Before I said that morality is dumb and that all moralcucks are bluepillers. I still have this belief. But now I have a theory that it is viable for an objective standard of morality to exist on the condition that it has absolutely zero regard for choice, intention and accountability. To start off, some definitions of “objective” and “morality”
Objective (adjective)
Morality (noun)
Now that I’ve provided some definitions of “objective” and “morality”, I can synthesize them to propose a definition of "objective morality"
Objective morality
The Significance of a Moral Framework
A moral system is supported by the attribution of “rightness” and “wrongness” to modes of behavior. In order for this attribution to be practical, there has to be a pre-existing framework of morality that enables the qualities of “right” and “wrong” to become attributable to certain modes of behavior
This is a similar condition that applies to methodical frameworks that are used to study the natural sciences and formal sciences (Mathematics, Physics etc.) A pre-existing framework is required for discoveries to be made in the sciences or mathematics, which might otherwise be described as a “system of axioms”. Ultimately theorems, principles and laws in mathematics and science can be discovered through the methodical application of a “system of axioms” in a sort of methodical study that crucially depends on the discovery of empirical evidence, aka EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
But there is a fundamental difference between the scientific framework and the moral framework - In both the scientific and the moral framework, a sort of significance or meaning is attributed to specific variables. This is a necessary pre-condition of a scientific or moral / ethical framework because it enables a purposeful study to be carried out with regard to the variables in the scientific or moral / ethical framework that are considered as meaningful or having purpose
For a scientific framework, there is at least one fundamental variable that is given a sort of meaning or significance - Essentially numbers and properties of numbers (e.g., size – a number can be larger than, equal to or smaller than another number). Numbers and its fundamental property of size is a necessary requirement in the methodical framework that would be applied in a scientific or mathematical study that would lead to discoveries of theorems, principles and laws in science
For a moral framework, there is also a fundamental variable that is given a sort of meaning or significance – An organic being that is perceived as physically capable of self-animation / self-mobility. This is a fundamental variable that is required in the methodical framework that would be applied in a moral or ethical study that would lead to discoveries of “right” and “wrong” conduct based on the nature of the perceived physical (or emotional) effect that it can have on an organic being
The Problem of Morality
The issue with morality is that it essentially depends on whether a sense of MEANING / SIGNIFICANCE is attributed to organic beings. If you presuppose there is a purpose or significance in the existence of organic beings, then you would have reason to assume there is an objective standard for “right” and “wrong” conduct that applies to organic beings, based on your presupposition that the existence of organic beings is significant or purposeful
But this leads to the philosophical thought experiment, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”. How does this experiment relate to objective morality? If you hypothesize a situation where a manner of behavior that would normally be designated as “right” or “wrong” by some moral framework, happens where no conscious observer is involved, can the same moral judgement be made by someone who was affected by this incident but never knowingly witnessed this incident as it affected them? Theoretically, it is possible for a conduct to happen by accidentally or unintentionally. So how does objective morality accommodate for accidental phenomena? Perhaps it does not have to accommodate for accidents…
For example, Jamie and Annie were in a sedan. Jamie was the driver of the sedan, and Annie was the passenger. They were travelling across the freeway in the sedan. Jamie and Annie are known to each other and have a friendly / passive relationship; Jamie is the legal owner of the sedan and has the license to drive it. Then suddenly, Jamie has an epileptic seizure while driving; he lost control of the vehicle somewhere on the freeway. He has no known previous symptoms of epilepsy. The car crashes; both Jamie and Annie are injured in the crash. Jamie survives and recovers from his injuries, but Annie’s injuries were severe and forced her into a long-term vegetative state. Annie is still “alive”, i.e., she has a pulse, but shows no signs of response to physical stimuli
If you were to say “objective morality exists, and there are certain modes of conduct that are objectively good or objectively bad, but this excludes all accidental or unintentional phenomena” - Now you have to deal with the dilemma behind the privacy of experience. This idea is attributed to Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951). A language that can be understood by only one person is fundamentally incoherent. Wittgenstein argues there is no systematic criterion for the correctness of a definition of internal sensation, since whatever seems right will be right
Now twist the example a bit and suppose Jamie didn’t actually have an epileptic seizure - He faked it because for some unstated reason he actually wanted to cause injury to himself or to Annie, and feigned a seizure to avoid being held accountable for negligent behavior or malicious intent to cause injury to himself or another person upon investigation. How can you prove beyond all possible doubt that this wasn’t the case if you are ultimately not Jamie? You cannot. And this highlights the problem with objective morality. The definitions for “right” and “wrong” behavior cannot be applied to deduce with total certainty where “righteous” and “wrongful” behavior has taken place, because there is no possible way to ascertain beyond all possible doubt whether the other person was aware of their actions if ultimately you are not that person. If your moral framework does not disregard choice and intention, then it is a fallible framework, cause either way, the moral judgement is ultimately based on how you feel about the incident that took place, and not about what ACTUALLY took place
Ultimately no one but Jamie can possibly know without a doubt whether he was incapacitated or temporarily had vision impairment (via seizure) during that very critical moment when he was driving across the freeway. The issue of accountability cannot be resolved beyond all doubt if it cannot be decided with absolute certainty whether Jamie had a seizure or not, and if Jamie didn’t have a seizure, then only Jamie can be fully certain of that. So if Jamie feigned a seizure, only Jamie can be fully certain of that. This is a predicament of moral judgement that many moralcucks will fail to accept. In other words, "You cannot see what's inside the other person's box. Thus you cannot ascertain whether or not there is a beetle in the other person's box"
A Framework for Objective Morality that disregards Choice and Accountability is the only Type of Coherent Framework for an Objective Morality
If your framework disregards choice and intention (i.e., it doesn’t matter whether it was an accident or intentional), then perhaps your framework of objective morality can be consistent. If Jamie had a seizure and someone is injured as a result of Jamie losing control of the car, then you could say “an evil event took place, someone was hurt”. But ultimately it wouldn’t matter who did it, since choice and intention are insignificant variables in your moral framework. So whether Jamie hurt himself or Annie, or even if Annie is the one who actually hurt Jamie, it wouldn’t matter, since your framework adds no significance to the intentions of the parties involved, but only what happened and the consequences of what happened. This is the only standard of objective morality that makes sense – The standard that excludes choice and intention. The only problem is that it disregards the responsibilities of all parties involved, and many moralcucks will have a problem with this because it limits their power to assert moral judgements on the basis of individual accountability
TLDR It’s impossible to decide beyond all doubt whether other people are aware of what they are doing. This leads to an existential dilemma that only you can ascertain the existence of your own actions. As you cannot achieve total certainty that there exists another cognizant being other than yourself, you cannot be sure whether there is an intention behind the actions of other people. You can only suppose it at best. The only standard of objective morality that makes sense, is a standard that totally disregards choices and intentions. Many moralcucks will not accept this because it will limit their ability to make moral judgement on the basis of individual accountability, and although some moralcucks will not admit it, moral accountability is an imperative feature in their moral framework. If not for the applied notion of individual accountability in their conception of morality, their entire moral framework will fall apart
I think morality is a worthless concept beyond its capacity to be used as a device of control and regulation of behavior in human society. There is no morality that has any practical application outside of human socialization. In a word that is barren of organic life, morality is useless
Objective (adjective)
1 Exists independently of the sentient observer
2 Impartial, non-subjective, uninfluenced by personal beliefs or preference
Morality (noun)
1 A strange notion that attributes a sort of “rightness” or “wrongness” to a manner of conduct
Now that I’ve provided some definitions of “objective” and “morality”, I can synthesize them to propose a definition of "objective morality"
Objective morality
1 A standard of “morality” that is impartial and uninfluenced by personal beliefs or preference, such that this standard of “morality” would have the same relevance to a manner of behavior that has been designated as “right” or “wrong” under this moral standard, notwithstanding of whether or not there is a sentient witness to observe this behavior take place (wherever it may happen)
The Significance of a Moral Framework
A moral system is supported by the attribution of “rightness” and “wrongness” to modes of behavior. In order for this attribution to be practical, there has to be a pre-existing framework of morality that enables the qualities of “right” and “wrong” to become attributable to certain modes of behavior
This is a similar condition that applies to methodical frameworks that are used to study the natural sciences and formal sciences (Mathematics, Physics etc.) A pre-existing framework is required for discoveries to be made in the sciences or mathematics, which might otherwise be described as a “system of axioms”. Ultimately theorems, principles and laws in mathematics and science can be discovered through the methodical application of a “system of axioms” in a sort of methodical study that crucially depends on the discovery of empirical evidence, aka EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
But there is a fundamental difference between the scientific framework and the moral framework - In both the scientific and the moral framework, a sort of significance or meaning is attributed to specific variables. This is a necessary pre-condition of a scientific or moral / ethical framework because it enables a purposeful study to be carried out with regard to the variables in the scientific or moral / ethical framework that are considered as meaningful or having purpose
For a scientific framework, there is at least one fundamental variable that is given a sort of meaning or significance - Essentially numbers and properties of numbers (e.g., size – a number can be larger than, equal to or smaller than another number). Numbers and its fundamental property of size is a necessary requirement in the methodical framework that would be applied in a scientific or mathematical study that would lead to discoveries of theorems, principles and laws in science
For a moral framework, there is also a fundamental variable that is given a sort of meaning or significance – An organic being that is perceived as physically capable of self-animation / self-mobility. This is a fundamental variable that is required in the methodical framework that would be applied in a moral or ethical study that would lead to discoveries of “right” and “wrong” conduct based on the nature of the perceived physical (or emotional) effect that it can have on an organic being
The Problem of Morality
The issue with morality is that it essentially depends on whether a sense of MEANING / SIGNIFICANCE is attributed to organic beings. If you presuppose there is a purpose or significance in the existence of organic beings, then you would have reason to assume there is an objective standard for “right” and “wrong” conduct that applies to organic beings, based on your presupposition that the existence of organic beings is significant or purposeful
But this leads to the philosophical thought experiment, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”. How does this experiment relate to objective morality? If you hypothesize a situation where a manner of behavior that would normally be designated as “right” or “wrong” by some moral framework, happens where no conscious observer is involved, can the same moral judgement be made by someone who was affected by this incident but never knowingly witnessed this incident as it affected them? Theoretically, it is possible for a conduct to happen by accidentally or unintentionally. So how does objective morality accommodate for accidental phenomena? Perhaps it does not have to accommodate for accidents…
For example, Jamie and Annie were in a sedan. Jamie was the driver of the sedan, and Annie was the passenger. They were travelling across the freeway in the sedan. Jamie and Annie are known to each other and have a friendly / passive relationship; Jamie is the legal owner of the sedan and has the license to drive it. Then suddenly, Jamie has an epileptic seizure while driving; he lost control of the vehicle somewhere on the freeway. He has no known previous symptoms of epilepsy. The car crashes; both Jamie and Annie are injured in the crash. Jamie survives and recovers from his injuries, but Annie’s injuries were severe and forced her into a long-term vegetative state. Annie is still “alive”, i.e., she has a pulse, but shows no signs of response to physical stimuli
If you were to say “objective morality exists, and there are certain modes of conduct that are objectively good or objectively bad, but this excludes all accidental or unintentional phenomena” - Now you have to deal with the dilemma behind the privacy of experience. This idea is attributed to Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951). A language that can be understood by only one person is fundamentally incoherent. Wittgenstein argues there is no systematic criterion for the correctness of a definition of internal sensation, since whatever seems right will be right
Now twist the example a bit and suppose Jamie didn’t actually have an epileptic seizure - He faked it because for some unstated reason he actually wanted to cause injury to himself or to Annie, and feigned a seizure to avoid being held accountable for negligent behavior or malicious intent to cause injury to himself or another person upon investigation. How can you prove beyond all possible doubt that this wasn’t the case if you are ultimately not Jamie? You cannot. And this highlights the problem with objective morality. The definitions for “right” and “wrong” behavior cannot be applied to deduce with total certainty where “righteous” and “wrongful” behavior has taken place, because there is no possible way to ascertain beyond all possible doubt whether the other person was aware of their actions if ultimately you are not that person. If your moral framework does not disregard choice and intention, then it is a fallible framework, cause either way, the moral judgement is ultimately based on how you feel about the incident that took place, and not about what ACTUALLY took place
Ultimately no one but Jamie can possibly know without a doubt whether he was incapacitated or temporarily had vision impairment (via seizure) during that very critical moment when he was driving across the freeway. The issue of accountability cannot be resolved beyond all doubt if it cannot be decided with absolute certainty whether Jamie had a seizure or not, and if Jamie didn’t have a seizure, then only Jamie can be fully certain of that. So if Jamie feigned a seizure, only Jamie can be fully certain of that. This is a predicament of moral judgement that many moralcucks will fail to accept. In other words, "You cannot see what's inside the other person's box. Thus you cannot ascertain whether or not there is a beetle in the other person's box"
A Framework for Objective Morality that disregards Choice and Accountability is the only Type of Coherent Framework for an Objective Morality
If your framework disregards choice and intention (i.e., it doesn’t matter whether it was an accident or intentional), then perhaps your framework of objective morality can be consistent. If Jamie had a seizure and someone is injured as a result of Jamie losing control of the car, then you could say “an evil event took place, someone was hurt”. But ultimately it wouldn’t matter who did it, since choice and intention are insignificant variables in your moral framework. So whether Jamie hurt himself or Annie, or even if Annie is the one who actually hurt Jamie, it wouldn’t matter, since your framework adds no significance to the intentions of the parties involved, but only what happened and the consequences of what happened. This is the only standard of objective morality that makes sense – The standard that excludes choice and intention. The only problem is that it disregards the responsibilities of all parties involved, and many moralcucks will have a problem with this because it limits their power to assert moral judgements on the basis of individual accountability
TLDR It’s impossible to decide beyond all doubt whether other people are aware of what they are doing. This leads to an existential dilemma that only you can ascertain the existence of your own actions. As you cannot achieve total certainty that there exists another cognizant being other than yourself, you cannot be sure whether there is an intention behind the actions of other people. You can only suppose it at best. The only standard of objective morality that makes sense, is a standard that totally disregards choices and intentions. Many moralcucks will not accept this because it will limit their ability to make moral judgement on the basis of individual accountability, and although some moralcucks will not admit it, moral accountability is an imperative feature in their moral framework. If not for the applied notion of individual accountability in their conception of morality, their entire moral framework will fall apart
I think morality is a worthless concept beyond its capacity to be used as a device of control and regulation of behavior in human society. There is no morality that has any practical application outside of human socialization. In a word that is barren of organic life, morality is useless
Last edited:
