Secular Objective Morality The Best of all Possible Worlds My Model of Morality

[@Encounterpart]

1) I'm largely convinced by what you propose. 2) I'm happy to think it's based on the 'impositions on will' principle until further notice. In our practical situation, I apply the thought that fewer impositions are always preferable to more, even if not everyone is comfortable calling it 'morality'. I'm yet to hear an example where more impositions are preferable to fewer. 3) Yes. 4) I tentatively say that sentience is required for morality. If that's an aporopriate synonym for 'agency', then yes. 5) Yes. 6) Yes. 7) Nature can cause things that we percieve to be immoral. Without sentience which suffers the effects, I'm not willing to call an eruption immoral, but I don't think the question implies this. 8) Uncertain, morality could be a feature of sentient existence. I'm not sure I would compare it to a feature of physics as seemingly in the absence of will, this feature would not be present. A feature of evolution, if you like. 9) BPW model seems to be an excellent tool in comparing the hypothetical to our current predicament in order to improve on things. 10) It would look like something a tri-omni creature should be able to conjure.

[@neilhabermehl6187]

Objective Standard does not equal Objective Morality. You have defined your person rules of the game, an objective standard, not objective morality. Objective morality requires that moral proposition X is objectively true, that moral action X is objectively good or objectively bad. All you have done, Tom, and you know I love you, is invent your personal objective standard that is subjective at base, like the rules of a card game. 4:30 "seems to be..." Hardly objective. 5:12 What makes stealing food objectively immoral? 6:08 BPW Who or what defines "best"? Circular reasoning, you are just ad hoc asserting what would be "best". 6:22 "I believe" Great, you believe, somebody else believes something else. How is what you believe somehow objectively good? 10:52 "Individual should" Who defines "should"? You just made up your personal should, not at all objectively good. 13:00 "What makes it best is..." Circular reasoning. What makes it best is what you have decided ad hoc is best. 13:00 Hasty generalization. Just because X is best in the best world does not make X best in the real world because X in the best world lacks the negative aspects X has in the real world. 13:52 "Objective moral standard" OMG, you said it yourself!!! An objective standard is subjective at base, like the rules of a card game. You just invalidated your own argument for objective morality by calling your system what it is, an objective standard. 15:15 "Objective moral standard" Right, objective standard, not objective morality. 15:47 Your conclusion says it, "The objective standard of morality". Not objective morality. Subjective morality defined into an objective standard, like the rules of a card game. 16:20 "demonstrate...objective" No, to demonstrate objective morality you have to show that an ethical proposition is objectively good, or objectively bad, not just that it objectively fits your model or objectively is being acted out or that nature objectively does impose the proposition on us.

[@Gary_oldmans_left_nut]

This is a good criticism. Tjump doesn't even spend much time explaining why he thinks his morality is objective. He spends most of the time explaining why his discription is an accurate discription, given the common usage and understanding of the word morality.

[@RighteousBurn]

Thanks for the video Tom. I'm no expert, but I'll do my best to answer your questions. 1 Morality is behavior framework that has evolved for our survival. 2 Based on actions, but requires intent. 3 Yes, on a granular level. Offer benefit=objectively good, cause harm=objectively bad. 4 We don't have free will. However, morality requires intent. 5 If immoral conditions are imposed on animals, then yes. 6 I lean no. A damaged brain is not capable of making sound choices. 7 A natural disaster would not be immoral. There is no intent. 8 Perhaps!? A natural driver that sparked the origin of life? Great question. 9 Morality is easy in a BPW. However we live in a universe where there are winners and losers. We have to make tough choices to survive. 10 BPW would be a universe without survival pressures of any kind. I would never die, always win at tennis, never get cold. But it might be boring.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Please define "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔 If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion

[@constructivecritique5191]

We already live in the best of all possible worlds. Our mental defects don't define the world as it actually is.

[@geraldharrison5787]

This seems confused to me. To claim that morality is objective is to make a claim about its mode of existence - it is to claim that it exists (if or when it exists) extra-mentally. That is, it exists when or if it exists, outside of any and all minds. Such a view about morality - though quite popular at present among contemporary philosophers - is demonstrable incoherent. But more importantly for the purposes of this video, one cannot validly conclude that morality is objective from a first order claim about what has value or what we ought to be doing. That is, the claim that "Xing is good" is a claim about a property that Xing has. It should not be confused with an identity claim. That is, it is not the claim that Xing and goodness are one and the same. Yet all we have above is first order claim subsequently being confused with a second order one. That's a fallacy known as the 'naturalistic' fallacy' (first identified by the philosopher G.E.Moore and so-called because it is the fallacy that leads many to conclude that morality can be naturalized).

[@trumpbellend6717]

I'm a secular humanist and If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. You see the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and "right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome. So whilst our actions would still have consequences that would impact wellbeing absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved attributes and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is YOUR "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what anyone's subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@trumpbellend6717 If you value something, that doesn't entail that it is morally valuable. If you value raping people, for example, that does not entail that it is good to rape, obvs. Therefore, moral value is not the same as personal value. Moral values and norms and values and norms of Reason, hence why we have to use our reason to figure out what's right and wrong, good and bad. But as only a mind can value something or issue any kind of instruction -and morality is essentially composed of values and instructions - then Reason, the source of those norms and values, must be a mind. And she'd be a god - God in fact. Therefore, moral norms and values are the directives and values of God. See?

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@geraldharrison5787 I took the time to give you a detailed explanation of my perspective and asked you a couple of very simple questions at the end, yet you simply ignored them. 😡 Instead it appears you want to engage in a one way discourse in which you are unwilling to open your own moral standards up to criticism. I'm more than happy to partake in an honest discourse and answer any questions you have for me but this is going to be a two way street dear. With that in mind I ask AGAIN.... *What is your "goal" and why "OUGHT" one do what anyone's subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔 If you are unwilling to answer then I must assume honesty and truth are secondary to maintaining the ideology you WANT to be true. In which case I will accept your defeat, our discourse is over and I bid you goodnight, the choice is yours.

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@trumpbellend6717 Address the argument I made. Don't you understand? The argument I made refutes any view other than the one described in its conclusion. So, either you think my argument is unsound - in which case say why - or you just don't care about arguments and just want to say some stuff....in which case, I don't care to engage with you.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@geraldharrison5787 As suspected you have no interest in an honest discourse and once one is offered it completely throws you off your pre-scripted Godsplaining narrative. Even the most basic of questions leaves you wriggling and squirming like a worm on a hook to find some way ANY way to evade, obfuscate, misdirect or just ignore, rather than open up you position up to any scrutiny. You had you chance and blew it cupcake, now run along I'm busy conversing with others that have more of an informed honest intellectual perspective. 👋🖐👋🤏

[@constructivecritique5191]

Have any novel testable predictions been made to separate these mental concepts of our imagination from what actually exists in physical reality? Seems Tom defines Jesus as the most moral person possible. Tom also committed the immoral act of defining morality for all to consume. If he kept it all to himself, he would have been moral. If he acts according to his own beliefs as stated, then he would have been more moral.

[@neilhabermehl6187]

"Involuntary imposition of will is bad" Just your ad hoc subjective opinion, not objective. Your imagined BPW is just your subjective opinion of what would be "best". Morally "best" is necessarily subjective.

[@pwills7829]

I am surprised you can't see the incoherence in your own philosophy. You say it is objectively moral to help others, and yet in your so called best of all possible worlds, it would be utterly useless to help anyone ever, because no bad to could ever happen to anyone anyway-thus there would never be a need to do anything good ever. Its the huge flaw in your whole BPW game. Besides the other obvious incoherence of your proposal for choosing a world AFTER you have already experienced it, the other thing that makes your best world impossible is the fact that by your very defintion, morality is not necessary in your BPW. It wouldn't exist. It would be a completely moral-less world. If eating all the cake you wanted would have no negative consequnces, then nothing has consequences, and so not a single person in your BPW could ever be virtuous, good, moral or even decent. Because being indecent is not possible. In fact the only thing you could do in your best possible world is sit motionless and ask for indefinite mental orgasms, because there is not a need for anything. It seems pretty obvious to me why a creator would know how useless it would be to make such a world.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Presumably your "creator" could never be solely virtuous good moral or even decent because him being indecent is not possible? 🤔🙄

[@trumpbellend6717]

🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@trumpbellend6717]

Tell me dear is there evil, immorality, indecency, ect in heaven or does everyone just _"sit motionless and ask for indefinite mental orgasms because there is no need for anything else"_ ?? 🙄🤔