Life & Morality

[EverChanging]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

 

[bobhikes]

The statements about life and Good I get and I don't have a problem with them; however, how you go from Good to the basis of objective morality is very vague and I really don't see a connection.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

What sustains life, or doesn't, can be highly contextual and variable, and thus, hardly consistent or objective. It seems to be a self-negating argument, at its core. I assume the person formulating it is probably only thinking of very specific and narrow things, and hasn't fleshed it out with varying contexts and variables.

 

[Quintessence]

There are some things that seem to be missing from the argumentation. For example:

• What is "good" and "goodness?" How are these defined?
• Why is life necessary for "good?"
• What is "bad" and "badness?" How are these defined?
• Why is life necessary for "bad?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

Morality just represents cultural stability. Getting along and cooperating for mutual benefit.

I don't see how life itself would support stability or be detrimental by the way people act and do among each other.

 

[Nakosis]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

Some life is a threat to other life. So while the availability of wood in houses is good for termites it's bad for me.

So it remains relative.

I look at it terms of survival of the group. Whatever the members of that group you choose to define that group as.

Good promotes the survival of the group.
The size of the group can be one person, one family, one nation, one race, one species.

We choose arbitrarily where we place the value. The survival of the group may require the sacrifice of the individual. Therefore what's good for the group may be bad for the individual.

If the person values themselves more than the group they will do whats good for themselves. I they value the group more then they will do what's good for the group.

The problem is that there is no right or wrong when it comes to choosing what one should value more. Self, family, community, nation, race, humanity, all life. Choosing any one group as having more value can be detrimental to any of the other groups.

There's no universal good or bad that for every group. However once you've narrowing it down to a specific group you can determine what actions will promote the survival of that group.

You have to define the scope of the group before it can be determined what is moral.

 

[Yerda]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

On instict, based on what you've said, it sounds like gibberish. The definition of life is about as vague as I've ever seen.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I don't really get that. Why would life itself be the source of goodness? For me, life is amoral, as is the rest of nature, and what is "good" or "bad" depends entirely on outcome and will. Pure good pleases or heals all. Pure bad harms or hurts all. Most things are in-between.

 

[Nous]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

As Hume told us, and as G. E. Moore argued with less clarity, you can't get “ought” from “is.” The naturalistic argument is dead. It sounds to me like your philosopher friend is proposing a version of the naturalistic argument.

 

[Skwim]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

A rather stupid definition in my opinion. First of all he needs to tell you what he means by "continuity in flux" and how it functions as a definition of life.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

Another ludicrous remark---I assume your friend is a freshman philosopher.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

So now continuity in flux isn't so much life, but what sustains it? Goofier and goofier.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Then he should be able to give you a narrative of the derivation of an objective moral principle from "That which makes life continue to be": continuity in flux.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

Cut bait and row to a different philosopher. This one is talking through his hat.

.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am here attempting to express an argument made for objective morality by a philosopher friend of mine.

He defines life as continuity in flux.

Life itself is not good, but the source of goodness. Without life there could be no good or bad.

That which sustains life -- continuity in flux -- IS good.

Things are not good because they sustain life. That which makes life continue to be what it is simply IS good, and this is the basis of objective morality.

Somehow this seems circular or wrong to me. What do you think?

Not my strong suit, but it sounds like the same argument could apply for 'bad'. Or any other subjective judgement. He loses me where he suggests that things which sustain life are good, since they sustain the ability of 'good' to exist. Those same life-sustaining judgements also sustain the ability of 'bad' to exist.
Besides which, in a practical sense, how do we judge something as 'life-sustaining'? It becomes an exercise in 'the ends justifies the means'.

It's possible I am misunderstanding his argument entirely though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As Hume told us, and as G. E. Moore argued with less clarity, you can't get “ought” from “is.” The naturalistic argument is dead. It sounds to me like your philosopher friend is proposing a version of the naturalistic argument.

That's as near as I could get, too.
Sometimes it would be easier if people just shorthanded to 'Kinda like Kant, but with less emphasis on synthetic propositions', or whatever.
At least until their philosophies have evolved beyond a grab bag of ideas.

 

[VioletVortex]

There are some things that seem to be missing from the argumentation. For example:

• What is "good" and "goodness?" How are these defined?
• Why is life necessary for "good?"
• What is "bad" and "badness?" How are these defined?
• Why is life necessary for "bad?"

I think that the definition of good and bad comes down to balance. When opposing factors are out of balance, the overall situation is bad. When they are in balance, it is good. This exists on a higher level as well; one where contrasting actions occur at different times.

 

[EverChanging]

A rather stupid definition in my opinion. First of all he needs to tell you what he means by "continuity in flux" and how it functions as a definition of life.


Another ludicrous remark---I assume your friend is a freshman philosopher.


So now continuity in flux isn't so much life, but what sustains it? Goofier and goofier.


Then he should be able to give you a narrative of the derivation of an objective moral principle from "That which makes life continue to be": continuity in flux.


Cut bait and row to a different philosopher. This one is talking through his hat.

.

I should clarify that he means that life is continuity in flux and that which is good is that which sustains a life.

So a shark eating a human is good for a shark, but bad for a human, but there is still an objective basis for good and morality for each life. He also defines a flame as alive by his definition.

He says life is not itself good or bad, but the basis for good and bad.

When I ask him why that which sustains life should be considered good he simply says that it IS good and what else could good be? Sounds like nonsense to me -- it is humans that define good.

He also thinks death is bad since it ends continuity in flux and that if death is truly final morality and goodness are illusory because nothing can ever really make life be continuous (forever) which is part of his definition. Based on his definition of life (continuity in flux) he thinks it is not life's nature to die, only its practice, and there is eternal life because he can imagine it.

It all seems so stupid to me.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that the definition of good and bad comes down to balance. When opposing factors are out of balance, the overall situation is bad. When they are in balance, it is good. This exists on a higher level as well; one where contrasting actions occur at different times.

How is this balance determined? What does it look like?

(The notion of "balance of nature" doesn't gel with me well as I've studied too much ecology to believe in it - there are sometimes dynamic equilibria, but change is a constant of all natural systems)

 

[icehorse]

Borrowing from Sam Harris:

Almost all concepts of "good" and "bad" are tied to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). So that which promotes long, healthy, happy lives is "good", and that which promotes disease or unhappiness is "bad". This can't be proved, it's an axiom.

 

[Nous]

Borrowing from Sam Harris:

Almost all concepts of "good" and "bad" are tied to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). So that which promotes long, healthy, happy lives is "good", and that which promotes disease or unhappiness is "bad". This can't be proved, it's an axiom.

That's just another version of the fallacious naturalistic argument. It implies that if an asteroid were to hit the earth and wipe out all humans on the planet, that would be an immoral act. Ridiculous.

 

[icehorse]

That's just another version of the fallacious naturalistic argument. It implies that if an asteroid were to hit the earth and wipe out all humans on the planet, that would be an immoral act. Ridiculous.

As I said, WBCC is an AXIOM. And, of course forces of nature are neither moral nor immoral. No one argued that. So you response is "ridiculous".

 

[Nous]

A I said, WBCC is an AXIOM.

The pharse "well-being of conscious creatures" obviously isn't an axiom.

Again, what Harris has asserted is just another form of the naturalistic argument. "If an act is good for us "conscious creatures, then it is moral. If it bad for us conscious creatures, then it is immoral." It is an attempt to derive "ought" from "is". It implies that a asteroid that wipes out all humans would be immoral.

 

[icehorse]

The pharse "well-being of conscious creatures" obviously isn't an axiom.

Again, what Harris has asserted is just another form of the naturalistic argument. "If an act is good for us "conscious creatures, then it is moral. If it bad for us conscious creatures, then it is immoral." It is an attempt to derive "ought" from "is". It implies that a asteroid that wipes out all humans would be immoral.

Harris agrees that WBCC must be taken as an axiom. When I've heard him talk of WBCC, the first thing he says is that you have to grant him WBCC as an axiom. As far as I know, every philosophy other than pure relativism requires granting at least one - unprovable - axiom.

So if you have a problem with WBCC, then you either have a similar problem with all other philosophies and/or you're a relativist. If you're a relativist, you should say so, otherwise we'll all waste a bunch of time.