Why does it matter?

[grand kayak]

If we take the assumption that no higher power exists. If indeed we are here by happenstance or “chance” why should it matter if we kill one another or live in harmony? Good and bad would be relative or subjective. So Why does it matter? I have seen “religious” debate and now I’m curious about non religious. Thanks for your engagement.

[karmic mason]

To enjoy life to the fullest. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. You're right. But for your personal life, it absolutely matters. A part of our brain basically rewards us for living a good life, and for sustaining life. Why would we go against that? You can be the last person left alive, because you killed everyone, and it wouldn't matter, but you would be miserable. Or you can live in harmony with everyone else and live a happy life. I know which one I'm choosing.

[ivory mauve]

Because humans (and most other animals for that matter) have a tendency to want to prolong the existence of their species. This results in animals of the same species to be non/less hostile to their kin compared to other animals. In fact, this is natural behaviour of almost any mammal in existence today.

What I don't understand is how/why the existence or non-existence of a higher power would be required for ''order'' or ''good and bad'' to exist?

It seems like a big assumption to imply that ''if there is no higher power, humans would be savages''

i know that is not what you literally said, but that is what is implied

There is (as far as i am aware) no reason to assume that human behaviour would be different with or without a higher power

Also, if we take a look at all religions present over the past couple of thousand of years, it is still true that good and bad are relative/subjective. Not all religions and timeperiods agree on the same concepts for being good and bad. There is no universal good or universal bad

If we assume there IS a higher power, wouldn't you expect these concepts of good and bad to be universal throughout culture and time?

Another question, what is it that stops meerkats from killing eachother. They probably don't even have the mental capacity to understand concepts like ''good'' and ''bad'', yet they don't kill eachother

[grand kayak]

So, some “good” statements and even a statement about killing everyone being miserable. How would I know this objectively? What if I claimed I get “fulfillment” and “happiness” from taking from others and taking advantage of others. Without an objective moral authority I could do these things and feel no obligation to the people around aside from getting what I want (and i would just need to wield “the biggest stick” per se to get what I wanted)

[karmic mason]

That's the point. You don't because that's not how humans are wired.

[grand kayak]

I’m not sure we should use “animals” as an objective sample because senseless killing, rape, and no sense of responsibility occurs in most animals (one example would be eating or abandoning their young for survival)

[karmic mason]

Actually that's not true. Psychopaths are wired like that. That's .5% of humanity. I'd say the 99.5% can fight them off.

[grand kayak]

I’m not stating that order needs to come from a higher power. I’m simple asking if it doesn’t then where objectively does it come from so that we all “should” adhere to it?

[grand kayak]

I did not assert the savage claim. You should probably stick to the questions I asked first before expanding outward rapidly

Also please DO NOT go off of implication. If I want to flip you off I will. I won’t hold up three fingers and say “read between the lines.” I’m asking a straight forward question. Please answer in a straight forward fashion. If you have a question about what I might mean you need simply ask it.

[grand kayak]

This is not what this thread is about. But to answer and move forward. No I would not according to specific higher powers (who may or may not have given free will with consequences if the “laws” given where disobeyed).

[grand kayak]

How does a human find out how they are wired? Aside from traits they gain from their parents I guess.

[karmic mason]

That's a good question. I don't know.

[grand kayak]

Unless they gain the approval of those around them. Then you just collect power slowly and threaten to do away with anyone who challenges your collective position. If you have the biggest stick others have to submit or die or be enslaved. Which objectively we should respect that or assimilate into it because “good” and “bad” are just up to each person.

[karmic mason]

I'd imagine that it mostly the person themselves realising they're different.

[grand kayak]

For sure. I find intellectual and some emotional pushback when I look for a “reason” to raise my children one way or the other. Many people claim to have “the right way” and I for sure do not claim to be the ultimate knowledge holder (this my need to ask questions) and as I try to figure these things out I don’t know who to trust. And why that it matters.

[orchid hamlet]

You keep throwing around this word objective in places it doesn’t make sense
What is an “objective sample”

[orchid hamlet]

“Why do we not kill eachother?”
Well some do and the majority of people don’t allow it because we value the well-being of humanity
“We’re does good and bad come from?”
Humans decide it.
For example I base my morality on the well-being of conscience humans
Well-being- the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.
Why does it matter?
Same reason you eat food
Your biological instincts are telling you to do something and you do it because you want to

[grand kayak]

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. definition im using of objective. this is a known concept that im unsure why you keep asking for the definition.

[grand kayak]

Why do we value the well being of humanity? Why should I care about anyont other than myself and my own desires, pleasures, happiness, comfort, etc.

[grand kayak]

Where do i find the cause of my "biological instincts"?

[karmic mason]

Life has a self-preserving aspect to it. Life is basically using hormones to trick us into self-preservation.

[orchid hamlet]

the reason i am asking is cuz you are using it in a strange way

[orchid hamlet]

it is in our biology
an evolutionary instinct to help us survive
"why should you care?"
No one is telling you that you should. You just do, and if you didn't you would be in prison cuz we wouldn't give af about you.

[orchid hamlet]

you cant "find" a cause because causes are in the past however you can demonstrate the most probable cause of our current state of reality

and that is in evolution

[grand kayak]

Strange? I mean it in a way where ANY human perspective is Subjective and not objective. If i make a claim (biology, religion, food, sports team) It stands that my claim on it is Subjective. Sure some evidence can support my claim but it does not make it an objective truth (because someone else could subjectively disagree).

[orchid hamlet]

ok i dont want to argue with you on this its off topic

[grand kayak]

But prison is given to those who wrong the local body. If we made a country that said "Everything is permissable" "Good Luck and survival of the fittest" then prison or rules would have no effect aside from "Rules are there aint no rules" whats to stop us from making this society?

[orchid hamlet]

nothing is stopping us. obviously a non-moral society is possible
we simply don't want a non-moral so we don't make it

[grand kayak]

sure right now. but then again our sense of "right and wrong" will change then over time? So in 500 years if that society exists or rather takes power. Then do the subjective facts or truths change with said change of power? Apart from a higher power i see this as a likely possibility.

[orchid hamlet]

if that society takes over then the truth would be "that society took over"
all of their beliefs would be true in the sense that they believe them
in other words "this society believes murder is good"

what i base my morality would be the same however

i value human wellbeing so all my morals come down to promoting that

so under my moral framework that society has bad moral rules

[grand kayak]

But "wellbeing" would be defined differently then, no? And your morals would by definiton be based on personal perspective and not a "deity or higher power" then correct? You could indeed think that but eventually people who think that way would be killed or enslaved because your thinking goes against the societal norm.

[grand kayak]

Where would this moral framework be rooted if society and cultures change the moral framework. You would be encouraged to succumb to the new "way" the society does things to ensure personal survival the most.

[orchid hamlet]

But "wellbeing" would be defined differently then, no?

it doesnt matter how well-being is defined then all that matters is how im am defining it now
just cuz definitions change doesnt change the idea i am using behind my words

and yes my morals are based on my perspective

not a higher power

[grand kayak]

sure that is correct! So then everyone is happy to define any personal idea any way they want, right?

[orchid hamlet]

yes

[grand kayak]

So then Objective thinking is now irrelevant, no?

[orchid hamlet]

but its better when we agree to have a coherent converstion

[orchid hamlet]

there is no such thing as objective thinking

[grand kayak]

I would agree if it benefitted me the most. Because I have no reason to care what others think or feel if I dont have to.

[grand kayak]

You are well within your right to believe that. So then Everything is relative, no?

[orchid hamlet]

everything?

how am i supposed to answer that

[grand kayak]

Ill clarify

[orchid hamlet]

you are saying "objective thinking" there is no such thing
what you mean to say is "objectively thinking"

[grand kayak]

So, if all roads of thought lead to subjective opinion (because Objective thought or reason is all false and not real) then the decisions we ultimately make as a collective species and also as a single person are relative. AKA killing someone cannot be FACTUALLY called wrong or immoral outside of someones personal feelings (which are mute anyway)

Objective thinking is not real or rather there is no such thing

[orchid hamlet]

Yes morals arent "factual" they are based on human experience and desire

[grand kayak]

So then i would conclude nothing matters in the long run.

[orchid hamlet]

thinking objectively is possible

what on earth is objective thinking

[grand kayak]

Right which is rooted in emotion and not Facts or truth. Which in a completely subjective world "Truth" doesnt exist, right?

[grand kayak]

Thinking Objectively 😂

Small jest there

[ivory mauve]

Thats why I specifically said mammals, the group of animals humans are part of.

[orchid hamlet]

it is an oversimplification to say that my morality is rooted in emotions instead of truth
it is true that killing someone doesn't help their well-being and I believe that is true so i do use the truth to make moral choices but there is no such thing as a "factual moral framework"

[ivory mauve]

What do you mean with order and how does it relate to ''good'' and ''bad''? Good and bad itself are no objective concepts, so there shouldnt need to be a place ''where it comes from'' to exist

[orchid hamlet]

truth is a value that we assign to propositions tho it doesnt exist physically it exists as a concept

[grand kayak]

Nowhere besides some humans who care is it stated I HAVE to care about others wellbeing. And respectfully you dont use truth, you use personal opinion or maybe collective opinion if we agree "Truth" is not real.

[orchid hamlet]

we dont agree truth isnt real

and yes we dont have to do anything

[ivory mauve]

Well thats what is implied with the way you phrased the question.
''If no higher power esists, why should it matter if we kill one another or live in harmony. Good and bad would be relative or subjective''
-> This implies that with a higher power these concepts are / become objective. In turn this statement implies that without one, it wouldnt matter how humans would behave, e.g. we would be savages without a higher power

[grand kayak]

Sure but mammals are guilty of doing what I claimed which is a slippery slope when we think of basing our decisions on other mammals.

[ivory mauve]

its a logical continuation of your own statement

[grand kayak]

sure but a manmade concept none the less. So subjective, no?

[ivory mauve]

i did also not say all mammals do all behaviour exactly the same, but there is a general trend across nearly all mammals that favour the wellbeing of the individuals of their own species over other species. It is not behaviour that is unique to humans

it is rather universal behaviour across mammals in general

[grand kayak]

If truth is Real then where does it come from? From a human standpoint it originated from some person at some point in time i suppose, but my question is who?

[grand kayak]

No argument here but my statement stands

[orchid hamlet]

sure

[ivory mauve]

Then please be more precise with the way you phrase things and leave no room for implications...

also, idk why you are so hostile towards me but w/e

[orchid hamlet]

it comes from humans how do you not understand that?

everyone knows this

[grand kayak]

I agree but in the end you only comply with others to increase the percentage that you yourself survive out in the world.

[grand kayak]

implications come from the hearer. I stated if you have a question ask. Dont imply unless both parties agree to what is being implied.

[ivory mauve]

Could be, but that is a conclusion that we dont know. The facts are that there is certain behaviour that results in species of one kind being more ''nice'' towards eachother than to other species. Saying it is to maximize your own wellbeing is a conclusion about this statement, but we don't know if this iss true. Could be other reasons that result in the same behaviour

[orchid hamlet]

i can't pinpoint the first time in history that a creature assigned a value of true to a proposition

we all do it so that is where truth comes from

[grand kayak]

I am not hostile with the intent to be hostile. But you comment and make assertions that have no basis other than assumption or implication and I am not a fan of that in a mature conversation.

[orchid hamlet]

lol

[ivory mauve]

so responding hostile and acting like im a bad guy is a mature response?

[ivory mauve]

Okay, then let me ask this, what is the intention of the question in the first place? What is it you want to know/discuss precisely?

[grand kayak]

Right but they dont have to be. Im okay with people or mammals being "nice" however i am also okay with violence as well.

[orchid hamlet]

you are ok with violence?

[grand kayak]

Case and point my friend. I have not said you where a bad guy and i also have not acted like it as well. This is an assertion.

[grand kayak]

I stated that in the question below the Title did I not?

[orchid hamlet]

yea we have given u pretty good answers

[ivory mauve]

Bro dont you see that these sarcastic answers you give right now are precisely the hostile responses i am talking about

I am asking you a genuine question

I get a bullshit response

whatever bro

go life in your own fucking dreamworld

im out

[grand kayak]

why not? If im hungry and have no food i should kill and eat. Whether that is kill an animal and eat it or kill a person and take the food they had is not relevant, right?

[grand kayak]

No argument here. However, you have not assumed my position nor I you (hopefully) and have had a cordial back and forth which i am enjoying.

[orchid hamlet]

jesus

thank god you are a theist lmao

[grand kayak]

see you later. And it was not sarcasm vs a clarifying question. It seems that you "read in" emotions or intent where as in a online forum when facial expressions nor tone can be ascertained it behooves us to speak to each other with respect and to ask more clarifying questions while online so that an accidental assumption or confusing meaning is not had. Food for thought in your future forum discussions.

[grand kayak]

why is that haha

[orchid hamlet]

cuz if not u would be eating people to live

lol

[grand kayak]

well not necessarily eating the person (to which if necessary to survival people have) but kill a person and take what is in say there refrigerator or pantry.

[grand kayak]

Also for the record this is why I stated you came off as hostile. Because of the responses you have given that appear to be said with anger or frustration. Which I could be wrong but that is how it seems from the text given. I'm happy to be wrong as I do not want to misrepresent your intention's. However, cursing at someone and accusing them of things and then storming out is why I came to the conclusion that I did. \

[orchid hamlet]

yea so good thing you beleive in a big cop in the sky

[grand kayak]

That is not at all what I think or believe. But i made this post to talk about why it matters to believe anything if the "big cop in the sky" or higher power doesnt exist haha

[orchid hamlet]

beliefs inform actions
actions have consequences

so the reason we believe things is to inform our actions

[ionic anchor]

This convo is really turning off topic

[orchid hamlet]

its a very simple answer

"why do we do shit???"
cuz we want to

[ionic anchor]

Why you yelling at me 😭

[orchid hamlet]

[ionic anchor]

Lmao

I was curious is that would work

Not really

Honestly I agree with almost everything you said truth powers

Though I do feel we are slightly off topic from the originao question

Probably bc the original poster seems to think biology doesnt prioritize species survival

[ivory mauve]

Thats why i asked earlier:
''Okay, then let me ask this, what is the intention of the question in the first place? What is it you want to know/discuss precisely?"'

But the response I got was: ''its under the question''

[ionic anchor]

Lol

[ivory mauve]

so idk if he really knows himself what he is asking/'wanting to discuss

[ionic anchor]

Its likely a situation where fundmental points of view intersect

He cannot understand our perspective on a fundamental level

[ivory mauve]

I tried to give an honest genuine answer to the question, but apparently that made me go off topic. So i honestly have no clue what the question is actually about

So its probably a fundamental misunderstanding about the concepts of 'good'' and ''bad'' he is referring to below the question

There is a lot of implied things in the phrasing of the question itself

but i wasnt allowed to go into the implications of the phrasing

and that left me quite confused about the actual question/topic of the qustion

but then I asked and got only bullshit responses

so now im like whatever

[grand kayak]

I agree wiht this 100%

[grand kayak]

is this a troll?

[grand kayak]

how so?

[grand kayak]

right but "why do we do shit?" was not my question nor the question this thread is about.

[grand kayak]

The answer you got was: I stated that in the question below the Title did I not?

[ivory mauve]

Yeah but I answerd it, but apparently that was not your question, so I have no clue how to interpret it

I guess I don't understand what you are asking

So i asked for clarification

[grand kayak]

Sigh. Another assertion vs asking me if this is how i feel or think. I would claim "straw man" every five minutes but it would be excessive. I hoped to have a engaging and mature conversation and I am starting to see in this discord who can accomplish that and who might struggle with that goal.

[grand kayak]

An assertion....

[grand kayak]

An assertion to which you dont know....

[ivory mauve]

The thing is that we try to give you an honest answer, but you keep dismissing them

Or telling we dont answer the question

so what are you asking

then we can give you a satisfying answer

[grand kayak]

No implications where made. I wanted an answer to the question I gave. If the question had flaws in its asking then address those.

[grand kayak]

when have i explicitly said "i dismiss this" and not a "well thats kinda what you meant by implying some other nonsens."

[ivory mauve]

Okay, so the question is:
If indeed we are here by happenstance or “chance” why should it matter if we kill one another or live in harmony.

And the second questoin is:
Good and bad would be relative or subjective., so Why does it matter?

right?

[grand kayak]

clear stated question If indeed we are here by happenstance or “chance” why should it matter if we kill one another or live in harmony? Good and bad would be relative or subjective. So Why does it matter?

[ivory mauve]

But those are 2 separate questions

[grand kayak]

Cool so feel free to pick one and start their.

They relate to each other and have a bearing on the other

[ivory mauve]

Okay then my first question is, what is the relation between the questions

[grand kayak]

Now its not possible to state "i dont know the question". you can state you dont know how to answer the question, etc etc

[ivory mauve]

I dont understand the question, thats the whole point

i am not sure what you are exactly asking

and im fine giving you a bunch of questions about the questions so you can clear it up if you want to

[grand kayak]

Why does it matter if we kill someone or live in harmony ( with the understanding that "good and bad " are subjective things made up by mankind and change in cultures and societies all the time) Also this is with the mutual understanding (per the thread and not necessarily in agreement with) that no higher power exists. So why does/should it matter that i value harmony with others vs killing others for whatever reason.

[ivory mauve]

Why does it matter for who/what?

[grand kayak]

also i may be away for a time as i am about to be in a discord call in 5 minutes or so

For anyone, everyone, one person or ten.

[ivory mauve]

to society in general, to individual persons, to small groups of likeminded people?

[grand kayak]

I stated i have heard from religious sources as to "why i should care"

likeminded is irrelevant

for example from a religious stand point

[ivory mauve]

i mean like subgroups within overall society. So on the bottom level there is the individual. Then there is the subgroups like friends, family, people you know or care about, people from the same city, country whatever, and then at the highest level there is society

so on what scale are you referring to

[grand kayak]

they have claimed all people should care about there fellow man because God says so. Or because the higher power will punish me if Im "bad" (bad according to their belief and not necessarily my oww).

[grand kayak]

I answered this.

[ivory mauve]

so overall society?

[grand kayak]

ANY level. I can engage on any of them

Start with personally

[ivory mauve]

yeah but the answer is different for the various subgroups

[grand kayak]

or a family of people

or a country

[ivory mauve]

but it depends

thats why im asking

[grand kayak]

right

[ivory mauve]

there is not one single answer for all of the different levels

[grand kayak]

so pick one and we will talk about that variant itself

so you say. but religious people have told me why in regards to all people over the span of the world as well as why in regards to a family, a single person, and society in EU vs a society in Egypt.

[ivory mauve]

Individually I would say that killing someone bears a mental burden on the emotional regulation system of the brain. As the brain takes up about 90% of energy a human uses, it would take quite some energy to deal with such an act. Therefore it would be a biological disadvantage to do so.

[grand kayak]

What about those who relish and revel in killing others? Those who would enjoy the act of killing. Or at the least find it acceptable to do when faced with personal survival.

[ivory mauve]

You are talking about people who's brain works differently from the average brain

[grand kayak]

Sure.

[ivory mauve]

Well obviously some of those people actually do kill

SO im not really sure what you mean

[grand kayak]

Differently and not "right" or "wrong"

we agree on this right?

[ivory mauve]

agree on what

i dont even understand what you mean with right and wrong in this context

[grand kayak]

I mean they would not have a burden on their brain so your example only applies to some

[ivory mauve]

Killing or living in harmony is as far as i am aware not inherently right or wrong

[ivory mauve]

to most*

you are asking about biological behaviour. In biology there are always anomalies. There is no single satisfying answer that applies to all and everything

there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule

[grand kayak]

So separately killing is not inherently wrong? Nor is living in harmony?

[ivory mauve]

No i dont think so

Heck we kill over 80 billion animals a year for consumption

[grand kayak]

Here is my ask. Why not? And beyond your answer why does it matter then.

[ivory mauve]

most people dont care

[grand kayak]

animals are not fellow humans

[ivory mauve]

how is it different for humans killing humans vs humans killing animals?

[grand kayak]

one reason is if i kill a deer I would not go to jail for killing it vs killing a human being

[ivory mauve]

Because I don't believe that any action can have inherent value (in the sense that it can be good or bad).

[ivory mauve]

But that does not say anything about the inherent value of the action ?

Jail is a construct made by humans

[grand kayak]

So why do societies develope rules? why make them if they can just be ignored and if ignored not be wrong?

[ivory mauve]

We dont put people in jails because killing is inherently wrong. We put people in jails because we decided as a society that killing people is disadvantageous for overall society

[grand kayak]

We would assign the inherent value. Subjective reasoning would be applied until someone with a proverbial "bigger stick" says otherwise and then we change our minds.

[ivory mauve]

But you cannot ''assign'' an inherent value

because that would mean it is not inherent

thats the point

If killing another human would be inherently wrong, anyone everywhere would agree that killing would be wrong under all circumstances

But we dont agree on that

like, at all

[grand kayak]

Respectfully courts of law DO state that a "wrong" has been done. Also that only depends on the society making the rules that it is "disadvantageous".

[ivory mauve]

so the act of killing itself is not inherently wrong

[grand kayak]

inherent means it just comes from "somewhere" and we accept that then?

[grand kayak]

unless im mistaken a majority of cultures believe that killing another human being is wrong

[ivory mauve]

No inherent meaning that it is existing as a consequence of the thing itself. But if we assign a value to it, the value is not a consequence of the killing but the consequence of us putting a value to it

[orchid hamlet]

We are gonna be in vc 1

If u wanna join

[ivory mauve]

im insecure about my english lol

what are you in discord for

[orchid hamlet]

In discord?

[ivory mauve]

i mean in vc

[orchid hamlet]

To talk to @grand kayak

[ionic anchor]

How'd talking to him go he seems very conceited from this convo. Seeing as how he found it pressing to not only reply to all of my statements but also to call people in this channel too dumb to host serious conversations. I find your entire ascertation laughable. Your question is answered via some simple biology people don't want to die naturally not kill others naturally. That's biology if that statement isn't a satisfying answer its not my fault. Instead you found it pressing and worthy to attack my intelligence merely because I will not engage with you in mindless banter because biology isn't an acceptable answer to you.

[lusty valley]

Because if you dont care you kill yourself and that isn't good

[ivory mauve]

It went surprisingly good. Though we do not agree on some points, there is also a lot of common ground. We just draw different conclusions from the same information. I found godlike (idk if he wants me to use his real name) to actually be a quite nice partner to have a conversation.

[grand kayak]

I called someone dumb?

[grand kayak]

Naturally is subjective. Naturally to you and me but not “every human”. And I’m okay if you think it’s laughable but I was hoping to engage in a civil conversation and not name call or openly mock others. My mistake.

[grand kayak]

How did I attack you as I will seek to restate my claim then.