on the status quo. But sooner or later, as progress progresses, we are going to come across the dilemma as to whether we should continue to pursue what you think is good, as opposed to what really is good.

How is that different in practical terms, to making progresses and eventually coming across a dilemma as to whether we should continue to pursue what really is good according to you and what really is good according to someone else? You said objective goodness is not logical or measurable, remember? There will bound to be different conclusions of what really is good, really is. And if you can come up with a method to settle the disagreement, the same method would work equally well for settling difference in opinion of what one think is good.

Yes, I think this is key. And the answer requires a little humility both from you and from me. Neither of us, I propose, is a saint. (Let me know if you think otherwise).

But both of us have ideas about the good. I just propose that a saint's ideas about the good are more accurate than either of ours, because said saint is more acquainted with goodness than we are, possibly because he has paid a higher personal and spiritual cost to achieve goodness than either of us are prepared to contemplate for ourselves. And if said saint is so more accurate, he must be more accurate with respect to some ideal, some certain reality, that is objective goodness.

Which brings me on to the whole topic of adequacy. My contention is that objective goodness cannot be proven or measured, but can be appreciated. But it takes an adequate soul to appreciate it, and where those souls are adequate, there tends to be consensus around what objective goodness is. Human moral progress, therefore, depends not only on achieving political, economic and social objective goodness, but also on developing human ways of being, of soul development, capable of appreciating that objective goodness.

Analogously, from aesthetics, to decide, perhaps, that a vintage Chateauneuf du Pape is a better wine than last year's Beaujolais Nouveau takes a certain education of palate. And so it is with all qualitative judgments. But the fact that these judgments may differ from individual to individual is not a reflection on the quality, only on the individual's ability to appreciate that quality.

So it is with the good. If we disagree about what is actually good, it is not that objective goodness does not exist, only that not all of us are capable of appreciating it free of self-interested bias.

Best wishes, 2RM.