the_seeker

(Pun not intended.)

The only morality lies in believing the truth.

From Millennium, by Sherman Hawk

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/


The three main pillars of this Method are Self Doubt, Objectivity and Reason.

Can anyone refute this, or come up with an alternative, "better" morality?

(edited by moderator to make it clear just what was included in the quote)

excreationist

This post is only based on what you have written (in that quote?) in your post. I don't have time to read through that entire website. You can quote(?) more of it though.

Should people who are content with a "false" morality be punished? After all, they are "evil"....

Could you summarize what the "true" morality is all about? Or don't you know what the "true" morality is exactly? If you don't know what it is, how do you know it exists? If no-one can be sure what the "true" morality is, what value does it have?

the_seeker

Well, I had provided the excerpts as a basis for debate. I might quote more later, although I hesitate to, as one ought, really, to read the whole short book in one go, as it were, so that Hawk's ideas are clearer and in context. The book is online at the Internet site I gave, although certain restrictions are put on its use.

Your quote from my excerpt might not make sense if you haven't read the rest of the book. Essentially, faith is sin. No being can ever have perfect knowledge of anything, and so everything must be doubted and believed according the evidence that is available. No irrationality.

As for punishment - believing in something false, something wrong, is punishment enough. I don't think there's any kind of prescriptive action one needs to take against someone with a "false" morality, the religion isn't like that.

Morality is important, as it guides our every move. Even if you are unaware of it, your own personal morality is guiding you right now, whatever it may be. However, there cannot be any rational arbiter of "good," "bad," or indeed "evil" morality apart from the truth. I am unaware of any values that one can base morality upon apart from the truth, because the truth is the only factor that cannot ever change, take sides, or be perverted. Of course, there are different interpretations of it, and that's where Self Doubt and the other two approaches come in.

This does assume that there is an objective reality. If there isn't, then what's the point? You may as well wander about in your own Sophist hell and not strive to improve anything here on earth.

This is very much an approach to morality for pragmatists and realists. Taking belief in the truth as the chief moral virtue is right, because truth is the only factor in our existence that cannot be argued or tampered with, the only timeless absolute, the only judge.

However, Seekers (people that adhere to this religion) always seek the truth, however uncomfortable it may be. The rejection of Christianity may be especially pleasing to some here. No Seeker is ever satisfied, because we can never know the whole truth. Constantly, ideas and conjectures change, and so does our perception of the truth. The truth, however, doesn't, and that's why it's an absolute - the only absolute - one can define a morality by.

excreationist

But I guess you think that belief is a 100% proven.
BTW, if faith is bad - or evil, how does it compare to other things? e.g. is the Dalai Lama's strong belief in an afterlife more or less evil than stealing? What about murder?, etc? Or don't you know.

Maybe "good" means "what is good for what we value" (ourselves and others) and "bad" means "what is bad for what we value". "Evil" would mean "what is deliberately very bad for what we value". So "good" and "bad" can be *rationally* defined on a personal basis depending on the person's values.

But what do you think the truth is about? Is it a description of true utilitarian morality - e.g. what people should do to perfectly maximize the world's overall happiness?

What if the values which maximize the world's overall happiness change over time? The plan describing these different sets of values could be changeless though.

Do you realize that morality is different to physical objects like matter and energy? Sophists just don't believe that an external physical universe made up of other people exists. Whether objective morality exists or not is another matter.

So does this "true" morality allow world human happiness to be perfectly maximized? Does it value the happiness of animals, or just humans? Which true morality are the seekers looking for? The one just concerned with human happiness? Are you sure that it is more moral to only be concerned with humans?

kctan

the_seeker,
We each live in our own 'truth', so who's 'truth' are we going to use ?

When 2 person disagrees, that doesn't neccessary meant that one of them is wrong. Both could be wrong at the same time, both could be right at the same time as well as one of them could be right. It could even extend into the realm of both being right & wrong at the same time.

There's no morality without the truth ? With or without 'truth' there will always be a morality, we make it so.

Self doubt - what can self doubt do in a debate of morality ? When the matters at hand are all relying on judgement based upon emotions, likes & dislikes plus myriads of other human feelings ? If you can't even distinguish for yourself what're your likes & dislikes, you've no business talking about morality.

Objectivity - we all have our own sense of objectivity. Even this little objectivity is not really that objective at all. It gets changed again & again as we progress thru an event, even if only a minute difference is noted & the stance is not very different from where you begin, just remember that a change had indeed happened which means it's no longer what you held as objective in the very begining.

Reason - what kind of 'reasons' are we talking about here ? Reasons of emotions ? How do you go about justifying that your emotion is more valid as a reason then another's ?

There's no way to devise a better mode of morality nor is there any better mode of morality. Morality is what you, I, he, she, they, them, whomever think morality is & that will be morality.

No one else can have a better morality then anyone else. If they argue otherwise, can they prove that their feelings/emotions are superior then others ?

the_seeker

Frankly, I don't.

Ah, but what are the "values?" They would be unclear, and perhaps not even known to the individual. Indeed, they would probably change a fair deal over their lifetime. My own values have changed considerably throughout my life, and therefore my definitions of "good" and "evil" have changed, too. Values are completely subjective.

The truth is what is the case, what is correct, what is an objective fact. However, we can't ever have complete knowledge of the truth, and so life, for Seekers, is one long journey of discovery and wonder. Truth is truth, and our interpretations of it will change all the time. It is possible that the following of the truth will lead to more happiness, but this might be the case. No Seeker is ever satisfied.

But wouldn't interpretation of the plan change? Indeed, the plan could be completely wrong - there could be a god that is trying to make our life on earth as difficult as possible. One can't just rule out such an idea and use hedonism, altruism, or utilitarianism as a sole means of improving life on earth.

But if the external universe doesn't exist, doesn't that pretty much make objective reality an impossibility, since subjective human emotions would be all that is guiding us? The Sophist/Nihilist stances on reality are what this religion primarily concerns itself with here. Here is another quote on the subject, from the same book:

This morality concerns itself with the truth. From what can be seen, there is no evidence that animals don't feel pain as we do, and that's why some Seekers do not use animal-tested products. If one doesn't know whether a particular action is moral, it is best to err on the side of caution. Such a thing will be subjective until an objective fact can be discovered - for example, that there exists a god that does not like murder, or stealing, and that values animals and humans equally. Seekers are concerned with the truth. If there exists a god that promotes cruelty to animals, then perhaps Seekers would follow his advice. It all depends on what it is more sensible to believe, given the evidence that is available.

---

That's where Self Doubt, Objectivity and Reason come in.

Self Doubt - I am not always right. I could be wrong, and must consider this.

One's morality could be based on incorrect assumptions and facts. One has to have a morality based on something, and thorough examination of that is what's needed.

Objectivity - even though I think I'm right, others might in fact be correct. I should consider their 'rightness,' no matter what of what persuation that could be.

No being can ever have perfect knowledge of anything. No-one can ever be perfectly objective, I concede that. However, one can be more objective than others, for example. One's perception of events leads to one's "objectivity" - objectivity is nothing without Self Doubt and Reason. The three pillars all support each other. One can doubt their objective judgement, and seek to improve it, and then come to a conclusion using Reason.

Reason - logic and consistency are what leads me to believe a particular idea. Impartial objectivity.

Reason is logical. Reason itself cannot be tainted by subjective feelings or emotions. One can examine one's emotion with Self Doubt, look for alternatives with Objectivity, and then attempt to prove it using Reason. The three work together.

But isn't it better to have an arbiter of morality? Only one of those personal pronouns can be correct.

No morality can ever be "better." What I had meant by "better" was a morality that was more logical and coherent. There cannot ever be an arbiter of "better," but a morality can be more based on truth than another. For example, when you win an argument, it's because you are right, and the other is wrong. The truth is the final judge.

excreationist

the_seeker:
Ah, but what are the "values?"
They're things that we think are important. e.g. we might think our happiness is important and maybe the happiness of our children is even more important. And the happiness of third world people is less important, and the happiness of others is least important of all. Or we might think obeying the law or God is the most important thing even if it seems to make people less happy.

They would be unclear, and perhaps not even known to the individual.
You can see what people truly value by how they deal with moral dilemmas... e.g. they might think the law is more important than the short-term happiness of a family member, etc. Or that telling the truth is more important than their own life.

Indeed, they would probably change a fair deal over their lifetime. My own values have changed considerably throughout my life, and therefore my definitions of "good" and "evil" have changed, too.
Yeah....

Values are completely subjective.
Do you think that "the truth is important" is a subjective statement? The statment involves values. Are subjective things quite worthless?

....Indeed, the plan could be completely wrong - there could be a god that is trying to make our life on earth as difficult as possible. One can't just rule out such an idea and use hedonism, altruism, or utilitarianism as a sole means of improving life on earth.
If the "true" morality involves creating as much human suffering as possible, is that what people "ought" to do? Or would Seekers ignore the "true" morality if that happened to be the case? I thought the truth is what is good. And *maybe* human suffering is good. After all, it is very common.

But if the external universe doesn't exist, doesn't that pretty much make objective reality an impossibility, since subjective human emotions would be all that is guiding us? The Sophist/Nihilist stances on reality are what this religion primarily concerns itself with here. Here is another quote on the subject, from the same book:
You and that quote are confusing the objective reality of the existence of external matter and energy (existing outside the mind) with the supposed objective reality of morality. It is possible that the physical universe literally exists, independent of our minds (i.e. it is objective reality) with objective *morality* (how things "ought" to be) not existing.

...there is no evidence that objective truth does not exist...
But where is the evidence that objective moral truths exist?

...Everything has permanence; people, once dead, stay that way, the sun rises and sets according to its pattern, and objects or places do not change position in relation to each other without some force acting on them....
That sounds like a little faith to me. Just because things have been that way in the past, it doesn't prove with absolute certainty that it will stay that way in the future. And maybe people have been raised from the dead... or maybe it will happen in the future...

If there exists a god that promotes cruelty to animals, then perhaps Seekers would follow his advice. It all depends on what it is more sensible to believe, given the evidence that is available.
But what if there aren't any gods? Who determines what people "ought" to do? Maybe people ought to build millions of pyramids or lie as much as they can.

kctan

What facts & assumptions are we talking about here ? In regards to morality there aren't much facts & assumptions out there which can be proven without a doubt that there are correct. Self doubt is ok only if we are talking about things that can be proven. If it's a matter of emotions, none can know better.

What kind of objectivity is this ? This is not objective at all. This is more in line with self-doubt or Reason.

How could one be more 'objective' (if by 'objective' you mean stubborn, then I agree) then another ? Every individual's perception of an event is different in their own ways, how are you going to prove that your's is more 'objective' then their's ?

Not when it's unquantifiable things like 'values', 'goodness', 'evilness' et al which are governed mostly by our emotions (likes & dislikes). Logic doesn't apply here & consistency doesn't really says alot (except giving a general idea of what are you likes & dislikes). It's an objectivity based upon self, not impartial.

Reasons are all tainted by self-interest & emotions. One can examine oneself with all that thingies you suggested but in the end, you're still examining yourself thru yourself which is based upon your self-interest & emotions. Logic don't play apart here. The only thing logical is that you're serving yourself first & foremost.

Not so. It creates conflict. The best for our kind of living style is when we could have a win-win situation (both are correct).

Usually you win not because you're right & it's the truth but because it seems more logical & coherent that's all. This applies to all situations when emotions plays a bigger part then anything else.

That's why I said, we each live in our own truth. So who's truth is the final judge ? Some win because they can 'talk' louder does that meant they have the truth ?

the_seeker

Things which we think are important. Everyone will think slightly differently, since thought is a subjective phenomenon. Everyone's brain is wired slightly differently, and consequently we all think different things. Thought, and values can never be a rational arbiter of "good" or "bad" morality or concepts, since by their very existence, they are incapable of (a) all agreeing (b) all being correct.

Of course it is a subjective statement. It is a value, and like all others, must be judged on whether it is correct or not. The judge cannot be other values, though. Believing that in the truth lies morality is not a suppression of feeling. Even though feeling is subjective, it is important to us as humans, and animals. Indeed, often that which feels right, is right. However, many beliefs in the world today are irrational, and based on, well, lies. Some are simple to disprove, others not. We will never have perfect knowledge of the truth.

Well, if our sole purpose on this earth were to spread misery and unhappiness, then that would be the case. However, we could never be 100% sure - it could be an illusion. Granted, if it were the truth - or as near to the truth as one could come - then it would have to be believed, and the ramifications of it accepted. I suppose Seekers would keep on hacking away at such hypothetical discoveries until they themselves would fall into disrepute, though. Nothing can ever be completely and utterly accepted. There is always reasonable doubt, and I would that such thinking would be applied to any new discoveries, however "true" they appear to be.

The paradox is that we can never know what is truly good, because we can never know the full truth. We can only ever keep on approaching it on an asymptote of knowledge and discovery. That's what this religion is about - creating a morality for a way of life.

This is true. There is a clear distinction between an objective reality of morality/truth and an objective physical existence. This religion does assume that both exist. After all, if they don't, then what's the point of philosophy or morality, apart from exercises in their own right? This is a meta-philosophy and morality for pragmatists, and those that wish to improve the world through a morality that has a clear reference point, some would say. Why not assume that there exists an objective reality of morality/truth and physical existence? I don't really see any evidence to the contrary, apart from exercises in thought. And even if we are brains in vats, or even if truth can be somewhat perverted, the perceived benefits of such a morality would still be felt, wouldn't they?

The existence of facts, for example, mathematical axioms and laws. Even if their existence cannot ever be proven (which it can't), there is absolutely no evidence to assume they don't exist, and even they didn't (which cannot ever be proven), the benefits of using truth as a moral indicator would still be felt. Right now, using truth as a basis of morality benefits me - even if there is no such thing as "truth," or physical existence.


True. But, within your and my lifetime, chances are that we won't experience much outside of 'normal' physical laws and constants. Of course, there might be the occasional phenomenon (which may or may not be wrongly perceived as such), but by and large, in the eighty or so years of one's life, one doesn't encounter many things that can't be rationally explained by rules and laws. Of course, some of these rules and laws may be wrong, but it would seem rather odd to live life with little or no regard to the fact that it really doesn't change too much. We live, we die. We are correct, we are incorrect. People lie. People believe in odd things. How can we live life with some kind of direction or relevance? By following what is true, or what we perceive to be true on the basis of careful examination.

Maybe there aren't any gods. If it is correct that a supernatural being (not necessarily omni-anything, or benevolent, or even 'alive') or force exists, then that is what is to be believed, until it is disproved or found ought to be a lie, or a hoax. People building pyramids and lying as much as they can are doing so because they have the will and the power to do so. Perhaps the will is divine inspiration. The only thing that one "ought" to do is believe in the truth. Just as there aren't any universal human "rights," there aren't any universal codes of behaviour here on earth. There is the law of the land, but what is that? Irrelevant in the scale of things.

---

Incorrect facts and assumptions such as "God will send me to Hell if I steal." Now that isn't necessarily incorrect, but most on this board, I hope, would agree with me that such a belief is misguided, at the very least. The only "fact" that can be proven is cogito ergo sum. No-one can ever have perfect knowledge of anything - belonging to this religion is about living life on the road to truth. Truth is always likely to appear differently to different people. That doesn't mean that belief in the truth is pointless, though. Truth itself, it is assumed and regarded, is objective.

Seekers would define this Objectivity as a sort of impartiality, or fairness.

One might not be able to prove that. However, if two people regard the same event (assuming that there is an objective reality, and truth, etc.), from the same viewpoint, and both have differing versions of said event, then they are either (a) both wrong, or (b) one is right, which would mean that one is also incorrect. Both say that they are being completely objective. Is it not possible that the 'objectiveness' of one is more objective than that of the other? How one can prove this is an entirely different matter.


Ah, but it is these "unquantifiable" things that this religion attempts to sideline, or make irrelevant, in some cases. Values are often, or always, subjective, and can't apply for everyone. The truth can, however. The same goes for goodness and evilness, et al. What is the point of these values? Often, they are remnants of past societies and useless. Truth is the only 'value' that has universal and objective meaning. I agree that interpretations of it will differ, but it itself will not.

Nothing's perfect. In many ways, this religion admits this.

What is a win-win situation though?

He who is right, is right.

excreationist

the_seeker:
How about this? What "objectively" is the best colour? Do you think such an answer exists? You might ask "best in what way?" That is like morality.... where one choice is considered better than another..... why is that choice better?

Thought, and values can never be a rational arbiter of "good" or "bad" morality or concepts, since by their very existence, they are incapable of (a) all agreeing (b) all being correct.
Maybe like the question of "what objectively is the best colour?", there isn't a clear answer - the question is incomplete...

After all, if they don't, then what's the point of philosophy or morality, apart from exercises in their own right?
Only part of philosophy is concerned with absolute morality, and morality is the basis of a lot of politics, even if it is only subjective morality.

Why not assume that there exists an objective reality of morality/truth and physical existence?
Could we just restrict this to objective morality? (And the idea that faith is evil) (i.e. the /truth part is confusing)
Anyway, doesn't that involve faith? Where is the evidence that objective morality exists?

I don't really see any evidence to the contrary, apart from exercises in thought. And even if we are brains in vats, or even if truth can be somewhat perverted, the perceived benefits of such a morality would still be felt, wouldn't they?
You mean that we should seek truth? BTW have you heard things like "Ignorance is bliss" and that very intelligent people tend to be more unhappy? People might value happiness over the search for truth.

"But where is the evidence that objective moral truths exist?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence of facts, for example, mathematical axioms and laws.
That involves symbols that describe quantities of objects, etc, and there are patterns in how quantities of objects can be manipulated... anyway, what's that got to do with objective morality - i.e. which choice is objectively "better" than another? It is like wondering which colour is objectively better than another. We have different personal opinions about colours though.

Even if their existence cannot ever be proven (which it can't), there is absolutely no evidence to assume they don't exist, and even they didn't (which cannot ever be proven), the benefits of using truth as a moral indicator would still be felt. Right now, using truth as a basis of morality benefits me - even if there is no such thing as "truth," or physical existence.
This isn't about objective truth, it is about objective morality. So are you saying that "faith is a sin" is part of the objective morality? BTW, do you think all little kids should be told that Santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny don't exist? (Their faith is a sin after all) If they should be told, are you going to do it?

The only thing that one "ought" to do is believe in the truth.
So is that it? The objective morality? What about pulling people's skin off while they're still alive - just for fun? Is that something people ought not do? Or is seeking the truth the only thing that matters? BTW, you said that you can never be sure of what the truth really is, and if you believe in things, you could be believing something false - i.e. having faith... so people can't really knowingly believe in the truth, unless it is an accident. (Unless there are some objective truths - like I exist)

Just as there aren't any universal human "rights," there aren't any universal codes of behaviour here on earth.
So where is the universal code of behaviour? (objective morality) If it isn't on earth it sounds quite hard to find.