I get that my word is in some sense law of the universe. That’s find and dandy until we run into disagreement. Then who is right? How do we break stalemates without some objective standard that equally applies to all and necessarily supersedes our own opinions?
Yes. You are speaking of what some call “consensus reality” … which is really not all consensus or consensual for all participants .
It is not quite accurate as to call it “real reality” , because we are limited in the areas of quantum certainty, but there sure seems to be a universal reality to most of us. And thusly forward are things built such as contracts and societies.
Ok, so that’s the next step up from personal/subjective value - consensus. So if we agree that something is good/right/true, then it objectively is. Or is it?
We look to the best we can find in the evidence, in the past useful tools, in reality space search , and in creating metrics .
You are the author so to speak of much of your reality, but when we intersect , we must reconcile on the platform reality we stand upon
1 Like
If everyone agrees that something is “best” for all of them (a rare phenomena but real and possible) , then likely it is best . Where disagreements occur, we must resort to ethical debate
Yes.
Have you ever seen something that did not register?
Did you know sight is the least trained of all our senses?
Perspective must be learned.
Man needs two or more associated thoughts, ideas to comprehend.
Is it the man or the environment?
1 Like
I like that. So that implies a standard of ethics. So if we both agree, let’s say that “theft is ethical”… Maybe I can even get Chainomatic to agree with that or a bunch of other really smart people. What happens now to that mutually reconciled ethics on the platform reality that we stand upon? is it true because we agreed? How about is it good? Beneficial? Should we go for it?
Well, in the real reality , it is power vs power , of institutions, cultures, people, etc 
… but there are many easily agreed upon ethical standards sets , such as that elaborated by Plato in the republic or , even those in certain “sacred” books
1 Like
Yes, that sort of contradicts that everything is ‘one’, ie. the pantheistic view, but you are correct - there’s always a play of 2, or as I like to call them, opposites. My only assertion is that I don’t think it’s possible to know what is good or true without some kind of a yardstick, an objective standard that applies equally to all, otherwise everything is just reduced to opinions and relative/contextual/societal value judgments… Note, I’m not telling you what or whom you should believe, merely that it’s impossible to know truth without an objective, external measure for it. A bad analogy would be fish in water don’t know anything about water… but their not knowing of it doesn’t remove the absolute necessity that they are 1) in it, and 2) they need it.
I say that I am a follower of pan monism, of Tegmark , or “everything that can be is 1” …but this I believe to be more suited for use in the math, not religion.
In ethics, I believe in precisely applied logic, therefore, I strive to disseminate the views of virtue ethics to the most people.
1 Like
"“everything that can be is 1” - I have to admit, I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.
1 Like
It’s nuts to be honest, but , it doesn’t impact normative ethics
1 Like
In The Republic , Plato sets out to define an objective ethical ruler of “what is just” , so as to help people gain their best most just desserts, so to speak .
The book has held the test of time , because he was using first order logic to judge "good"ness.
It is a very practical tool…
Views on monism do not need to be invoked to reach a reality consensus , unless you are a math physicist
Dont sweat it. If you hold anything back, we’re not really having a discussion. I don’t think anything here that was said is nuts. It’s like getting to know each other. Thanks for your time!
1 Like
It is indeed to YOUR time, that I am grateful …
1 Like
Plato too got his standards of justness from somewhere, he did not invent them 
This kind of talk goes straight to the heart of the matter - where does anything come from… I’ve some views, and of course, they are not necessarily compatible with what others believe, but thank God for language, I can communicate them across in a way that, if nothing else, elicits a discussion and some degree of intimacy.
If we’re gonna hang around here and contribute, I think it benefits us to know what drives each of us… beliefs and all.
2 Likes
Monism at it’s basement layer concerns computing and complexity theorists. But not ethical theorists. Surely we can agree we are all human and have a "base case " upon which to act, desire, ascribe from?
1 Like
Surely we can agree we are all human and have a "base case " upon which to act, desire, ascribe from?
Human? I speak Alfian. You remember Alf? I’m from the same planet as he. 
1 Like
Agreed!!! And as a very wide ranging thinker, I am strongly anti-agnostic , and believe there may as well be a god, yet I also find “deep” truth in materialism. Virtue ethics is my normative anchor so to speak in that world, but I very much respect any “good” ethics regardless of the source.
2 Likes
Yes… In Christianity that’s basically the battle between the spirit and the flesh. I too am very rooted in materialism, or else why would I be investing in Ada? I could go be a monk instead or something… Then there’s also another spirit that dwells in me that wants to see Ada and everyone invested in it succeed, and to really benefit human kind in some ultimate sense, whether it is digging people out of poverty by providing micro loans via Ada to third world countries (ie. like what Kiva does), or funding projects that actually make a living, palatable difference everywhere… (e.g. clean water)
If I was just here for my lambo, you could say I’ve missed the boat completely.
1 Like