Ethical Systems

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that examines moral principles and theories about what is right and wrong in human behavior. It examines issues such as the nature of morality, the justification of moral claims, and the relationship between morality and human nature. Ethics also explores how individuals and society ought to make moral decisions, and evaluates the moral status of actions and character of people. Additionally it is a way of thinking critically and reflectively about moral beliefs and practices.

Ethics and morality are closely related, but they are not exactly the same thing.

Morality refers to the set of rules, principles, or values that a person or society uses to distinguish right from wrong or good from bad behavior. It is often based on religious, cultural, or philosophical beliefs, and it can vary from one person or group to another.

Ethics, on the other hand, is the study of morality. It involves critical thinking about moral beliefs and practices, examining the reasons behind them, and evaluating their consistency and coherence. Ethics also involves the examination of moral questions and dilemmas that may not have easy answers.

So, one way to think about it is morality is what people practice and believe while Ethics is more of a systematic analysis of those practices and beliefs.
There are several different ethical systems that have been developed throughout history. Some of the most notable include:

1. Deontology: This ethical system holds that certain actions are morally right or wrong regardless of their consequences. The moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the nature of the action itself, rather than by its consequences. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is one of the most famous deontological theory.
2. Consequentialism: This ethical system holds that the morality of an action should be judged based on its consequences. The action that leads to the most good, or the least harm, is considered to be the morally right action. Utilitarianism is a famous example of consequentialism.
3. Virtue ethics: This ethical system emphasizes the importance of developing good character and becoming a virtuous person. The focus is on developing virtues such as courage, honesty, and compassion, rather than following rules or seeking the greatest good.
4. Care ethics: This ethical system emphasizes the moral importance of caring for others and the responsibilities that come with caring relationships. This ethical theories often focus on the relationships between people and the responsibilities that arise out of those relationships.
5. Divine command theory: This ethical system holds that morality is determined by the commands of a god or gods. Actions are morally right or wrong based on whether they are in accordance with the commands of a higher power. These are just a few examples, and there are many other ethical systems that have been proposed over the centuries. Many philosophers also argue that most ethical systems can be combined or synthesized to create a more comprehensive approach to ethics.

Here are a few more ethical systems:

1. Natural Law: This ethical system holds that there is an inherent moral order in the universe, and that human beings can understand this order through reason and intuition. This moral order can be discovered through observation of the natural world and human nature, and it forms the basis for a universal set of moral principles.
2. Social Contract: This ethical system holds that morality is based on the agreements that people make in order to live together in society. According to this view, moral rules are established as part of a social contract, and they are binding on everyone in the society.
3. Ethical egoism: This ethical system holds that individuals should act in their own self-interest. The theory states that acting in one's self-interest leads to the greatest overall good, and that individuals have no moral obligations to others except in so far as doing so is in their self-interest.
4. Objectivism: This ethical system was developed by Ayn Rand, holds that the good life is one of rational self-interest and the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness. It states that the moral value of an action is determined by the degree to which it furthers an individual's life and happiness.
5. Pragmatism: This ethical system holds that moral principles and rules should be evaluated based on their practical usefulness. According to this view, moral principles and rules are not fixed or absolute, but rather they should be adapted to the changing circumstances of the society or the community.
6. Existentialism: This ethical system which emphasizes individual freedom and choice, and the inherent meaninglessness of life. It states that each person must create their own meaning and purpose in life, and that moral rules and principles can only be determined by each individual person. As you can see, there are many different ethical systems, each with its own unique perspective on what is morally right and wrong. Some of these systems are mutually exclusive, while others can be used in combination to create a more nuanced approach to ethics.

Here are a few more ethical systems:

1. Feminist ethics: This ethical system aims to address the ways in which traditional ethical theories have marginalized and oppressed women. It emphasizes the importance of considering the experiences and perspectives of women, and it often critiques traditional theories for their lack of attention to issues such as care and relationships, as well as for their promotion of masculine values.
2. Critical theory: This ethical system is grounded in a critical examination of the ways in which power operates in society. It seeks to uncover and challenge the ways in which dominant groups maintain power and privilege, and it often critiques traditional theories for their failure to address issues of social inequality and injustice.
3. Communitarianism: This ethical system emphasizes the importance of community and the common good. It argues that individuals have moral obligations to the community, and that individual rights and interests should be subordinated to the needs of the community.
4. Confucianism: This ethical system is based on the teachings of Confucius, and it emphasizes the importance of virtue, social harmony, and respect for authority and tradition. The main focus of Confucianism is on the development of the individual and the cultivation of virtues such as filial piety, benevolence, and wisdom.
5. Bhutanese ethics: Known as Gross National Happiness, this ethical system is based on the idea that the ultimate goal of development is not economic growth, but rather the well-being and happiness of the people. It stresses on the importance of balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations to create a sustainable and equitable society.
6. Environmental ethics: This ethical system focus on the moral relationship between humans and the natural environment, it explores questions such as the moral standing of non-human entities, the responsibilities of humans to the environment and how should we balance the needs and interests of human and non-human entities.

There are many different ethical systems that have been developed, each with its own unique perspective on what is morally right and wrong, and each one is tailored to a specific field or area of human activity. They all have different ways of approaching moral issues, what values they prioritize and how they prioritize them, and what methods they employ to think about moral problems.
Here are a few more ethical systems:

1. Animal ethics: This ethical system focuses on the moral status of non-human animals, and the moral implications of human treatment of animals. It examines questions such as whether animals have moral rights, and whether it is morally acceptable to use animals for food, clothing, experimentation, or entertainment.
2. Business ethics: This ethical system examines the moral principles and values that should guide the actions of businesses and corporations. It deals with issues such as corporate responsibility, integrity, and fair treatment of employees and customers.
3. Bioethics: This ethical system deals with the moral issues that arise from advances in medical science and technology. It examines questions such as the morality of genetic engineering, organ transplantation, and end-of-life care.
4. Professional ethics: This ethical system examines the moral principles and values that should guide the actions of professionals in a particular field, such as law, medicine, engineering, or journalism. It deals with issues such as confidentiality, integrity, and the proper exercise of professional judgment.
5. Military ethics: This ethical system examines the moral principles and values that should guide the actions of military personnel, and the moral implications of military operations. It deals with issues such as the just war theory, the use of force, and the protection of non-combatants.
6. Political ethics: This ethical system examines the moral principles and values that should guide the actions of public officials and political leaders. It deals with issues such as public accountability, transparency, and the protection of human rights.

Many of the ethical systems I've listed can be used in combination to create a more nuanced approach to ethics. For example, a person might draw on the principles of deontology to determine that certain actions are morally right or wrong regardless of their consequences, but also consider the consequences of those actions using consequentialism. Combining different ethical systems can help to provide a more complete and well-rounded perspective on moral issues.

However, there are some ethical systems that might be mutually exclusive or difficult to reconcile with one another. For example, ethical egoism, which holds that individuals should act in their own self-interest, could be difficult to reconcile with consequentialism, which holds that the morality of an action should be judged based on its consequences for the greater good.

Similarly, Divine command theory, which holds that morality is determined by the commands of a god or gods, and Existentialism which holds that moral rules and principles can only be determined by each individual person, may be difficult to reconcile with each other.

It is important to note that many ethical theories can be synthesized, this means that different theories may be used together to create a more nuanced approach to ethics. But, in some cases, one theory may be prioritized over the others or some theories may be at odds with one another.

The Impact of Media on Critical Thinking

Movies and certain forms of entertainment have the power to shape our beliefs and attitudes, including our attitudes toward the supernatural. While some movies and entertainment can be a source of joy and inspiration, some perpetuate irrational thinking and belief in the supernatural.

Many movies and forms of entertainment, such as horror films, science fiction movies, and some television shows, often depict supernatural events and paranormal phenomena. These types of movies can create an illusion that these events are real and can contribute to a belief in the supernatural. Furthermore, these movies often rely on jump scares, suspense, and eerie music to create an atmosphere of fear and unease, leading people to feel anxious or paranoid about the existence of ghosts, demons, and other supernatural entities.

Additionally, some forms of entertainment promote irrational thinking by portraying pseudoscientific concepts as fact. For example, some movies or TV shows may suggest that certain alternative medicines, such as homeopathy or energy healing, are effective treatments, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. This can lead people to rely on ineffective or even harmful treatments instead of seeking evidence-based medical care.

Furthermore, some forms of entertainment promote conspiracy theories, which often lack a factual basis and can encourage distrust in scientific evidence and authorities. These beliefs can harm public health efforts, such as vaccination campaigns, or exacerbate social divisions and conflicts.

In conclusion, while entertainment can be a source of joy and inspiration, some movies and entertainment perpetuate irrational thinking and belief in the supernatural, which can lead to serious consequences. It is essential for individuals to engage with media critically, and for creators to use their platforms responsibly to promote evidence-based thinking and critical thinking skills.

There are many reasons why people may not engage with media critically or use their platforms responsibly to promote evidence-based thinking and critical thinking skills. Here are a few possible factors:

1. Confirmation bias: People tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, and may be less likely to critically evaluate information that challenges those beliefs. This can lead to a "filter bubble" where people are only exposed to information that reinforces their preconceptions, making it difficult for them to evaluate information critically.
2. Limited education or exposure to critical thinking skills: Many people may not have been exposed to formal education on critical thinking or may not have had access to resources that teach these skills. This can make it challenging for them to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate information or to evaluate claims critically.
3. Emotional engagement: Media that elicits strong emotional reactions, such as fear or anger, can be especially persuasive and may make it more difficult for individuals to think critically about the information being presented.
4. Influence of social networks: People's beliefs and attitudes can be heavily influenced by the views of their social networks. This can make it challenging for individuals to question their beliefs or consider alternative perspectives, particularly if doing so could lead to social ostracism or rejection.
5. Profit motive: Media companies may prioritize profit over accuracy or responsible reporting. This can lead to the promotion of sensational or inaccurate information, which can be more profitable but also more harmful.

There are many factors that may contribute to why people may not engage with media critically or use their platforms responsibly to promote evidence-based thinking and critical thinking skills. Addressing these challenges will require a multi-faceted approach, including promoting education on critical thinking, fostering open and respectful dialogue, and encouraging responsible media reporting.

PWIP 45

There appear to be two “scales” in ethics. There are the extremes of good and bad. These scales don’t allow for gradation, a thing is either good or bad, and there is no middle ground. This can perhaps be called a classical scale. The second kind of scale is Aristotle’s golden mean. Instead of the good being one end of two extremes, it is the midpoint between two vices.

Let’s relate these scales to economics. In the traditional scales, being poor is seen as bad, and being rich is seen as good. This is, of course, because the rich hold much of the power in society, and thus influence values. The golden mean would entail that there’s an ethical place that exists between being impoverished and being filthy rich. Society doesn’t think there should be a ceiling for wealth and a floor for poverty. This runs into the virtue of fairness, which requires a kind of equality and proportionality. Everyone should get what they need. If there’s more than what is necessary then an equal and proportional distribution is made. This appears to run into the problem of merit and ownership, i.e. distributing according to work done (or some other criteria) and distributing according to authority over goods.

In order to be active in ethics, one needs a well-formed epistemology. Most people have corrupted epistemologies due to religion and other faulty ideologies. Religion is particularly heinous because it gives people the belief that they have an ultimate truth, destroying positive traits like humbleness, curiosity, and open-mindedness. They believe they know the ontology, which is profoundly absurd. They think belief in a thing they claim is omniscient somehow also gives them powers of omniscience. Many of these laypeople, being uneducated in philosophy, have no sound justification for their beliefs. The unsophisticated, informal methods of reasoning found in holy books (mostly fallacies of appeals to authority) are used for real-world problems.

Lies are easier to generate than the truth. Both are related to language and communication. Once one has a language that can express enough content, one can generate any piece of information and claim it is true. Obviously, obtaining the truth requires more than the mere communication of information.

People will by default appeal to the truth, rarely does one see them put in the work to express it proper. This is because the truth is multifaceted and complex. I can’t say I have the truth, merely that I seek the truth and discover what I hope are aspects of it. There seems to be a hierarchy of the truth. At the top of the hierarchy is big T Truth. This is ontology, the all, it is the dynamics of all things. We’ve spoken of the hierarchy because it is the same as philosophy.

Next is the process of discovering truth, which is perhaps akin to a flowchart or algorithm. First, is one coming from a place of ignorance or some knowledge, that is to say, is one building a foundation or upon a foundation. There’s likely no true pure ignorance without being part of nonexistence. The first tools for discovering truth are those provided by the body, primarily reason, the senses, and movement. The next tools are perhaps those discovered by reason itself, mainly mathematics, logic, and science. The next part is perhaps knowing which sources one can trust. One would need to record who is consistent and whose predictions come to pass.

PWIP 41

Ethics Economics

Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.

Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.

The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.

The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.

Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.

The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.

The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.

The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.

The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.

Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.

Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.

PWIP 40

The relationship between the object, other, and self changes when moving through philosophical domains. For ontology, all that exist is one object, there are no distinctions between the three. Some event brings us to the realization that we have been made other to the totality of existence. It is a calculation made by the brain. We discover the notion of otherness that was somewhere possible. One finds one’s self in the totality as a part. Epistemology perceives distinctions and one can only hope one’s brain is sufficient to understand epistemology.

One can perhaps conceive a self as an other to ontology when pondering on the parts of the ontology that one controls and the parts one does not control, this typically coming in the form of oppositions, e.g. pleasure/pain, gain/loss, positive/negative. Would the self perceive itself as an object apart from the world if it had no conflicts with it? The nihilism of ontology presents a major problem for an object that cares for itself. Ethics places a high value on the self and other selves. Though the hard problem of consciousness presents feelings as something redundant to machines, it appears to be a useful tool in distinguishing the difference between a self and an object. Words and intelligent acts could have the same effect, but considering the history of the collectives of decision-makers, they are likely to consider intelligent nonsentient beings to be of equal value to sophisticated rocks.

The relationship between self, other, and object generates a problem of economics. Individuals own and produce objects. These objects can be exchanged for other objects from others. Individuals desire to avoid losses, thus they will attempt to trade less for more or equal for equal. Any item with the exact same dimensions as another is considered a duplicate of it and can be considered equal. There is no reason in trading an equal with another because it doesn’t change one’s state. The option is to trade lesser for more, which can only be done through deceit from the lesser owner, or sacrifice from the greater owner. One can also trade an object of different dimensionality but equal value. One can give more of a lesser item to compensate for the lower value. If one item is a fraction off from another, pieces of the lesser item can be given if that doesn’t destroy the item's integrity.

Objects have different values depending on time, place, individual, and domain of value. These domains have a specific order of priority in ethics, so objects have a value based on a domain and the domains have particular weights depending on their place in the priority. Ethics appears to weigh the weights as ordered: Objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, subjective.

Kantian politics and virtue psychology don’t appear to have a self as separate from the collective. In relativistic aesthetics and utilitarian mathematics, we see the self manifest itself as a shaper of the world, and a unit, scale, measure, and calculator. There is an objectively optimal state which we call Utopia. Such can only be achieved by intelligent means through physical and psychological force. The ideal or perfection isn’t always obtainable, thus one may settle with what is good enough or functional. Of course, since ethics is only generated between more than one agent, objects/products with universal use are most prized. A cohesive group of individuals, i.e. the collective, have more value than a single individual (assuming all are virtuous). This gives objects that can serve the whole more import than objects that can only serve a part. Obviously, every individual can’t use everything everywhere all the time, nor is any product always appropriate for every task. Physical products take precedent to psychological ones as unembodied objects, i.e. objects with no interaction with reality, have no use. Personal objects pertain to one’s identity and appear to be valued more than merely pleasant or beautiful items. Vice agents have their own weight, which is the subjective, as some objects have a function that lends itself more towards harm.

PWIP 38

Ethics Dynamics

Utopia is a state by which all individuals are happiest and living the easiest. Such a social state appears to have some issues. First, Utopia appears mundane. Entertainment and the arts can’t maintain an audience’s focus on utopia, save perhaps in pictures. People are turned off by the unreality of the state and may become resentful of the lives of the utopians. Secondly, Utopia takes a great deal of effort because of its numerous requirements. The happiness of the populous would have to be the main priority of society. Those who reach the peak of social life would need to come back down for others. A threshold for knowledge concerning the self, other, and world must be passed before such a process could even begin. Lastly, though utopia would appear to be mundane, the difficulty of generating the state requires work, which is not mundane. The state implies a transcendent peace, but happiness for all is a mess of parts. Is the thing an exciting mess of motion or a mundane stable state?

Dystopia is on the other end of the spectrum, but it is not a lack of civilization. Rather dystopia is a society that maintains vices. Some virtue is necessary for cooperation. For no society can exist without a kind of honesty, peace, or respect for ownership. Regardless the main characteristic of dystopias is that they are maintained by particular vices. The vices of dystopia are subjugation of groups within the society or aggression towards those outside the society. In this light we can see that no utopia has existed hitherto, every society has been a dystopia. The homo sapiens can’t claim utopia if any contemporary civilization isn’t utopian, and civilizations can’t claim utopia without virtuous societies, societies can’t be virtuous without virtuous individuals.

Each ethical concept has a particular interaction with the utopia idea. Kantian ethics would likely get the most out of a robot’s utopia. Because of the artificial nature of robots, they can be made physically equal. They can be given the same knowledge, thus holding to equality in thought. But, of course, if all agents are of the same mind and, essentially, body, then in a sense there is only one being and no need for ethics.

A utopia for relativistic aesthetics is pure freedom. One can imagine it as a paradise without consequences. Only in a state of complete anarchy can there be no restrictions on the expression of the self. Though a world without consequence can be considered a utopia, it may be perceived as less meaningful or valuable than a world with suffering and loss. What does one become in a world one can have no impact on? This utopia is closest to the paradise many claim exists for those who acquire god’s favor.

Virtuous psychologies may find utopia onto themselves, being always at ease with the self and world. Virtuous psychologies need not be perfect replicas of each other as they can work within reason by either conceding to others or working out a solution. The ultimate nature of ontology is nihilism, thus the virtuous agent doesn't find the need to cling to any thing. Without knowledge, one can achieve a passive virtue where one avoids doing harm and helps whenever necessary. A more active virtue requires knowledge of the world. So one can also choose to explore the non-nothingness within the bounds of ethics.

Because utilitarian mathematics requires a more practical approach it is the hardest to parse out. One must mix the large and small, the qualitative and the quantitative, the concrete and the abstract.

Epistemology

The hard problem of consciousness seems to be that this biological machine built with molecules has feelings when machines can operate without feelings. Evolutionary biology appears to say any function that manages to survive does so because it is well fitted to the environment. Anything without pain is likely to be careless towards its own body. Sophisticated thoughts or an understanding of the world can help in alleviating pain. However, all these tools are developed by the DNA molecule, i.e. they are given or gifted, not created or innate. The consciousness appears to be the result of background processes. The background seems prebuilt by evolution and updated by experience. The consciousness itself isn’t privy to the workings of the background beyond their effects.

How is the hard problem of consciousness, i.e. why do we have qualia, and the brain in a vat problem, i.e. the uncertainty concerning the realness of experience connected? Consciousness appears important in the former, but incompetent, if not guileful, in the later. The problem appears to be between experience and consciousness. The consciousness is uncertain whether the experience correlates with what is actually going on in the real world. This is perhaps due to a perplexity with the variation in states of consciousness or differences in reports of experiences by others. There are also observations that appear to us from science which are judged to be our structural limitations. Regardless is the attempt to deceive the consciousness through experience an explanation for qualia (though the obvious next question is why deceive at all)?

If qualia is meant to deceive the consciousness via the brain in a vat then we may ask if qualia is innate or additional? Consciousness could be a calculating machine not requiring qualia. Experience would then be a means of control by a higher authority. If one perceives experience as something disconnected from consciousness, what keeps consciousness itself from becoming untrustworthy? Being a brain in a vat would allow one to have all the tools necessary to make a calculation, but no problem or content to work on if no communication is coming from the world. Both problems seem to assume the essential nature of consciousness is the ability to calculate, and not the content being manipulated. In the brain in a vat problem there is no possibility for exploration of the world. The brain can calculate but the signal is feigned. The hard problem allows for calculation and signals from the world. Yet it claims the resolution of the world’s signals ought to be purely mechanical.

PWIP 36

Epistemology

One may observe how anything that can possess an epistemology understands itself. We can’t hide from our own knowledge, only hope to forget it or bury it deep in our subconscious. Knowledge in the form of rules and patterns are easier to follow. Every things’ place possesses meaning. Existence itself appears to have an omnipotent spontaneity with every place being filled with (something, anything, everything(?)). Though having an epistemology that can replicate the ontology in its totality is impossible, the goal is still necessary to pursue.

We may discover the values in existence by separating ourselves from it. We see ourselves as no longer belonging to the world but to ourselves. The falsehood generates distinctions that further separate the epistemology from the ontology from the epistemology’s point of view, all remains one to the ontology. We can’t claim we are the Ontology, so it appears true that we are separate from it in some sense. Order manifests itself out of the relationships made in the separation of the ontology from a whole into parts. The ontology molds the epistemology, it is an epistemology, and it transcends epistemology.

The most basic form of information is motion. The falsehoods in motion relate to differences between the world as it is and the world as it is given or understood by the senses. Distance presents itself as a problem throughout epistemology. The distance between the mind and the world confuses what is in the world and what is in the mind. There’s temporal distance between observations and the explanations for them. Mental distance between concepts can make it difficult to make the connections needed for understanding to function.

Ethics Build

The aspects of a being that appears to give them ethical value are suffering and belonging. Suffering can be a negative state of being meant to promote survival in biological machines. Belonging refers to a relationship between the owner and owned. Animals have a sense of belonging to themselves that other beings (e.g. rocks) don’t appear to possess. Such may be a result of the DNA’s inclination towards survival, equilibrium, a particular pattern in the world, or something of the like. The individual extends their sense of the self by belonging to his/her self. An uninformed state of nature may find it difficult to identify objects of ethical value. Our problem isn’t an inability to identify belonging, but rather a lack of utilitarian math. Suffering is not mere pain, it appears to be the intent to harm for the sake of harm and destruction. In this light, there’s a distinction between unethical acts, actors, and environments. Each form of the unethical state is bad, only the actors can take blame for actions or environments.

The difference between Kantian Politics and Relativism Aesthetics is the difference between individualism and collectivism. This is the problem that presents itself in ethical dynamics. We must contend with the question of how much of ourselves are we willing to give to the group? And how much of the group belongs to an individual? Groups are similar in functionality to individuals but with more power. Groups with virtuous psychologies are more predictable because their rules for behavior use less probability. Groups can appear ethical because their numbers follow a strict program for action. Actions based on tastes can contradict ethical principles. Unethics spreads rapidly when Kantian Politics is based on a group’s taste, who themselves would say they belong to a particular individual. The tension between individualism and collectivism comes from the authority of belonging. An unethical kantian politics is unstable due to the malicious belligerence of vice. Wisdom being a virtue grants the virtue psychology the ability to communicate the reasons for his/her right to act. Those who actively pursue vice are typically easier to identify than those who fall into vice through neutrality.

Eclecticism Ethics

Kantian Politics

The aesthetics of the world allows for no strict duplicates. All beings appear to have their own experiences. Despite that, equality, fairness, symmetry are still ideals to look towards when stabilizing a system. Maths can make everything one. The representative of the group, the government, is judged on its math rather than its aesthetics. Do the leaders of the group provide for the group? If all members were of perfect virtue makeup, the group is stable regardless of conditions. Equals need no functional leaders.

Utilitarian Mathematics

The brain measures the value of beings. The mental weighing is scaled up in economic systems, but essentially one can make an ordering of preferences that can be transformed into arithmetic. Utilitarianism is concerned with a preference ordering that prefers the good. We see that math deals with many aesthetic conflicts. Agents can vote, compete, or gamble to settle disputes. Aesthetics is important because everything with function needs a form or appearance. Ethics may require justified ownership.

Ownership can’t merely be who found what first or keeping what one has always had. Utilitarianism plays a major role in belonging as ethics requires everything to be in service to the greater good. Capitalism attempts to mix kantian politics, relativism aesthetics, and math to create a system that doesn’t require virtue. Without virtue, all acts end in self-destruction.

Relativism Aesthetics

Ethics also desires freedom (in as far as it is obtainable in the ontology). There is a preference ordering for one’s own taste. Conflicts tend to erupt between one’s own taste and the good. No form is bad in of itself. It’s a form's relation to another agent that makes it so. Given what appears in reality, it is very difficult to operate without doing vice. This is because knowledge can be difficult to hide from. Once one is no longer innocent of the vice in one’s taste, one is aware of the bad one has done, is doing, and may do. Yet we all are artists. And to only be allowed to make copies of the world is an injustice.

Ethics seems to contain the mundane. We find it in many places of safety and protection. A type of nihilism seems to be contained in the mundane. Ethics becomes void when there are no negative states. One is thus able to pursue one’s taste uninhibited, which is not mundane. But one does this without risk, which is mundane. Such protection or lack of pain is a type of negated freedom, and positive nihilism. Pain seems to want to take meaning with it when it is removed.

Virtue Psychology

There is perhaps less of a need for virtuous agents to use science to discover which rational beings have ethical value from which don’t. A virtuous agent is passive and would only move to help another. The ultimate objective is to help whatever needs help. Individuals with the ability to communicate are quite easy to help. We must balance it with other systems. These other systems can be found in epistemology. The passivity, as opposed to neutrality, allows the virtue agent to avoid doing harm, rather than simply ignore it whenever it occurs. An active virtue agent may scour space for vice or harm. Though the ideal of the perfect virtue agent is impossible, the ideal of vice is self-destructive.

Ethics Dynamics

The outcomes of ethical dynamics are along a spectrum of peace, mercy, conflict, and suffering. The complexity of the system increases with the number of agents, who themselves vary the power of virtue and vice with their choices of either one. The simplest case of the system is peace, in which all agents choose virtue. The more difficult cases of the system involve mixed strategies, unequal power, and the outcomes of mercy or conflict. And, of course, when vice wholly overcomes virtue there is suffering.

A third individual in the equal power game can create an imbalance of power. In a three-person game where there is unequal power either two agents have more power than one or one agent has more power than two. The agents with the most power dictate the outcome of the game. The imbalance of power generates suffering or mercy. Though virtue agents want to make equals out of other agents, there are more opportunities for virtue to prevail when it has more power than vice.

Virtuous agents are trustworthy, and therefore deterministic. Malicious agents are probabilistic, as they can choose to add to the power of either agent. The case is complex, with allegiances to either type being unstable. Agents who play vice are more stochastic in their behavior since they need not obey ethical rules. They can use the tools of virtue as means to ends in vice. Intentions are bad when the goal is malicious. Some can have good intentions but bad knowledge or skill and thus windup with an action that is a vice. The distinction in the origin of vice may change the means but not the end of preventing or stopping suffering.

Pwip XXXI

Ethics doesn’t necessarily coerce one to accept the seemingly necessary conditions of moral living. I imagine the emotional contradictions ethics would maintain as an explicit form would be as followed. It would be positively affected when one is happy to follow the imperative; and negatively affected when one dislikes one’s lot. There is no actual force ethics can apply on the self beyond the physics or beings aware of its existence. And the existence of a true rational moral is determined by domains and the existence of professionals. One may perhaps consider the various relations that manifest themselves in each domain as politics. Various connections generate a number of layers in a hierarchy; and rules aren’t always explicit, much less strategies. And immoral individuals aren’t against taking advantage of the lack of explicity in ethics.

Though metaphysics and ethics are related, and a lack of science can be replaced with a metaphysical knowledge base, their collaboration can lead to harm. The problem is metaphysics (particularly non-scientific metaphysics) is highly speculative, while ethics becomes less nebulous as one interacts with the world and learns one’s own traits. Metaphysics starts at science’s boundary, which could also be the boundary of one’s knowledge; or it is one’s whole view of the world. The ability to be kind and empathetic is an ability of high level brain function, which can be studied by science. The law shouldn’t appeal to metaphysical notions for ethical reasoning, because the nature of metaphysics is curious, and not certain. Ethics may appear metaphysical because it maintains philosophical and dynamic dilemmas that aren’t simple to solve without passing some knowledge threshold.

Many ethical conflicts are based on the subjectivity not wanting to give control to the objective ethics, as true ethics may find the power unjustified and take it. Yet, proof of an ethical principle is no simply matter, as it requires correct reasoning in one’s self and the ability to bring others to that reasoning. A strategy to avoid the objective ethics could be to understand the ethical reasoning and know its correct, yet still reject its rule on psychological grounds, where one may not follow the rule because they lack the motive or ability to deny their own nature which maybe innately unethical. Physics will not stop the body’s actions that obey its laws, its laws intersecting and completely being separate from the laws of ethics.

Typical use of metaphysics in ethics is religion or theology, where individuals apply aesthetic reasoning to existence in general and ethics in particular. Religions have various properties, one is they all seem to possess the essential values for life. The aesthetic reasoning is easier to comprehend than science as a whole. Individuals naturally come to words, books, and a narrative. These things are natural for humans, but metaphysical skepticism and awkwardness appears more philosophically appropriate. Religion presents individuals with explicit ethical rules and ontological truths, completing the individual’s epistemology. Logic seemingly necessitates negation as a part of the completion of its proof, paradoxically achieving completeness through incompleteness. Metaphysical certainty is more difficult than practical certainty because there’s no constant reaffirmation by something like the present moment or the strongest feeling/sense.

The minds relation to the world and the others may manifest different identities, as the addition or negation of an object or individual changes the boundaries of actions. Considering the conditions and limitations of the planet and abilities of others, one may also consider one’s boundaries. Metaphysics is utilized in the absolute past or absolute future, assuming such things exist. The not so far future and the far future appear to have probabilities based on one’s information set. The temporally present world maintains a balance similar to a mathematical equation. But as the expression of anything must come in an aesthetic form, art appears also necessary. It maybe a question as to which expressions are best? But as long as truth can be expressed in the language, the arbitrariness of the language may not matter.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VII

I like to think of my self as a duo of non-being and the being I am to/for other beings. For compared to all beings I am infinitesimally small, practically nothing. But I am also the composition of a mind, body, consciousness, observer, cells, particles, social roles, thoughts, senses, time, personality, history, etc.. I would assume that a perfect science, which is perhaps the expression of nature itself, would possess me as a well defined object, by use of objectivity. It may, however, be the case that no mind perceives objectivity, at least not a priori. All minds seem to follow a path determined by some set of data, but objectivity seeks a description of all data, without placing any significance or emphasis on a particular datum. The focused scope of the mind, i.e. subjectivity, leaves one vulnerable to error; for the broader world is placed outside of awareness. One may find it easier to reason from objective facts to subjective facts than the contrary. If one uses reasoning, which is perhaps the ability to organize thought, then one maybe able to discover or bring to consciousness content of various kinds and functions. Some notions are rather perplexing and the chances of misunderstandings and errors are present.

The conflict between determinism and freewill appear dependent on the time scale of the universe and the effect of its properties on humans. If the universe has no beginning or end and maintains fixed rules throughout, then there would probably be numerous opportunities for biochemistry to form. Science, however, has discovered a numerical beginning for the universe, viz. the Big Bang. Possessing an initial point seems to present one with a domino like concept of the universe, which is seen in classical mechanics I believe. On the other hand, logic or curiosity may negate an initial point by seeking a point before an initial point, or some other counterargument (perhaps by claiming the initial point and final point are one and the same). For though determinism must occur in accordance with the law that governs it, one can also say that all occurrences have already occurred in a sense and one can predict the future if one knows the law. All one seems to need to determine the future of a system is its initial state, the rules it obeys, and the objects obeying the rules. God is beyond all rules, but the moment one can breaks a rule one seems to lose the ability to predict future events, for there would be nothing from which to determine the future from (God is still beyond this as well).

No object in the universe behaves as if it knows everything that will occur. Minds seem to require some supporting principle or rule for the decisions they make; even if the rule is that one will break all rules, which is still a rule of sorts. The ability to maintain contradictory thoughts in one’s mind seems to oppose determinism, for determinism proposes a kind of certainty of course. Uncertainty and cognitive dissonance are perhaps illusions of consciousness, the mind or world as a whole may contain a specific and determined path.

Are we more free than our ancestors? We have better versions of various objects, plus more objective facts. These advance properties give us more control over space and time, which seems to imply more freedom. By making a necessity unnecessary, one frees one’s self from a limit. One seems to free one’s self from limitations by applying a novel limitation. So minds may generate meaning by giving value to objects that are merely objects, making them no longer mere objects. Objects are merely objects, but there’s no such object as a “mere object;” unless one means everything, which is the “mere object.” A mind seems only able to perceive particular objects, i.e. geometric descriptions and sensual experiences. Not only are some notions and experiences/descriptions difficult to express, but language itself appears to contain notions that are beyond empiricism, e.g. God.

Since beings can vary, it is probably the case that freedom varies. All minds may have the ability to decide what is freedom from what is not. Given the extent of my imagination, the physical body is rather limiting. Yet, when one considers that these objects are products of the development of a large amount of moving points, one tends to find amazement of some sort. Though the substance of minds are the same, i.e. we all have brains and are perceiving the same physical world, the desired form is different from being to being. This seems to be both an aesthetic and ethical dilemma. Is a universally appealing form possible?

Ethics seems to contradict freedom in that it implies a restriction. Freedom from all things is perhaps only attainable by God. One may seek to be free of many conditions in one’s thoughts; ethics, however, requires a fair or common distribution of freedom. All of this seems to also imply that one is choosing one’s master by choosing a limitation. For my mind would consider itself the master of my body, and an idea is master of my mind, an idea which is derived from my interaction with the world.

Pwip XXIX

Ethics as an abstract notion of justice or fairness becomes difficult to extract from the general system presently used to organize life. The brain is perhaps a natural computer, and the mind is the software. More understanding of the natural processes that cause various behaviors can result in better fixes for perceived errors. But the brain is highly complex. More complex maybe the mind, or perhaps rather and particularly the content the mind can generate and its deep rooted connection to the environment. There is the natural content from innate ability and the artificial content from culture and artifacts. When the content becomes consistent and honest, some individuals are less willing to accept changes. Though, philosophers, I suppose, can have a healthy skepticism towards the world.

Ethics appears controlling, since an individual would need or ought to be ethical, assuming there is an ethical program/lifestyle that can be tapped into given effort. There aren't many repeatable proofs in ethics that are concrete in the same way as mathematics and science, perhaps. Properties related to ethics seem to express themselves in some of the biological survival tactics, but no explicit expression of the ethical idea comes from irrational moral beings, unless by accident, assuming they possess a language. In fact, the psychology may oppose a discovery of an ethical science, as it would mean the subversion of any once perceived higher power (typically the self, god, ideology, or tribe). Ultimately, rational moral individuals would remain peaceful when undisturbed. Beyond entertainment value violence seems rather useless in safe environments. In a sense, the collective mind adjusts itself based on historical events (learning) and current relations (social dynamics).

The solutions achieved are shown through the results of a particular social system. A social state is perhaps measured by the condition of its population. A group appears to be in a good condition when all its member are in a reasonable positive state and bad when its members are in an unreasonable negative state. Positive states appear more difficult to detect if individuals are less than rational moral. One could be satisfied, yet proclaim discomfort to obtain an unfair advantage, or an individual could be unaware of an actual unfair social dynamic. Negative states are seen to cause population decay and chaos, which is more readily apparent.

Freedom appears closely related to attraction and repulsion, or particularly emotional acceptance and rejection. If an individual likes an event or sensation, it typically claims to be free because it pursued the action knowing the outcome, or it may not even consider its own freedom while engrossed in the positive event. One may consider enslavement, or a closely related notion, when one is experiencing unwanted pain or hardship. The negatives in philosophy appear to be errors in epistemology, or particularly the mapping from epistemology to ontology. The mind's relation to the world is different from different frames of reference, though the fact of some sort of organization, even if inefficient, implies a unification. Perhaps such can be considered a kind of option, options appearing to be a property of freedom. Though certain truths appear dependent on ontology (unification), epistemology (mind), or ethics. Psychologically knowing what is good can be taken quite easily from biology, if it isn't offered freely by it. Whether the biology is correct or not can be a scientific or philosophical consideration, one being whether physics allows such, the other being whether an action was truly the best it could have been. Philosophy converted to science is closer to practical truth, whereas pure philosophy is seemingly quiet idealistic. Some practical truths/notions appear to necessitate the ambiguity of philosophy, such as freedom, and would be more opposed to the scrutiny and certainty of science.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VI

Perhaps innocence is freedom from moral responsibility, i.e. freedom from moral behaviors and moral consequences. Mathematics being quite abstract is rather innocent. Numbers can be applied ubiquitously, but whether they are used for virtue or vice is outside the control of numbers (although in a sense numbers are part of the governing of the world). Accordingly nature is often also seen as innocent, although it is perhaps the true cause of pain and misfortune. This may all depend on whether determinism is somehow intentional. One may assume that if nature knew the pain it caused, and had the ability to negate it, it would negate it. I doubt there will ever be a day where nothing on this planet has died. Perhaps the longest living thing is the chemistry itself, which propagates itself though generation and death. One may conclude that nature itself is either cruel or incompetent.

Babies are also often seen as innocent. Yet they are equipped with various behaviors that allow them to intentionally take control of circumstances. This is opposed to the blind force of nature, which is perhaps also related to the notion of doing nothing, for typically one thinks nature external of a mind/brain is non-volitional. Most creatures appear to be reacting to some overall impression of the world. But no mind appears to be innately equipped with those necessary and arbitrary ideas needed for one to claim one understands the world (and perhaps one never understands the world, but rather only one’s own part of it). It doesn’t seem to be an easy task to get an overview of the world. Practically all animals that are not human are seen as innocent because they lack (or appear to lack) an overview of life. Yet, some innocent beings may still be punished for ethical transgressions.

Our nature is blind in the sense that no one knows everything. The blind force of nature is such because it only seems to know the laws which govern the movement of some particular unit/s. Both conditions could be used to argue for innocence. The choice to willfully perform an immoral action perhaps depends on a feeling and what is considered moral. Without a scientific system of ethics, most moral predicaments are resolved by taste or group authority. If one existed alone, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self?” If one existed with others, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self? How should one treat others?” Usual answers seem to appeal to personal taste or preferences, which appears rather arbitrary and subjective. Yet, any legitimacy placed on a subjective ethical principle seems to imply some underlying objective phenomenon.

A Philosophical Work in Progress IIII

If nature had a feeling, it would probably be something analogous to nihilism or indifference. One may claim that nature is cruel, but may run into problems if one means to imply that nature is intentionally cruel, for such would include the feeling of choice making and application. I doubt nature possesses feelings or choices outside of the generations of minds, but anything could be the case if absurdity exist. A being either exist or not, and if it exist it does what it does (one can perceive in science or knowledge the existence of beings performing actions). The notion of ethics is expressed by humans, and features of it are seen in other creatures. Ethics relationship to nature is the question of whether it is a logical system discovered in nature or a human artifice; and how one applies praise and blame to different beings such as nature, other humans and creatures, objects, and notions.

Praise and blame are themselves entangled with states of mind, behavior, and logic. For one may show the attitudes or prolonged feelings of happiness or sadness through a smile or a frown. But upon the first appearance of a smile or a frown, i.e. a smile or frown without a context or history (like the tragedy and comedy masks), one infers happiness or sadness or pleasure or pain without any information. One may infer the existence of geometric shapes from the senses of sight or touch, and likewise perhaps one could infer ethics from history, biology, and interaction between the world and the observer.

How does ethics relate to nothingness? Like the number line, nothing seems related to the negative and positive, in that it is between the two. The positive appears better than nothing, assuming one can obtain a true positive (the positive is perhaps happiness). Real nothingness, i.e. nonexistence, can be seen as better than a certain degree of the negative. Typically creatures would prefer nonexistence to an existence of pure suffering. Science contains various criterion for judging various physiological and psychological states. Nothingness, being the final form of negation, is a transcendent form/being or notion like God, nature, reality, truth, logic, perhaps goodness and ethics.

One may be able to praise or blame nothingness. One can praise nothing in the same way as when one praises the negation of something negative occurring. One may blame the other for doing nothing to change a negative condition into a positive one when the other could have done something. For minds typically want other minds to take responsibility for being conscious or intelligent or possessing some other role that can affect moral circumstances. The way minds relate to one another is different from the way they relate to other physical objects.

Nothingness would imply that a mind does not exist, which would also mean ethics would not exist in nothingness. A mind may judge nonexistence as bad if it judges existence as good. The logic of the mind appears to be quite different from the logic of the universe. Whereas the world is merely the appearance of something, the mind is in the world and over the world. Ethics is relates to how minds allot the physical world, since the body must change the world in order to change itself.

A Philosophical Work in Progress III

I think Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason are appropriate examples of ethical systems. Aristotle analyzed individuals according to extremes in personality traits; what was considered ethical or best was the midpoint between extremes. Kant formulates a law, the categorical imperative, which generally states that a human should only act in ways that that human would allow other humans to act in. The question for every moral theory is whether it is subjective (a notion) or objective (an object)? Any ethical system derived from science should be objective and found in nature, like science; but subjectivity has much to say on the subject of ethics.

The biological entity appears to have a sense of what is good and what is bad, and perhaps it derives such a sense as an extension of please and pain; for the unconscious maybe a consolidation of all the knowledge that the biological being possesses. But this is where the difference between biology and psychology becomes apparent; for biological awareness is what occurs at the cellular level, which is beyond our immediate experience of the world. Perhaps the biology inferred that if it is a colony of cells, then it would be best to gather information about colonies of cells rather than individual cells. Physics can then provide a scalar relationship between objects in space, which I think are the qualities of large and small being represented with quantities. Knowing is only one kind of action, an observer may perceive the biological entity performing all sorts of actions. Thought, either one’s own thoughts or another’s, may consider some actions as moral or immoral, and perhaps any attempt to understand those notions are pursued in human centered science. Science, however, does not contain a system of ethics, I believe. The question is whether that exclusion of a formal ethical system is due to a lack of an ethics in nature or a lack of discover.

Most human systems contain laws that mediate and govern our wide range of behavior. Existence itself may have a wide range of motions, yet what one perceives is ordered occurrences, instead of the chaos or complete silence of everything. For what would the image of all the visual memory of an individual superimposed on one another look like, or what would all the feelings one has felt feel like if experienced simultaneously? Usually the appearances are consecutive and somewhat predictable.

For me, science begins with the study of simple objects, such as simple three dimensional shapes, but that is to say I’m extracting a universal idea from a common perception of existence. In this case, one seems to take commonality for granted, then moves logic along with an “always happening.” Nothing is eternal with reference to God, but time allows occurrences to happen for long durations.

Following the lines of Aristotle’s worldview, to be good with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way, is an odd thing to judge as easy or difficult. A good being shouldn’t find it difficult to be good, for it is predicated to be good. But beings are malleable and adaptable, thus they may become something other than good. A good being can still perform wrong actions; such errors can lead to bad outcomes and could be seen as immoral by other beings. The notion of goodness is ambiguous much like God, logic, nature, and science which exist universally (or, perhaps, because they exist universally).

Hume expressed his ethical system using the dualities of praise and blame. These dualities are more concrete than good and bad, for they imply a judgment and pointing by persons, e.g. one can point out errors in systems with goals, or one can be aware of pleasure and an object which generates that affect. Theoretically, one maybe able to have a being categorize all the possible actions in existence as good or bad/praise or blameworthy. Problems typically occur when multiple beings are categorizing actions and have the ability to dissent from one another. Well, there is only a problem if ethics necessitates that all beings agree on which actions are good or bad.

It seems to me that there are psychological differences in how praise and blame are applied to various situations. One praises those objects which gives one pleasure. Pleasure, a feeling, is activated by appealing sensations. What is considered a moral action comes as a sensation. What appeals to the senses is perhaps not as important as why a sensation appeals to a mind or biological being. For biological beings the appeal appears to be related to the energy exchanges between the world and the being. The mind, being a record of the biological beings experiences, perhaps finds its appeal in how aspects of the world are connected.

The mind intersects the world at some point, but it appears multiple minds cannot intersect the world at the same point, for such would imply that two minds can exist in the same place at the same time. There are cases where two minds may appear to exist in the same place and time simultaneously, such as split personalities, identical twins, or collectivism. For we all exist on the same planet and share similar knowledge. These facts and other similarities are used to justify the assumption that others possess minds and consciousnesses. Yet, there are differences between minds/consciousnesses, for there would exist no friction or conflict if there were no differences. This may all be a result of intersecting the world from different points. Two physical points not being able to exist in the same position in space at the same time implies a distinct history for both points.

Perhaps ethics revolves around a logic based on the notions of good and bad, which are derived from biological functions (particularly the feelings pleasure and pain; and the behaviors or applications of praise and blame). What are the outcomes of categorizing something as good or bad? I would think God is to blame and praise for all that happens, but I’m unsure what that implies. A part blaming or praising the whole implies it blaming or praising the other parts that together make the whole. God is still beyond the whole.

The notion of ethics is also strongly related to judgments and decisions, Because the creation of a consciousness/mind in existence is so subtle, it has many degrees of freedom. Why one does what one does is a personal question. An ethical system seems to require a kind of universality. Science can tell one how to stay alive, but it doesn’t tell one how to exist; it merely exclaims what exist in nature.

The appeal to the senses is desire, for one comes to know what one wants through multiple interactions with the world and with one’s self. The desires of the self appear distributed between the biological structure and the particular mind which it possesses. The desires of the world are the wants of other beings and the necessity of physics. Though all are objects of praise or blame, the consequences of each are different.

A Philosophical Work in Progress II

The mind is what the brain is doing, or one could extend the brain to include the whole cellular system. Where is the observer relative to the mind and the world? The brain appears to recreate or represent the information it receives from the other organs, and the other organs communicate their conditions to the brain. Thus the world is how the brain represents the organs’ reactions to the world acting on them. The brain also manipulates the information it produces, perhaps automatically. One manipulation is extending the innate first-person view to the third-person or bird’s eye view. The observer perceives the five senses and the abstractions, and to the mind the mental constructs are perhaps more congruent with “reality” than the sensations. The observer is everywhere a mind is, in a sense; but since the mind is a product of the cellular system, and the cellular system is a logical operation of physical material, the observer could be physical material itself, wherever it may exist.

The only particular objects that matter philosophically are everything or/and God, which in themselves are not pragmatic; for everything is omniscience, which is beyond human capacities; and God in Its nature is beyond nature, therefore any talk of it appears to be nonsensical and absurd (I myself will not stand by my own words about God because I’m not God). In any case, such notions are investigated and categorized under philosophy, which in some sense associates philosophy with absurdity. I think this understanding merely serves as a warning of sorts when one is moved to duality, i.e. something other than the absolute.

What is the process by which nothing becomes something, and something becomes everything, then everything becomes one thing, and one thing becomes nothing? I think such is a simple logical question derived from word play. Yet, what it means to be, which is the study of ontology in philosophy, entails the notions of what does it mean to become and what does it mean to cease being, or whether such actions even occur? My immediate answer to such a question would be that one needs to look at particulars in order to understand universals (even though everything is insignificant in relation to God; it is also as great as God, assuming what is below God is still part of God).

I assume I’m in the “something” part of the process of existence because of an appearance. The appearance has an immediate form and a mediate form as it comes through consciousness. To the observer the immediate form of the appearance is all that passes through one’s mind at any given moment. The mediated form of the appearance are those items which affect us yet are outside of our awareness; such would include those perpetual mechanisms in the brain that find their expression in the mind yet go unnoticed by consciousness. It is science that assists us with understanding the appearance of something which is complex and nebulous upon first acquaintance. One may need to use the immediate appearance to move about the mediate appearance to acquire scientific knowledge. Science can then begin with the study of simple objects, such as simple three dimensional shapes; that is to say I’m extracting a universal idea from an extremely common perception of existence. In this case, one seems to take commonality for granted, then moves logical connection along with an “always happening.” This may all be a result of a kind of trust in a system or what one considers truth. The expression or organization of knowledge (in words at least) comes in many forms; but two interlocutors can simply agree on a mutual understanding and hope it is true. Real truth is perhaps with God, but absurdity/paradox is difficult for the mind to comprehend.

Ethics, I believe, is a formalization of the natural behavior of cooperation. Creatures typically cooperate or conflict, and that maybe a result of the attraction and repulsion forces, or the general fact of dualities, which manifest polarizations. Diurnal life, however, is not as disambiguous as polar opposites (which usually express themselves with terms like good/bad, moral/immoral, virtue/vice). What would God, a being beyond ethics, think of ethics (assume God does something analogous to thinking)?

The leap from ontology to ethics feels quite pretentious, it would be best to look at problems first. The general truth of appearances is, in my opinion, found in science. For science is our best record of what nature is. However, the records themselves are subjective; science would consider nature to be an objective entity (basically meaning a being that is outside of one’s self). The observer itself is either outside, inside, or both in relation to one’s self. For one’s self is one’s whole self. In reference to ontology, one’s whole self is everything, for one is a part of all things. It seems to me that all ethical systems exclude some aspect of the everything. Perhaps many ethical behaviors can be supported by science, since science is the expression of objects in space and what they are doing.

Philosophy and science are both similar in that they seek the truth, where they diverge is perhaps at some extreme point generated by philosophy. The use of science as a bases for ethics does help in placing one’s mind in a natural context, I believe. One could think of nature as the observable universe, and the limit of sight. Sight itself is a strong sense in reference to science. How far out does one extend the notion of ethics? Theoretically, one may extend one’s ethical system as far as to God (although it may become absurd at that point). What one should encompass in one’s ethical system is an ethical question involving exclusion.

Science informs the mind of objects in nature that immediate nature, perhaps, cannot inform the mind of. Again, one is not born with scientific knowledge; it is acquired or discovered in nature. Science allows one to trace back to the origin of an object, and by knowing what an object has done, one can infer what an object can do. Roughly the objects studied in science are particles, molecules, cells, creatures, societies, and galaxies. Ethics mostly revolves around societies and creatures; this exception is related to what makes science and ethics different, and that is to say ethics seems to exclude extremely small and large objects and objects that are not constructed from cells.

I think Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason are appropriate examples of an ethical system. Aristotle analyzed individuals according to extremes in personality traits; what was considered ethical or best was the midpoint between extremes. Kant formulates a law, the categorical imperative, which generally states that a human should only act in ways that that human would allow other humans to act in. The question for every moral theory is whether it is subjective (a notion) or objective (an object)? Any ethical system derived from science should be objective and found in nature, like science; but subjectivity has much to say on the subject of ethics (subjectivity being one’s present thoughts and experiences).

For the most part, the biological entity has a sense of what is good and what is bad, and it probably derives such a sense as an extension of pleasure and pain, for the unconscious maybe a consolidation of all the knowledge that the biological being possesses. But this is where the difference between biology and psychology becomes apparent. For biological awareness is what occurs at the cellular level, which is beyond our immediate experience of the world. Perhaps the biology inferred that if we are colonies of cells, then it would be best to gather information about colonies of cells rather than individual cells. Physics can then provide a scalar relationship between objects in space, which I think are the qualities of large and small being represented with quantities. Scientific data one can obtain quite easily from the internet was rather difficult to acquire, express, and propagate, and still, knowing is only one kind of action. An observer may perceive the biological entity performing all sorts of actions. Thought, either one’s own thoughts or another’s, may consider some action moral or immoral, and perhaps any attempt to understand those notions are pursued in psychology. Science, however, does not contain a system of ethics, I believe. The question is whether that exclusion of a formal ethical system is due to a lack of an ethics in nature or a lack of discovery.

On the other hand, science does contain social science, which is a record of the various social systems which have been observed. Most social systems contain laws that mediate and govern the wide range of possible behaviors. Existence itself may have a wide range of motions, yet what one perceives is an ordered occurrence (given significant time has elapsed), instead of the chaos or complete silence of the everything. For what would the image of all the visual memory of an individual superimposed on one another look like, or what would all the feelings one has felt feel like if experienced simultaneously? Usually the appearances are consecutive and somewhat predictable. Nothing is eternal with reference to God, however, occurrences may happen for long durations of time. Knowledge of a continuity is the insight from science or memory/rationality. The first continuity one may perceive is existence, and any most laws seem to consider existence. It is through the notion of existence that one is able to form considerations, and perhaps one can simply jump into any moral dilemma by use of consideration. For typically one considers the goodness and badness of actions.

God and Ethics

How does God affect the nature of ethics? For some people claim that an atheist has no objective morality. I’m assuming this claim doesn’t infer that an atheist is a savage of some sort. Regardless, ethics is a rational standard for behavior. Evolution has provided each creature with a means to accomplish its ends, which for the most part is survival. And as the earth is the only place in the observable universe with life, we all have the possibility of interaction, since the earth is a finite object. Obviously some general rules would be a natural outcome of the circumstances.

Though I advocate a rather broad ethical standard, something along the lines of not doing harm to others, I can understand any other ethical standards, granted it is sensible. All the religions and philosophies that advocate some kind of ethical system are concerned with the human condition and its maintenance. As a human, there are things I need and things I want; and there are particular ways in which to accomplish these ends. The existence or non-existence of God has no fundamental effect on how I must live in order to live comfortably. I believed in God as a child, and now I do not. This change in my understanding of reality hasn’t altered my need for food, air, water, and other vital functions.

I mean, how could I not possess a knowledge which I claim and prove to have? I don’t have to believe in God to understand the words in the the bible, what the ten commandments are, what laws are, what the constitution is, etc. I just believe a synthesis of different philosophies is closer to the truth. And I prefer more literal explanations for my reality; religions are far too metaphorical for my taste. Ultimately all ethical dilemmas are circumstantial. The outcome will always depend on the mind’s understanding of reality and the possible motions of the world.

On Evil

“Some art of mensuration is required in order to show us pleasures and pains in their true proportion. This art of mensuration is a kind of knowledge, and knowledge is thus proved once more to be the governing principle of human life, and ignorance the origin of all evil: for no one prefers the less pleasure to the greater, or the greater pain to the less, except from ignorance.” ~Plato

Evil Is normally understood by most people in the context of the biblical representation of badness or wickedness, in other words, evil is equivalent to sin or the devil. This is of course a very vague way of identifying evil, as sin and the devil are not innate representations in the mind. The closes representation we have to identifying or relating to evil is our notions of pain and pleasure, as most people would consider pain, either physical or mental harm, to be the expression or representation of evil. For, other than the Bible’s notion of evil, we have other myths and doctrines that present their own idea of evil, but all lead back to our notion of pain and pleasure.

If life were purely pleasant, i.e. all affections on the brain resulted with pleasure, then there would be no way of identifying evil, wickedness, deficiency, inadequacy, imperfection, harm to the body, degradation, etc. and the like. For instance, if the happening of losing an arm resulted with a pleasant sensation, lets say every animal had a feeling of bliss from what we presently consider as pain, it is impossible, for me at least, to imagine animals not willingly doing harm to themselves for the mere sake of receiving pleasure. Much of a living thing’s actions are dictated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and even the more intelligent creatures must start with this demeanor. Death itself would be but a joke to all living things without pain, which we perceive it to be the opposite. We would not be able to say that killing another living being was a terrible act without pain; because there would be no discomfort to either the victim nor to anyone who valued the victim’s life, nor any hope of empathy from the murderer. Clearly, whatever moral doctrines are presented to the mind, must find their foundations in the innate mental ideas of pleasure and pain.

Yet, good and evil can not be merely viewed as a pursuit of pleasure(being good) versus an avoidance of pain(being evil). The reason being that other animals do base their actions on a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain, yet it is only with ourselves that we label certain actions as moral and others as immoral. If a lion kills another lion, it is viewed simply as the actions performed by an animal, but if a man kills another man, it is murder. Now without going too deep into detail, I can only perceive the most significant difference between a lion and a man to be that of intelligence, which was probably not so clear during ancient times, but is undeniably obvious in today’s world, with our clear advances in technology and the unmistakable environment which a man lives in compared to that of other animals. Thus, like Plato, I believe morals and ethics begin and end with knowledge. For it is also clear that other intelligent creatures have some notion of ethical actions, as shown by science.

No one is innately evil, every being is a product of their circumstances, this is a notion i believe is extremely important. It sickens me that many religions would have humans believe that they are not in control of their own actions, they are incapable of performing virtuous actions through their own abilities, and that everyone is evil who does not comply with their particular group. We are born with innate abilities, but not innate intentions, notions, and ideas. No human has shown an inborn disposition to do evil, whom has not also shown a pathological incapacity, which indicates an imperfect and undeveloped mind or brain. However, instead of an opposition to that which is undoubtedly evil, religions manage to put good people in conflict with each other, as the human race is no longer separated into those who can do and those who need help, but into those who comply and those who do not. What is good and evil is quite ambiguous, it is our relations with each other that give these ideas concreteness. Those who put themselves above all others, but not due to more beneficial and efficient notions of the world, rather through dubious and problematic traditions, are committing a great evil.

If a God was the one to dictate universal rules, it should be impossible to break them. This seems to be the case for life in general, that no being can go against the rules dictated by logic; such as the rules that guide physics, biology, and chemistry; though we are still working on these concepts. Actions that are logically impossible can not be performed, no matter how much we wish or will illogical actions to be done. Yet, immoral actions can be performed merely by us willing these actions. Why would we be incapable of performing actions that are logically impossible, when we willfully want to perform them, yet have unenforced laws opposing particular actions that can still be performed regardless, even though no sane person willfully desires immoral actions? If a God exist, it is certainly preventing particularly extraordinary and supernatural actions by force from being actualized, such as a human beings having the ability to move faster than the speed of light using only our legs. If such a divine being is allowing immoral/evil actions to be done, but is punishing those who do it, even though clearly no immoral action is done willingly(because an insufficiency in the mind or circumstances of a creature always leads to an immoral action, but no immoral action is done for the mere end of doing evil itself; it’s always to avoid pain or pursue pleasure), such a being would be completely unreasonable and unjust. I can not believe in a world where an unreasonable ruler reigns over all, especially since science and logic demonstrate a rather justified and principled existence.