Truly Objective Ethics

[dimar]

To all interested in secular, universal, absolute and objective morality / ethics.

 

Hi,

there is a new moral system that consists of objective ethics and sacrificial morality, each governing interactions between people (or any intelligent beings) in its respective sphere of society - public and private. The public sphere includes all formal social institutions, and the private sphere includes relations in family, between sexes, friends, etc. There is also the book "Cult of Freedom & Ethics of Public Sphere" describing the first part of the moral system (ISBN 978-1-304-75347-2).

 

Here is a short summary. This book shows (and is able to prove) that there could be the only one possible true objective ethics (OE). This ethics is objective in the sense that its source is in objective (social) reality independent of any possible moral actor. Objective ethics is the basis for actions of and relations between any intelligent beings not connected personally. It has nothing to do with religion, traditions or science. The foundations of OE are purely metaphysical although its practical norms are found and formed through a trusted fair contract between free moral actors. However, OE is not based on contract. Rather it is contract that based on this ethics. Universal common ground for consensus is freedom, and in order to achieve it OE demands the elimination of all forms of violence, coercion, oppression, influence and the like that may violate free expression of the will. Therefore OE leads humanity to a free and just society that is a moral alternative to the modern oppressive order. OE brings no practical benefits, goods or utility, and its ultimate goal is absolute freedom even if it is unreachable. It helps find the objective truth and distinguish the objectively good from the objectively bad.

 

There is also a site dedicated to objective ethics - http://ethical-liberty.com. It is based on the book and presents all of the important ideas. The book is free for a week (may be longer if an interest arises) and can be downloaded from here: http://ethical-liberty.com/cult-of-freedom.htm. Thanks for your time / interest.

[Buffy]

Cool. 

 

Is this an abstract/theoretical proposal for organizing society created from whole cloth, or an explanation of an evolutionary development of ethics/morals in the real world?

 

An administrative note: we're all about discussion here, so it's not only bad form to tell people to go look at your site for an explanation, it'll get flagged as spam and your links are likely to magically disappear.

 

 

We are born charming, fresh and spontaneous and must be civilized before we are fit to participate in society, :phones:

Buffy

[dimar]

Is this an abstract/theoretical proposal for organizing society created from whole cloth, or an explanation of an evolutionary development of ethics/morals in the real world?

Both. And a practical one too.

 

An administrative note: we're all about discussion here, so it's not only bad form to tell people to go look at your site for an explanation, it'll get flagged as spam and your links are likely to magically disappear.

 

Do I have to present the whole system in one post? I think, I'll pass. If you have to delete my post, please do. Thanks.

[Buffy]

Oh you don't have to present the whole thing! That'd be silly! 

 

There are always specific subtopics that can be briefly explained and discussed. That's what we like to do here.

 

But if you don't have an elevator pitch, you're probably not going to entice many people to think about those ideas....

 

 

A good advertisement is one which sells the product without drawing attention to itself, :phones:

Buffy

[SaxonViolence]

Ayn Rand tried very hard to come up with a completely Objective set of Ethics.

 

She failed rather spectacularly—largely I think because at some point she took her own Subjective Desires as Irreducible Primaries.

 

"A Moral Being acts to protect its own Existence, Satisfaction and Independence."

 

"Value is what one acts to gain or to keep." 

 

"God cannot possibly exist, because I disapprove of the Idea."

 

Why is Survival Preferable to Death? Why is Pain Preferable to Pleasure?

 

Why does one dude really like Shakespeare, another dude prefers Hemingway? I like Edgar Rice Burroughs better than either!

 

 

Those are all Subjective preferences. Sure, once you stake down your starting Axioms, the rest will follow Deductively.

 

That's how Socrates hustled so many Debaters. The old reprobate lulled them into accepting his definitions.

 

I read one time that Rand's lack of Rigor was no greater than many another trailblazing philosopher...

 

But she preached in a time when non-professional philosophers get little respect from academics—and so many are horrified by her conclusions that they will not let themselves Objectively examine her thoughts.

 

But Godel proved that No Axiomatic System can be airtight. It will either have unprovable propositions and/or it will contain contradictions.

 

Lack of strong Subjective Preferences and Strong Emotional Desire is arguably one thing that holds back so much of our attempts at Artificial Intelligence.

 

Give me a computer that likes Red better than Green; that prefers Rock to Country and that prefers Renoir to Rembrandt...

 

We have self programming computers—but they don't give a Rat's Derrière about streamlining the program.

 

Attack a Subjective Computer's treasured belief that Renoir was the Best Artist in History and you will have an AI Program that will be self-starting and absolutely relentless.

 

O yeah, Ayn Rand was a crabby old bat and toward the end she got a bit—shall we say "Irrational" and "Fiercely Intolerant of Opposing Views"...

 

And I sure wasn't 100% on Board with her...

 

But you seem to want to use Your "Objectivism" to make life Completely Joyless and Pointless.

 

I think a worthy Philosophy would be much closer to her end of the pool than yours.

 

 

Saxon Violence 

Edited April 11, 2014 by SaxonViolence

[ErlyRisa]

AI - its basic...

 

even a rock could discover it.

 

As for...

Truly?

 

Nah,

As this AI states:

What more  is there? Nothing: Therfore End.

 

ethics...Just there fore discussion

When does it end?

[SaxonViolence]

Is that some form of free verse poetry?

 

Some scientist purport to believe that Carbon Compounds spontaneously self organized eventually leading to Intelligence—at least after a fashion.

 

I've never heard of Silicone compounds spontaneously organizing into Artificial Intellegences.

 

Well yeah, I did read an SF book once...

 

You are not an AI.

 

As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, "There is no end of Books."

 

Presumably, books on Ethics or Metaphysics would be an infinite subset of an unending supply of books.

 

When you erect a structure—whether of wood and stone or of precepts organized into a system...

 

You alway need a firm foundation to begin properly. You only have to drive your Pilings in deep enough to raise the Edifice you wish to erect.

 

Later, if you are someone else wants to build the EdifIce higher or broader, then you must drive more Pilings and drive them deeper.

 

Sometimes with Physical Pilings one reaches solid ground—bedrock as it were.

 

It is Vanity and a Vexation of Spirit to seek to drive your Philosophical Pilings all the way down to bedrock.

 

Philosophical ground is a bottomless quagmire.

 

So yes, there is no need to be driving Ethical Pilings or building edifices unless;

 

A.} You find dealing with evanescent, elusive and arcane concepts enjoyable.

 

B.} You need to debunk or at least call into question a System that you find unaesthetic.

 

OR,

 

C.} You want to rally folks around your idiosyncratic system of Ethics. 

 

Yip—EE—KI—AY!!!

 

 

 

sAXON vIOLENCE

[ErlyRisa]

Yipeekiay!!!!

 

love it...

 

Ethics: just interaction

 

To an alien species, it maybe different.

 

ie. "I loved (it)"

-our interaction.

 

...as rules, what "ethical" code did we stumble over?

 

--we could write a book on just this one interaction, analys discuss, interprete, re-interprete.

it's why I am here (forums, akin to the birth of interactive TV - aka as life)

 

beauty of creating our silicon bretheren - ethicaly we will treat them as "badly" as we humans treat, ourselves, environment, amoeba, etc.

--but then again we may not - I see many people polish thier iPads more than they supply nutritious food for thier children.

 

ethics: Just interaction: Artificially developed interaction based on memory, and responce to the environment. - just as many things are in the end.

 

those that dictate ethics/morality or just plain "rules" , at first are trying to sell, but then as community apoints, the apointed justify rules, based on communal distain.

 

--so for an individual ethics is mute.

--for a pair that realise that they age and need to reproduce - the ethics is in "the advantageous setting: for the goal"

--for a community: thwarted and engineered to suit the commonality of the populous... which

creates: "spiky" people that do-not suit the community, become, "unethical", and hence create an ecnomy in the community, which en effect brings our algorithm back too : pair production (loner vs. the many in this case).

 

Their used to be a time when loners could leave...

today, thanks to iPads - loners are just commodities for public "screwing" , utilised to "take up our time" - because ethically, we wrote rules: that we noow discuss, and watch, and discuss and watch and discuss and watch -_creating more...

 

When does it end?

 

PS spontaneity in the universe (evolution) - yeah: see algorithm above.