[blueback]

The problem with value is that it's subjective. We don't discover value, we invent it, and then only on a case-by-case basis.

So, it's impossible to say that [x] is more valuable than [y] except according to one particular observer. This can be contrasted against objective measurements, which remain consistent from one observer to another. It is entirely possible to say that [x] is longer/bigger/higher/etc than [y], and the argument could even be made that the relationship is self-evident.

I've explained elsewhere why all morality is arbitrary, so I'll just state that it is. This means that no moral system is any better (more valuable) than another. However, every entity that takes action has a decision making system, and the ones that are self-aware also have a moral system, as poorly developed and incomprehensible as it may be. The rest of this will only concern entities that are capable of creating morality.

Although there is no way to objectively assign value to something, there is a way to objectively compare things that affect the real world. Any moral system that is impossible to act on (IE: riding unicorns is good) cannot affect the real world, and so is moot. Whatever's left over must, to some extent, impact reality. These impacts can be compared on dimensions that do not vary between observers.

Moot moralities are the worst moralities, because by definition they do not result in the fulfillment of the things they dictate are good. As a morality becomes less moot, it becomes more likely to result in the accomplishment of its goals. So the semi-moot moralities are better. Of the moralities left over, the ones that aren't moot, those that make the fulfillment of their own definition of good more likely are better. This paragraph is a bit garbled by the language I'm forced to use. I'm not saying "better" in the sense that I've assumed good=not moot, but in the sense that, objectively, the less moot a morality is the more relevant it is.

Of the moral systems that have a chance at compelling their own fulfillment, the ones that better utilize the laws of nature have a better chance. Generally, the way a moral system "better utilizes the laws of nature" is by incorporating more laws and a longer time-frame. This is where morality can start to get tied up in things like tactics and science.

Given all this, it would seem that a moral system that encouraged one acquire and maintain as great an array of capabilities as possible would be the "best" morality. Again, "best" in this sense means that, objectively, it would be the most likely to matter. This is because it is capabilities that maintain the existence of the entities who create moralities. An entity which fails to acquire appropriate capabilities before they become necessary capabilities will at a minimum be rendered irrelevant, and at a maximum will be rendered nonexistent.

This isn't to say that there is any objective value to anything I've described. All value is subjective. But, relevance is objective.

[Margot]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This isn't to say that there is any objective value to anything I've described. All value is subjective. But, relevance is objective.

So if I don't find your philosophical musings relevant, would that make my subjective valuation objective?

I joke. Mostly. But before I can comment on any specifics, could you clarify what you're proposing here? What do you hope to discuss? What is relevantism? An optimal moral system? A way of evaluating those that exist? Just a title that seemed appropriate for your post?

[blueback]

Yeah, okay, I wasn't clear enough about that.

I've been trying to come up with a way to objectively deal with morality. A framework for discussion that is immune to the flaws subjectivity creates in foundations.

There's no way I can remain consistent and say that a moral system is better or worse than anything, because to do so I have to reference a moral system. However, I can say that a moral system is more or less relevant.

Relevant to what? To anything. Like I explained in the OP, no moral system is better or worse than another, but they are more or less relevant to my life specifically, and to anyone or anything else in general.

What this framework draws attention to is the relationship between morality and capabilities. Because morality only exists within a being complex enough to support it, morality itself depends on capabilities. A moral system that undermines its own existence, by failing to encourage, or actively discouraging, capabilities becomes less relevant. The only moralities that I have to deal with are the ones that not only perpetuate their own existence, but also acquire enough power to help or hinder me. Of course, the description is getting a bit muddled now because I have to use verbs which imply deliberate actions on the part of a thing that doesn't think, but hopefully the point is coming through.

[Trevor Black]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've been trying to come up with a way to objectively deal with morality. A framework for discussion that is immune to the flaws subjectivity creates in foundations.

You could stop talking about ethics and read a book or sources on the internet as I have said countless times to you. You actually learn quite a lot by reading.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've been trying to come up with a way to objectively deal with morality. A framework for discussion ...

What do you mean by "deal with"? What are you trying to achieve with the discussion that would use this framework?

It looks (in the first post) as if you're trying to find a way of ranking moral systems, to identify that some are superior to others. And it looks as if you've selected relevance as an indicator of superiority, just because it's measurable? (Or have I over-simplified?)

But then the question arises, why do you want to rank moral systems anyway? Why does it matter to you to be able to regard one as superior to another?

So far as I can see, a moral system is basically a way of influencing people's behavior by taking advantage of their desire for approval. People are repeatedly told as kids that "God" or "society" or their parents etc. will approve of them if they do certain things which are called "good", and because they find approval pleasant, this has the effect (if they aren't careful) of conditioning them to try to behave that way.

So one could say that a superior moral system is one that is more successful in influencing people. In principle that's objectively measurable, (although it wouldn't be easy to do the experiments and I suspect the results would change with time).

So, I suppose if you wanted to, you could use that as a "framework for discussion". But I would have thought that if one wanted to discuss moral systems, the obvious starting point would be to discuss what sort of behavior people wanted to encourage. Yes, this is of course subjective - i.e. different people will want to encourage different sorts of behavior - but if a group of people can come to an compromise agreement on this, it would then make sense for them to discuss what moral system would be most likely to promote that behavior.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...as I have said countless times...

Maybe you should learn the difference between speaking and writing. I'm sure you could find it in a book somewhere...that would be called reading. <-sarcasm

But, seriously, every one of those countless times I've told you to stop making that suggestion. This is the internet. There's a little box right above this one where I can say anything I want (oops, I mean write) and the mystery machine will tell me all about it. I don't need someone inside of another little box to remind me.

Especially when said (oh darn, I did it again) person never seems to be able to contribute anything, even after having done a lot of reading.

How about if you feel like replying, instead of spending your time not contiributing, you point me towards a place where someone has already described this exact idea. It should be easy, since you read so much.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you mean by "deal with"? What are you trying to achieve with the discussion that would use this framework?

A framework for discussing the issue that doesn't result in constant requests for every party involved to redefine and clarify their statements.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It looks (in the first post) as if you're trying to find a way of ranking moral systems, to identify that some are superior to others.

In the sense that a description that is more objectively accurate is superior to one that is less objectively accurate, yes.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And it looks as if you've selected relevance as an indicator of superiority, just because it's measurable? (Or have I over-simplified?)

Would saying it was choosen because it was most relevant seem sarcastic? It's meta.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But then the question arises, why do you want to rank moral systems anyway? Why does it matter to you to be able to regard one as superior to another?

Because they are all inherently arbitrary. There is no way to say that any one moral system SHOULD be choosen. So what I'm trying to do is figure out a way to compare them anyway.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So far as I can see, a moral system is basically a way of influencing people's behavior by taking advantage of their desire for approval.

I had to read that a couple times because it was so far outside the framework I generally work with that it sounded like gibberish. I can see how one could think of morality that way. However, I think the underlying concept is described well by the dictionary definition: a system of right and wrong ideas. Basically, it is stuff you think is good, and stuff you think is bad.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So one could say that a superior moral system is one that is more successful in influencing people.

That's definitely one example of what I'm going for.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, I suppose if you wanted to, you could use that as a "framework for discussion". But I would have thought that if one wanted to discuss moral systems, the obvious starting point would be to discuss what sort of behavior people wanted to encourage.

But the fact that you are referencing the things people ALREADY think are good or bad illustrates the problem. We all have morality already, so when we talk about morality it's really hard to remember that what we think "ought" to be is arbitrary.

People often approach a discussion of hypothetical morality from a moral point of view. Any hypothetical that conflicts with the presupposed morality they are working from is immediately worse than a morality that doesn't. For example, people will say that we should 'treat others as we want to be treated' because then everyone will be equal. But to say that they have to have first assmed that it is good for everyone to be equal. This turns into a long chain of "but why" questions and people get bored, or frustrated, or defensive, and they abaondon the train of thought.

[Pachystima]

I am not convinced that value is subjective. Where the rubber meets the road, value is about getting enough to stay alive. To do this, one needs food, shelter and other things necessary to protect one from a hostile environment. So, food, shelter and clothing have some value related to survival; the alternative is death. Other measures of value, eg. gold or derivatives are simply things that individuals are prepared to exchange for those things of value necessary to stay alive. There are few, if any, among us who can survive on a diet of gold bullion or IPO's.

[blueback]

I meant 'value' in the sense that someone personally values things in a way that other people can't participate in. For example, I bought digital cable with my cable internet only because getting both was cheaper than getting just the internet. I don't value the cable at all. However, most people do value cable; they want to watch it. We disagree over the subjective value of cable television.

That is a different sense than what you are talking about, which I think is more in line with the point I'm trying to make. Whether or not something is relevant can be determined objectively. Food, water and shelter are all relevant. We can quantify and compare how much of each is necessary to accomplish particular goals. However, none of that stuff (food, water, shelter, goals) has any inherent value.

[Trevor Black]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How about if you feel like replying, instead of spending your time not contiributing, you point me towards a place where someone has already described this exact idea.

You might be interested in moral pragmatism. The closest ethical theory I can think about, being worried about what works and what doesn't. No one has cared to study or follow which morality is more 'relevant' as a maxim. It is quite useless in my opinion, let's see how you make the jump from descriptive to normative (the weakest link).

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	[Looking for] a framework for discussing the issue that doesn't result in constant requests for every party involved to redefine and clarify their statements.

This happens all the time in philosophy, unless you are coherent enough to stick to the definitions you provide as you speak (which you haven't). It is a part of hermeneutics, more needed the less standard vocabulary is used.

[blueback]

Awesome. To be honest, I was hoping you'd try again. Your posts are always entertaining.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You might be interested in moral pragmatism. The closest ethical theory I can think about, being worried about what works and what doesn't.

I googled it, and couldn't find much.
This is pretty close
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Any moral system worth adopting needs to be one that, at the very least, has a chance of actually working, or at best, is has the best possible chance of working in the messy, uncertain, real world."
The main difference being that even this guy can't help but talk about morality by referencing more morality. To be consistent, one can't say that anything is worth doing, or ought to be, or should exist, without referencing the entity responsible for making that arbitrary judgment call. This is precisely the problem I'm trying to find a workaround for.

Other sources like this one...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"I at least have perceptions that seem to be about people, and this view takes that to lead to a moral obligation to act as if they're real by meeting what would be my moral obligations if what seems to be true is true."
...aren't describing what I'm describing. They're talking about what basically amounts to Pascal's Wager minus God
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Basically, I'm NOT claiming that comparing moralities based on how relevant they are is a path to creating truth, or unearthing objective values, or a pathetic attempt to pretend that ignoring a problem makes it go away.

All I'm saying is that it's a way to categorize moral systems on a dimension that doesn't depend on subjective evaluations.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one has cared to study or follow which morality is more 'relevant' as a maxim. It is quite useless in my opinion, let's see how you make the jump from descriptive to normative (the weakest link).

Whatever. I've seen many of your opinions. Telling me that my ideas are useless is actually encouraging...it means I'm probably on the right track.

The part about your posts that is the most fun is how you have so many textbooks floating around in your head that you can't engage with the ideas right in front of you. I never mentioned anything about following this idea as a maxim. That's entirely your invention. All this is supposed to do is provide a vaguely scientific approach to categorizing and discussing the infinite variety of moral systems. What value someone places on the informaiton is entirely subjective. What makes you funny is that I actually went out of my way to mention, frequently, that I wasn't in any way trying to define what should be. But you missed that, because you wanted so badly to tell me I was wrong that you just ignored the places where I qualified my statements.

So I don't have to worry about the is-ought problem, because I avoided it. The assertion that I'm making is firmly on the "is" side of the gap, and has been specifically described as having nothing whatsoever to say about the "ought" side of the gap.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This happens all the time in philosophy, unless you are coherent enough to stick to the definitions you provide as you speak (which you haven't).

Well, this is an evolving idea, so a little stumbling is expected.

The difference between you and normal people is that the other people in this thread asked clarifying questions, which I responded to as best I could. You, on the other hand, already understand every idea that's ever been explored in a book, which translates to every idea worth exploring, so you don't have to ask any questions. If anything I write doesn't immediately make sense to you, it's because the underlying idea is crap, not because I garbled the description, since your penetrating knowledge is enough to cut through to the truth of anything any lesser intellect attempts to add to the world.

What makes this funny is that you put effort into reminding me that I'm stupid and my ideas are useless, but you have to be cajoled into providing one pathetic reference. Not only can you not point me towards work that someone else has done, but you can't even paraphrase a portion of your vast awesome correctness. If you really did understand reality better than me, it wouldn't take any effort at all for you to, oh for example, quote where I abaondoned my own definitions and provide a quick analysis to demonstrate I made a mistake.

Instead, as usual, all you can muster is some variation on the phrase "you're wrong" followed by the conspicuous absence of a supporting argument.

[Trevor Black]

I've corrected your usage of definitions many many times before, I don't feel like continuing to do it. I will tell you however, that I suggest you speak less and read more. You can read our past conversations.

Your talking in this topic is very entertaining and all (to you at least), haha, blabla, good times, but yes, I do have a question (you should care about more than I do). What is the purpose? What do you expect to achieve, and most importantly, why do you want to achieve it? What for? What is the purpose? Why?

[Margot]

I have some time this afternoon to go through this bit by bit. First, could you clarify if you are differentiating "moral systems" from "ethical systems"? I will also give a disclaimer that "subjective" and "objective" are among my least favourite words ever.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem with value is that it's subjective. We don't discover value, we invent it, and then only on a case-by-case basis.

I would say that the perception of value is a subjective experience, but value can be measured objectively. We can invent value, but we can also discover value by approximating its manifestation in the minds of others as they communicate it directly or indirectly.

	So, it's impossible to say that [x] is more valuable than [y] except according to one particular observer. This can be contrasted against objective measurements, which remain consistent from one observer to another. It is entirely possible to say that [x] is longer/bigger/higher/etc than [y], and the argument could even be made that the relationship is self-evident.

The valuation of [x] and [y] to some person(s) can be stated objectively. You can make make net evaluations if you approximate how much a group of people value [x] and [y].

I've explained elsewhere why all morality is arbitrary, so I'll just state that it is. This means that no moral system is any better (more valuable) than another. However, every entity that takes action has a decision making system, and the ones that are self-aware also have a moral system, as poorly developed and incomprehensible as it may be. The rest of this will only concern entities that are capable of creating morality.

Perhaps arbitrary in character, but not in origin. All morality arose as constructs in the minds of members of cultures and their sub-groups as they adapted to their environments over time. Some moral systems are better than others to certain individuals in the sense that they are more appropriate for achieving a certain end. This valuation can be derived from subjective perception but has its roots in objective phenomena. Is this what you mean by "relevance"?

	Although there is no way to objectively assign value to something, there is a way to objectively compare things that affect the real world.

Objectively comparing things that affect the real world is a way to objectively assign value. You see this in scientific pursuits when a group of people collectively agree that they will accept [a] data and discard [b] data, thus they have assigned an objective value to [a] data (which again, may have began with a subjective evaluation but was transformed through comparison and consensus).

	Any moral system that is impossible to act on (IE: riding unicorns is good) cannot affect the real world, and so is moot. Whatever's left over must, to some extent, impact reality. These impacts can be compared on dimensions that do not vary between observers.

"Riding unicorns is good" is not a moral system that's impossible to act on. It's a moral statement based on a nonexistent component. Such moral statements can still affect the "real" world by way of influencing a person's beliefs, thoughts, and actions (I am thinking of situations involving delusions or similar mental disruptions).

Moot moralities are the worst moralities, because by definition they do not result in the fulfillment of the things they dictate are good. As a morality becomes less moot, it becomes more likely to result in the accomplishment of its goals. So the semi-moot moralities are better. Of the moralities left over, the ones that aren't moot, those that make the fulfillment of their own definition of good more likely are better. This paragraph is a bit garbled by the language I'm forced to use. I'm not saying "better" in the sense that I've assumed good=not moot, but in the sense that, objectively, the less moot a morality is the more relevant it is.

So, a moral system that does not (or cannot) work is worse than a moral system that works at least a little bit because the former doesn't (can't) work? If that's the case, then yeah, that's an evaluation on the basis of pragmatism. But then you're left to explain what makes a moral system "work". Does it lead to prolonged survival? Increased happiness? Greatest net benefit?

Of the moral systems that have a chance at compelling their own fulfillment, the ones that better utilize the laws of nature have a better chance. Generally, the way a moral system "better utilizes the laws of nature" is by incorporating more laws and a longer time-frame. This is where morality can start to get tied up in things like tactics and science. Given all this, it would seem that a moral system that encouraged one acquire and maintain as great an array of capabilities as possible would be the "best" morality. Again, "best" in this sense means that, objectively, it would be the most likely to matter. This is because it is capabilities that maintain the existence of the entities who create moralities. An entity which fails to acquire appropriate capabilities before they become necessary capabilities will at a minimum be rendered irrelevant, and at a maximum will be rendered nonexistent. This isn't to say that there is any objective value to anything I've described. All value is subjective. But, relevance is objective.

What does it mean for a moral system to compel its own fulfillment? Why "capabilities" and which ones? What makes a capability more appropriate and necessary? Are you essentially saying that the best moral system to a given individual is the one that's most relevant to them and their ends? If so, can't really disagree.

	A framework for discussing the issue that doesn't result in constant requests for every party involved to redefine and clarify their statements.

Is the italicized part a bad thing? Those requests seem like attempts at rigour to me.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can see how one could think of morality that way. However, I think the underlying concept is described well by the dictionary definition: a system of right and wrong ideas. Basically, it is stuff you think is good, and stuff you think is bad.

That dictionary definition of morality (like dictionary definitions of many things) just leads to circularity. You look up morality, maybe it does indeed say "a system of right and wrong ideas". Then you look up "right" and "wrong" and it tells you they mean something like "in accordance with morals" and "immoral". And the same happens if you look up "good" and "bad". So you get nowhere. What makes a moral system different from any other list of things that you like or dislike? The answer, surely, is that a moral system is one in which the likes and dislikes are presented in a way that tries to take advantage of the sort of conditioning that I described (i.e. to take advantage of the effect that religious people call "conscience").

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the fact that you are referencing the things people ALREADY think are good or bad illustrates the problem.

But I wasn't referencing things that people already think are (morally) "good" or "bad". Look back at the text that you quoted, I didn't mention "good" or "bad". I was saying, start from what behavior you want to encourage, not because you think it's good or bad but because it has value to you, you find it useful or enjoyable or otherwise desirable. And as you've pointed out, that's subjective, but you can still discuss it with others and come to a compromise, a set of things that you all agree you'd find it valuable to have people doing. Then you can turn it in to a moral system, by calling it "good", telling your children that if they behave that way God will love them or Mummy will be happy, by condemning people who behave them differently and giving them a label that you define as derogatory, etc. In other words, rather than looking for things that are set up as moral systems and trying to choose one that has some sort of effect, start by deciding what sort of effect you want to have and then make it into a moral system.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People often approach a discussion of hypothetical morality from a moral point of view. ... This turns into a long chain of "but why" questions

Yes, you're absolutely right there. But you haven't avoided that, because I would also say "why?" to your desire to compare the "relevance" of systems. As you say yourself, relevance doesn't reflect value, so why should I care about it? Yes, value is subjective, but it is nevertheless what matters (it's what is valuable!) So, if you want people to discuss morals, you need to start by getting sufficient common ground to have a discussion, i.e. agree on something you all value. Once you've done that, you've got over the "why" bit, you've agreed on a common "why", so you can sensibly discuss the "how?".

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've corrected your usage of definitions many many times before, I don't feel like continuing to do it.

You call it "correcting" I call it "failing to contribute." Po-tate-o, po-taht-o.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I will tell you however, that I suggest you speak less and read more. You can read our past conversations.

I've never spoken to you. How much less can I speak? And you just claimed to be holding me to definitions...you really aren't very good at this at all.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the purpose? What do you expect to achieve, and most importantly, why do you want to achieve it? What for? What is the purpose? Why?

So, you don't feel like supporting your own assertions, but you are interested in having me support my assertions. That is called "not contributing."

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	could you clarify if you are differentiating "moral systems" from "ethical systems"? I will also give a disclaimer that "subjective" and "objective" are among my least favourite words ever.

The difference between morality and ethics is a bit subtle. When I use the term 'moral system' I mean a system of right and wrong ideas. Basically, the structure of a moral system is concepts in the mind. I would contrast that against ethics, the structure of which would be actions outside the mind. The hierarchical nature is the same, but the materials are different.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would say that the perception of value is a subjective experience, but value can be measured objectively. We can invent value, but we can also discover value by approximating its manifestation in the minds of others as they communicate it directly or indirectly...You can make make net evaluations if you approximate how much a group of people value [x] and [y].

Asking a bunch of people what they value, and aggregating the results, does not create value. It just creates data. Value, in this sense, is entirely subjective. It is merely an experience. We can describe someone else's experience, but we can't actually experience their experience.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps arbitrary in character, but not in origin. All morality arose as constructs in the minds of members of cultures and their sub-groups as they adapted to their environments over time.

The way I'm using the term emotions and instincts aren't morality because they aren't thoughts. I suppose to make it clearer we could use the term "conscious thoughts" instead of just thoughts. I'm not convinced that unconscious things actually have thoughts. People say that their dog is thinking something, but I doubt it actually is. For the purposes of this discussion I think it's important to make a clear distinction between the capabilities of conscious entities and everything else.

Animals have emotions, instincts and reflexes, just like people, but people have conscious thoughts. It is among the conscious thoughts that morality appears. The hierarchical structure of electro-chemical programming in unconscious entities is the same as the hierarchical structure of consciously thought morality, but the materials are different.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Objectively comparing things that affect the real world is a way to objectively assign value.

I made a distinction because I think the distinction is important. Whatever you want to call it, there is a difference between what a person experiences when they think about what they value, and the checkmark they make in a little box next to "important."

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Riding unicorns is good" is not a moral system that's impossible to act on. It's a moral statement based on a nonexistent component. Such moral statements can still affect the "real" world by way of influencing a person's beliefs, thoughts, and actions (I am thinking of situations involving delusions or similar mental disruptions).

But a person cannot ride a unicorn. I suppose they could try to make a unicorn, so that they could ride it, but that would merely be something that was similar to a unicorn. Unicorns never actually existed, so they can't be ridden. Only something like a unicorn could be ridden.

I went on to describe moral systems that were partially moot. Those would be the ones in which some of the ideas about right and wrong can actually be acted upon, and so that is the category you are talking about if a person's moral system actually does affect the world.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But then you're left to explain what makes a moral system "work". Does it lead to prolonged survival? Increased happiness? Greatest net benefit?

I didn't use the term "works." I'm not sure it applies.

Relevance, in this context, means that an effect is produced in the world. Thoughts can't interact with each other. So, a thought that leads to no action is irrelevant. The only way a thought can be relevant is if it leads to an action that alters the world, thus impacting someone else's thoughts. The world is like an air gap between isolated networks. Bridging it is like becoming relevant.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What does it mean for a moral system to compel its own fulfillment?

I did say that the language was somewhat garbled.

Basically, it's describing morality as if it itself was a conscious actor; anthropomorphism. It's not accurate, but it's a lot easier to use the analogy. "Riding unicorns is good" is a morality that doesn't compell its own fulfillment in the sense that it cannot inspire action. Only a closely related thought, one that is somewhat rooted in reality, could inspire an action. Thus, "riding unicorns is good" is isolated and forever irrelevant.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why "capabilities" and which ones? What makes a capability more appropriate and necessary?

All of them.

For example, there are a lot of parents who think it's a good idea to "protect" their kids from most of the real world while they're growing up. They never drink, they never balance a check book, they never meet a poor person, etc. Those kids aren't acquiring capabilities. So, when they are suddenly thrust into a situation that demands some familiarity with those capabilities, like a college party, they fail.

Basically, any morality that can be relevant (is not entirely moot) has to have capabilities or it won't actually be fulfilled. A person in a wheel chair might believe that climbing the stairs to get away from a pack of wild badgers is a good thing, but they lack the capability to get up the stairs. So the moral standard is isolated inside their mind and becomes irrelevant.

That principle applies to basically everything we do. The more capabilities one acquires and maintains the more likely their moral system is to remain relevant. Master Chief in the Halo game is a good example. The reason the Chief's inner life is rarely dealt with in even the books (yes, I read the books) is that the Chief is SO capable that it's vitally important he only ever want one thing: to help humanity. The Chief single-handedly massacres armies. He gets what he wants, because he can. So, if he wanted something other than saving humanity, he would get it. Contrast the Chief against the Grunts. They're so incapable they're little more than target practice. The Chief's moral system has done far more to shape the world than any of the Grunt's moral system, so the Chief's moral system is more relevant.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is the italicized part a bad thing? Those requests seem like attempts at rigour to me.

Right you are. The emphasis was on constant. I've been digging into these ideas for a long time, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the truth isn't nearly as complicated as people tend to think it is. The problem isn't that people don't know the truth, it's that the truth is clouded. It is the interference that makes the truth look complicated. So, once a proper model is constructed, I think it will help people deal with all the extraneous complicated interference.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That dictionary definition of morality (like dictionary definitions of many things) just leads to circularity. You look up morality, maybe it does indeed say "a system of right and wrong ideas". Then you look up "right" and "wrong" and it tells you they mean something like "in accordance with morals" and "immoral".

You didn't actually do it, did you?
When I did it, I went from "a system of right and wrong ideas" to right meaning "whatever is appropriate" to appropriate meaning "correct as determined by a judge based on a standard."

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What makes a moral system different from any other list of things that you like or dislike?

Well, in many cases I think they would be the same thing.
When they aren't, I think it would be that some preferences are not actual thoughts, they're just electro-chemical outputs. Why do humans hate the smell of poop and dogs love it? Because in dogs it doesn't set off the 'displeasure' reactions. That's all. If we didn't gag we'd probably learn to tell the difference between people by the smell of their poop.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I wasn't referencing things that people already think are (morally) "good" or "bad". Look back at the text that you quoted, I didn't mention "good" or "bad". I was saying, start from what behavior you want to encourage, not because you think it's good or bad but because it has value to you, you find it useful or enjoyable or otherwise desirable.

So you meant things that are emotional, instinctive, or reflexive, rather than consciously thought?

Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And as you've pointed out, that's subjective, but you can still discuss it with others and come to a compromise, a set of things that you all agree you'd find it valuable to have people doing. Then you can turn it in to a moral system, by calling it "good", telling your children that if they behave that way God will love them or Mummy will be happy, by condemning people who behave them differently and giving them a label that you define as derogatory, etc.

I would call that an ethical system. The distinction being that morality is what happens in the mind, and ethics is what happens outside the mind. Some moral systems just cannot be turned into ethics, as I illustrated with the unicorn example. And some ethical systems won't lead to their own perpetuation. So the ones that do tend to become the models for future systems of ethics.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...start by deciding what sort of effect you want to have and then make it into a moral system.

But why do you want it?

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As you say yourself, relevance doesn't reflect value, so why should I care about it?

Because it's relevant. You might not value Lou Ferrigno's moral system, but you're damned sure going to consider it relevant if he's in the room with you.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, value is subjective, but it is nevertheless what matters (it's what is valuable!) So, if you want people to discuss morals, you need to start by getting sufficient common ground to have a discussion, i.e. agree on something you all value. Once you've done that, you've got over the "why" bit, you've agreed on a common "why", so you can sensibly discuss the "how?".

Oh, absolutely. I've done that before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. I'm just trying something different right now.

[Olympics2010]

Interesting point. I am quite a Kantian myself, and to the point that my understanding of Kant is accurate when it comes to morality, I myself am a strong (and, hopefully, very rational) believer that there might very well be actual, objective morals. These morals are not the subjective morals that we do, indeed, discover in the world all the time. These morals are fundamental, objective moral rules, likely based in reason, and still, I would guess very well, they are pragmatic in nature. Some examples that I can think of might include treating everyone humanely - to not kill, torture, or deliberately hurt anyone else. Things of this sort.

Are there sets of moral rules, which are completely subjective, and, at the same time, which are completely relevant in the world today ? Of course. A lot of the times, society runs on moral rules that are, indeed, chosen by that society, more or less, as a preferance. The same holds true for individuals.

Where the problem lies - I think ? Well, I think the problem in my view is, namely, how to these two strands of morals - the objective morals that are fundamental, and, the subjective moral rules that are crucially relevant, too - reconcile, or come together, that is ? I find myself quite at a dilemma oftentimes about this myself. Oftentimes, I can see only the fundamentals, and cannot steer my way through the subjective moral rules that I am faced with. (And, I specified afore, there IS a crucial difference in these two kinds of morals that are each very crucial in and of themselves.) Clearly to me, subjective moral rules DO NOT MATTER. Of course, it makes sense to accquire more and more of these sorts of rules as knowledge of a lot of time in order to be able to deal with them, but that to me seems redundant in and of itself, since all these rules are subjective, and therefore, can be just as well be overlooked for more important matters as are objective moral rules. What is the point on spending time to learn how to manage all this knowledge about subjective moral rules, when life can be lived without them? In a sense, relevance doesn't even apply to these.

Then again, the dilemma arises, since life cannot be lived purely in fundamental moral rules. To other people, it matters that this way, and not that way, as they see it, goes. And so, if it matters to them, it must matter to me, since this world IS shared. But, maybe only minimally ? Maybe one can go out into the world with their own values as objective, instead of subjective - would that work hmmm?........

[Trevor Black]

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the purpose? What do you expect to achieve, and most importantly, why do you want to achieve it? What for? What is the purpose? Why?

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, you don't feel like supporting your own assertions, but you are interested in having me support my assertions. That is called "not contributing."

I'll contribute saying that your red herring gives more strength to my position of your endeavor being useless. If a use for your endeavor can't be pointed out, most probably, it is not useful. Quod erat demonstrandum.


I'll repeat the question in case you want to really address it. What is the purpose of your quest for relevantism? What do you expect to achieve, and why? What for?

[Samueza]

Is it better to be capable of slaughtering, cooking and eating a child than not being capable of doing so? If not, how does the relevantist argument against this go?

By the way, it is rare to see a Kantian subjectivist. I'm not sure if you're a Kantian, although your usage of conscious thought as a foundation seems to imply this. Just to be sure, what is, according to you, the nature of conscious thought?

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You didn't actually do it, did you?

Of course I did actually look it up. And of course my dictionary also gave other meanings besides those I quoted, because the words "right" and "wrong" have lots of meanings that have nothing to do with morals. A system of ideas that are "correct as determined by a judge based on a standard" only constitutes a moral system if the standard happened to be a standard of morality (in which case it's a circular definition again).

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you meant things that are emotional, instinctive, or reflexive, rather than consciously thought?

Well, things that have value may be consciously thought, but only if the thought is ultimately based on something else - possibly something emotional, instinctive, or reflexive. I think in order to find a way to achieve a purpose, but the purpose is something that will give me satisfaction. Thought that doesn't relate to some sort of experience has no value. (Well, actually I enjoy thinking, so to that extent any thought might have value - but that value doesn't derive from the thought itself, but from the emotional effect of the experience of thinking it.)

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would call that an ethical system. The distinction being that morality is what happens in the mind, and ethics is what happens outside the mind. Some moral systems just cannot be turned into ethics, as I illustrated with the unicorn example.

Given that you are interested in moral systems that can have an effect, presumably they aren't just in the mind. So does this mean that all the moral systems that you call "relevant" are (by this definition) ethical systems?

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But why do you want it?

Because it will make me feel good. (Or because I believe it will cause an effect that will make me feel good.) Ultimately, what other reason is there for wanting anything?

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Originally Posted by nettneu As you say yourself, relevance doesn't reflect value, so why should I care about it? Because it's relevant. You might not value Lou Ferrigno's moral system, but you're damned sure going to consider it relevant if he's in the room with you.

I would only care about his moral system if it affects something that I value. If his moral system requires him to perform bodybuilding exercises every hour on the hour, it might be perfectly relevant in your sense - i.e. it would impact reality, he would really be there standing there in the room exercising - but I couldn't care less. What matters isn't whether it impacts reality, but whether it impacts something that I value. And if a moral system does impact something that I value, then it matters to me even though the value is subjective and even if the impact is subjective. In fact, you could say that I would care about it if it is relevant to me - but then that's subjective again.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interesting point. I am quite a Kantian myself, and to the point that my understanding of Kant is accurate when it comes to morality, I myself am a strong (and, hopefully, very rational) believer that there might very well be actual, objective morals.

Can it be rational if it depends on hope? Wouldn't that just be a wild guess?

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	These morals are not the subjective morals that we do, indeed, discover in the world all the time. These morals are fundamental, objective moral rules, likely based in reason, and still, I would guess very well, they are pragmatic in nature. Some examples that I can think of might include treating everyone humanely - to not kill, torture, or deliberately hurt anyone else. Things of this sort.

You seem more heistant than I would expect someone with access to objective moral authority to be. Is it just me?

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where the problem lies - I think ? Well, I think the problem in my view is, namely, how to these two strands of morals - the objective morals that are fundamental, and, the subjective moral rules that are crucially relevant, too - reconcile, or come together, that is ?

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at (I think Kant was a few geese short of a gander) but it sounds like you're talking about roughly the same distinction I'm trying to make. There are obviously objective considerations, like gravity, and there are obviously subjective considerations, like happiness. The hard part is trying to construct a framework to talk about them that doesn't contradict itself.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is what the inside of your mind looks like when you don't actually understand something.

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Clearly to me, subjective moral rules DO NOT MATTER.

Unless they're your subjective rules.

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the point on spending time to learn how to manage all this knowledge about subjective moral rules, when life can be lived without them? In a sense, relevance doesn't even apply to these.

It's thinking that you don't have to understand how your own mind is working that is the problem.

	Originally Posted by Olympics2010 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe one can go out into the world with their own values as objective, instead of subjective - would that work hmmm?........

Your values can't be objective; by definition they are subjective. Of course, that in no way means that there aren't incredibly important objective things, it just means that they aren't values.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll contribute saying that your red herring gives more strength to my position of your endeavor being useless.

Ha ha, awesome.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a use for your endeavor can't be pointed out, most probably, it is not useful. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Lol, great
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Mike Retriever To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll repeat the question in case you want to really address it. What is the purpose of your quest for relevantism? What do you expect to achieve, and why? What for?

Man, you really are the best. I answered this question before you asked it. It's hilarious that you take yourself so seriously but that I have to point that out to you because you aren't actually paying attention.

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it better to be capable of slaughtering, cooking and eating a child than not being capable of doing so? If not, how does the relevantist argument against this go?

Yes. It is always "better" to be capable of something than to not be capable of it. Quite simply because no matter what your moral system is, more capabilities only makes you more likely to be able to fulfill your moral principles. Some of the examples can get a bit "out there" but that in no way invalidates the fact that you might find yourself in an extremely unusual situation.

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By the way, it is rare to see a Kantian subjectivist. I'm not sure if you're a Kantian, although your usage of conscious thought as a foundation seems to imply this. Just to be sure, what is, according to you, the nature of conscious thought?

Ummm...given that whenever someone asks a question like that without qualifying it they tend to mean something different from what I would mean if I asked that question...

Conscious thought is (probably) an emergent property of self-monitoring in an increasingly complex organism. Basically, as a creature evolves its processing systems increase in complexity. At some point systems will be specifically devoted to monitoring the organisms internal state (the stomach for example). At some later point systems will be specifically devoted to monitoring other monitoring systems. This will create an infinite loop of monitoring, which (probably) results in the sense of conscious awareness.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A system of ideas that are "correct as determined by a judge based on a standard" only constitutes a moral system if the standard happened to be a standard of morality (in which case it's a circular definition again).

The point is that it is an infinite regression (or loop if you prefer) unless you interrupt it with the idea that moral standards are arbitrary. Then there's no problem.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, things that have value may be consciously thought, but only if the thought is ultimately based on something else - possibly something emotional, instinctive, or reflexive.

That's a very good point. I don't think the conscious mind can ever escape dependence on the unconscious and lower-level processing systems. There's just no way for rationality to ever inspire action. Only emotions provide motivation. A purely rational processing system would sit idle because it would never have any reason to think about anything.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Given that you are interested in moral systems that can have an effect, presumably they aren't just in the mind. So does this mean that all the moral systems that you call "relevant" are (by this definition) ethical systems?

I think any moral system that was even partially relevant would be so because it could inspire an ethical system, however limited it might be.

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because it will make me feel good. (Or because I believe it will cause an effect that will make me feel good.) Ultimately, what other reason is there for wanting anything?

There isn't a reason to ever want anything in particular.

Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would only care about his moral system if it affects something that I value. If his moral system requires him to perform bodybuilding exercises every hour on the hour, it might be perfectly relevant in your sense - i.e. it would impact reality, he would really be there standing there in the room exercising - but I couldn't care less. What matters isn't whether it impacts reality, but whether it impacts something that I value. And if a moral system does impact something that I value, then it matters to me even though the value is subjective and even if the impact is subjective. In fact, you could say that I would care about it if it is relevant to me - but then that's subjective again.

Exactly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I think a good distinction to make would be between "caring" which is what our unconscious processing systems do, and "valuing" which is what our conscious processing systems do. You care about something when it inspires an emotion, you value something when it is consciously, rationally connected to something you care about.

[Trevor Black]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Man, you really are the best. I answered this question before you asked it. It's hilarious that you take yourself so seriously but that I have to point that out to you because you aren't actually paying attention.

Your repeated use of red herrings doesn't amuse me. I'll ask again the direct simple short questions, using a bigger font size:

What do you expect to achieve with 'relevantism', and why? What for?

How is it useful in any way?

[Samueza]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. It is always "better" to be capable of something than to not be capable of it. Quite simply because no matter what your moral system is, more capabilities only makes you more likely to be able to fulfill your moral principles. Some of the examples can get a bit "out there" but that in no way invalidates the fact that you might find yourself in an extremely unusual situation. Ummm...given that whenever someone asks a question like that without qualifying it they tend to mean something different from what I would mean if I asked that question... Conscious thought is (probably) an emergent property of self-monitoring in an increasingly complex organism. Basically, as a creature evolves its processing systems increase in complexity. At some point systems will be specifically devoted to monitoring the organisms internal state (the stomach for example). At some later point systems will be specifically devoted to monitoring other monitoring systems. This will create an infinite loop of monitoring, which (probably) results in the sense of conscious awareness. That's a very good point. I don't think the conscious mind can ever escape dependence on the unconscious and lower-level processing systems. There's just no way for rationality to ever inspire action. Only emotions provide motivation. A purely rational processing system would sit idle because it would never have any reason to think about anything.

You're consequent, I have to say. I'm not interested in holding being capable of slaughtering a baby against you, I just wanted to see if your system essentially is what it seemed to be and if it would hold up under scrutiny. So, since we can't consider acts such as babyslaughter as inherently bad, what impact would your theory have for legal systems? What should we now base laws on?

The downside of qualifying questions like that is that it allows for select-response answers, which is what I'm trying to avoid. I'll admit this way has its downside too. Either way, your answer was about what I was looking for. I quoted one of your replies to nettneu because this addresses one of the two points to which your answer here leads as well. I don't think brain modules need motivation to provide data, but to move from thoughts to actions requires some kind of motivation. I think this is a problem for every theory which chooses conscious thought as a foundation.

I have my technical doubts about the loop model, as I find parallel processing modules more in accord with neuroscientific findings. This could be a minor detail or a major source of disagreement, depending on the question whether or not you believe there is one ultimate monitor in the brain. So, do you?

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, since we can't consider acts such as babyslaughter as inherently bad, what impact would your theory have for legal systems? What should we now base laws on?

Laws are different.
Morality is unlimited. Ethics (actions based on morals) have to compromise with the rules of reality, so they are limited. Laws (agreements based on ethics) have to compromise between different ethical systems, so they are even more limited.

Unlike morality and ethics, laws MUST be written down; they just don't work very well when they're passed on by word of mouth. Additionally, they have to be written down in such a way that people who had absolutely nothing to do with their creation can understand the situation that led to the compromise solution, so that consistency can be maintained over diverse events in space and time.

So, it's not that laws will ever be based on anything different, they are always based on the same thing. It's just that the specific form laws take depends on random fluctuations in situations and what ethical systems happen to be present at the moment.

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The downside of qualifying questions like that is that it allows for select-response answers, which is what I'm trying to avoid.

If you want accuracy, you'll just have to live with a long string of specific answers rather than one all-encompassing answer.

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think brain modules need motivation to provide data, but to move from thoughts to actions requires some kind of motivation. I think this is a problem for every theory which chooses conscious thought as a foundation.

I agree. I think people take motivation for granted because nothing would be walking on the Earth without it. It's the most basic component of the processing system of all living things. My guess is that conscious rational thought only got the chance to exist after a host species became exceptionally successful because it's basically unnecessary, and could even be considered superfulous. Conscious rational thought is great as a tool for better fulfilling goals, but unlike other processes it has no inherent motivation. It doesn't lead to anything on its own.

Most people don't realize that what they tend to do on a moment-to-day basis is motivated entirely by unconscious forces, and that conscious rational thought is just a tool that turns on after the motivation appears to help achieve it.

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have my technical doubts about the loop model, as I find parallel processing modules more in accord with neuroscientific findings. This could be a minor detail or a major source of disagreement, depending on the question whether or not you believe there is one ultimate monitor in the brain. So, do you?

Consciousness only recently became an acceptable topic of serious scientific inquiry, so there is some waffling on the issue. The scientific community is still arguing over what to call things, so maybe in a decade they will get down to the business of actually figuring things out. That being the case...

I'm inclined to think that conscious awareness isn't a little man sitting on top of the brain stem. I think it's more like an accidental emergent property of a bunch of complicated systems going about their business. I don't think the phenomenon can be separated and isolated from the processing system it exists in. For example, I'm not convinced that we can replace much of our biological processing systems with electronic processing systems without beginning to compromise personality at a fundamental level. I'm really curious to see what happens as we build systems that can interface with our nervous system, because the next step will be systems that being to replace our nervous system in important ways. Then we'll start to get some hard data on exactly "where" consciousness resides.

There's growing evidence that the brain doesn't work like our computers do. The more people dig into it the more it seems like the brain is just sort of an ad-hoc network that reconfigures its functions to match whatever is happening. My guess is that what we're going to find is a 'core' of very basic programming with gradually increasing levels of additional capabilities added on top. So, somewhere is a program that says "living is good" and then all the rest of it is just technology that helps figure out how to go about living. That's oversimplified, but the general idea seems sound. Consciousness is just a function that poped up, didn't cause too much damage, and seemed to help out in a lot of circumstances, but ultimately isn't capable of fundamentally altering the 'core' programming.

All consciousness can do is trick the technology between it and the 'core' into thinking a lie is the truth, and so can be sort of domesticated in a way. I think the consciousness doesn't have it's own motivations, it gets those from the 'core' just like everything else, but its procesing systems are non-deterministic, so there's no telling how those signals will come out once they go in. Thus, consciousness can twist the 'core's programming back on itself and even carry out goals specifically contrary to the 'core's wishes. Or something like that. There isn't really any hard science describing the mechanisms.

[Crafter]

I feel that most morality systems were devised as "management strategies"

For instance-in days before contraception sex mores were important to stability in things like blood lines and inheritances. Look at the strife caused when bastards tried to claim rights on the father's estate after his random indiscretions split his blood line.

Almost any more you can think of is devised to manage the behaviors of people into a certain degree of mass conformity.

The main reason I see in questioning mores is to evaluate if they are relevant to times which came long after thier usefulness has come to a practical end.

[Margot]

Excuse if this is a tad sloppy. Have to decorate a cake.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference between morality and ethics is a bit subtle. When I use the term 'moral system' I mean a system of right and wrong ideas. Basically, the structure of a moral system is concepts in the mind. I would contrast that against ethics, the structure of which would be actions outside the mind. The hierarchical nature is the same, but the materials are different.

Not sure if I agree with that distinction. As I understand them, moral systems are tied to preferences in the mind (ideas about right/wrong, good/bad) about action outside the mind. Ethical systems are based on collective rules and codes for how a group should interact, but by themselves don't say much about the moral (individual, preferential) nature of the group members' actions. I would say the materials are the same, but the frame of reference is different.

	Asking a bunch of people what they value, and aggregating the results, does not create value. It just creates data. Value, in this sense, is entirely subjective. It is merely an experience. We can describe someone else's experience, but we can't actually experience their experience.

The quote you were responding to wasn't describing the creation of value, but rather the objective measurement and description of its existence. I would say that value is a form of data, though this will depend on the definition you use for both terms.

	Whatever you want to call it, there is a difference between what a person experiences when they think about what they value, and the checkmark they make in a little box next to "important."

Seems like thought vs. action to me.

	But a person cannot ride a unicorn.

:[

	I suppose they could try to make a unicorn, so that they could ride it, but that would merely be something that was similar to a unicorn. Unicorns never actually existed, so they can't be ridden. Only something like a unicorn could be ridden.

If someone were to make a unicorn, and it possessed all the properties of a unicorn, I'd say that thing is a unicorn. That's besides the point though.

	I went on to describe moral systems that were partially moot. Those would be the ones in which some of the ideas about right and wrong can actually be acted upon, and so that is the category you are talking about if a person's moral system actually does affect the world.

My point was, even if a moral system consisted of statements that any sane, rational person believed could not be acted upon (by your metric of possibility to act on), that moral system can still affect the world. It can still exist in the mind of an insane, irrational person, influencing their beliefs, thoughts, and actions.

I didn't use the term "works." I'm not sure it applies. Relevance, in this context, means that an effect is produced in the world. Thoughts can't interact with each other. So, a thought that leads to no action is irrelevant. The only way a thought can be relevant is if it leads to an action that alters the world, thus impacting someone else's thoughts. The world is like an air gap between isolated networks. Bridging it is like becoming relevant.

Yes, you didn't use "works", I did. As I used it, work means to "have an effect or outcome", the same meaning you are attributing to relevance. That a moral system works, however, is not enough to tell you if it works "well". This would go back to the subjective evaluation problem you are trying to avoid.

	Basically, any morality that can be relevant (is not entirely moot) has to have capabilities or it won't actually be fulfilled. A person in a wheel chair might believe that climbing the stairs to get away from a pack of wild badgers is a good thing, but they lack the capability to get up the stairs. So the moral standard is isolated inside their mind and becomes irrelevant.

So, a moral system which consists of statements that can be acted upon according to the mind in which this moral system exists is a moral system that's relevant to that mind. Well, sure, what else would it be?

I've been digging into these ideas for a long time, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the truth isn't nearly as complicated as people tend to think it is. The problem isn't that people don't know the truth, it's that the truth is clouded. It is the interference that makes the truth look complicated. So, once a proper model is constructed, I think it will help people deal with all the extraneous complicated interference.

Truth about what?

	It is always "better" to be capable of something than to not be capable of it. Quite simply because no matter what your moral system is, more capabilities only makes you more likely to be able to fulfill your moral principles. Some of the examples can get a bit "out there" but that in no way invalidates the fact that you might find yourself in an extremely unusual situation.

One can be capable of actions that prevent or hinder the fulfillment of one's moral principles.

	There's growing evidence that the brain doesn't work like our computers do.

Probably because our computers right now are nowhere near as complex as a human brain in terms of networking, layering, and all the other fancy stuff. Nothing to suggest our computers can't get there eventually though.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Excuse if this is a tad sloppy. Have to decorate a cake.

I've heard that before...the cake was a lie
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not sure if I agree with that distinction. As I understand them, moral systems are tied to preferences in the mind (ideas about right/wrong, good/bad) about action outside the mind.

I agree that is how a lot of people interpret it. I was making a slightly different distinction because I think it's more technically useful. The reason I don't like that definition is that it means a moal system that can't be acted upon doesn't count as a moral system. That seems too restrictive, like it's only covering a subset of morality.

For something to be morality, based on that definition, it has to meet two standards 1) ideas about what is right/wrong and 2) regarding actions in the world. So, if a system of ideas about what is right/wrong cannot be acted upon, it would not be morality because it would only be regarding imaginary actions that can't actually exist in the real world. Personally I prefer not to discard that second standard, but to move it to a different word (relevant). Leaving morality to be anything that is ideas about right/wrong.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ethical systems are based on collective rules and codes for how a group should interact, but by themselves don't say much about the moral (individual, preferential) nature of the group members' actions. I would say the materials are the same, but the frame of reference is different.

The thing about ethics is that it doesn't count as ethics if you only think about it. You have to actually do something for it to be ethical. So, the structure of ethics is actions.

However, we regularly describe ethics, and of course that happens first in the mind. Ideas that represent ethics have to be thought about and discussed, but those ideas are not ethics, they are merely a description of ethics.

In the same way we can think about morality, without those thoughs being morality in and of themeselves, if we are describing morality.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seems like thought vs. action to me.

Yep. Or subjective vs. objective.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If someone were to make a unicorn, and it possessed all the properties of a unicorn, I'd say that thing is a unicorn. That's besides the point though.

It's a technical point. Basically, for these ideas to remain consistent some rock-solid distinctions have to be made. In this case, it seems to help to not fudge the meanings of moral values. The moral value "riding unicorns is good" has to mean one thing. If you think that something different, but closely related, is good then you'd just compose another moral value. So, "riding something that resembles a unicorn is good" would actually be actionable. The distinction is that the word "unicorn" refers to a mythological creature, and those simply don't exist. So using that word carries the restriction that the thing it describes isn't real. That means something that actually does exist, no matter how similar it might be, can't be the thing itself.

I think that's actually a really good example of why people get confused on this topic; they don't keep their definitions consistent enough. It's like trying to build a wall out of rocks that are all kinds of crazy sizes and shapes; you have to hold it together with a lot of mortar.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My point was, even if a moral system consisted of statements that any sane, rational person believed could not be acted upon (by your metric of possibility to act on), that moral system can still affect the world. It can still exist in the mind of an insane, irrational person, influencing their beliefs, thoughts, and actions.

I think I see your point.
Are you saying that if someone has a moral standard that is literally impossible to actually act upon, but they misinterpret it and the misinterpretation inspires action, then that moral standard suddenly becomes relevant? That's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought about how crazy, irrational people factored into it. I'm inclinded to think that someone who's simply broken doesn't really count. They'd be more like an act of nature or something else that's relevant, but doesn't fit this model.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, you didn't use "works", I did. As I used it, work means to "have an effect or outcome", the same meaning you are attributing to relevance.

Okay. I interpreted "works" to mean that the action inspired by the moral standard actually achieved the goal of the moral standard. I hadn't realized you meant it to merely mean that an action occurred.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, a moral system which consists of statements that can be acted upon according to the mind in which this moral system exists is a moral system that's relevant to that mind. Well, sure, what else would it be?

I'm trying to stay away from subjectivity on this one. So, I'm not really concerned with what is relevant within one mind, but rather what is relevant between two minds. Or, what is relevant outside of a mind. I mean, it's possible that none of you exist, and I'm just talking to myself. Doubtful, but possible.

What I was going for was the idea that a moral system that cannot be acted upon is irrelevant to the world. It can very well exist, and in the sense that its existence depends on changes in physical things like brain cells it is real, but the effects of its existence never emerge from the brain/body itself. So, objectively, it is irrelevant.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Truth about what?

In the sense that truth is that which does not contradict itself. So, as you build up a mental model of reality, any contradictions are false. Something has to give. A contradiction is a mistake. If you can purge all the contradictions, whatever is left over must be a good representation of truth.

	Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One can be capable of actions that prevent or hinder the fulfillment of one's moral principles.

Correct, but a capability is not itself an action. So maintaining the capability doesn't hinder the fulfillment of moral principles. And, while a thing might hinder moral achievements in 99 cases out of 100, in that 100th case you're going to be glad you maintained the capability.