Quote:
Originally Posted by Orogun01
It matters from a physical point, since a virtual ball; even when experienced in it's own reality would be different than in the real world.
Or is it that you disregard our reality as a standard to which we measure all other realities.?
|
Basically, we cannot be certain our reality is the top-level reality, so the moral theory must be able to survive and function even if it isn't. This is part of why the theory describes linked realities.
Quote:
Thanks for clearing that up.
That just leaves the matter of what kind of value that reality has, although I believe that to be subjective and in most cases non-measurable. If so the consequences; and the actions following them, of nested realities can't be objectively measured. Moreover the moral theory would change in our relation with each reality. Where would a reality that has a low value and it's in no way quantifiable fit in your theory?
|
The criteria merely describe whether some reality is 'useful'. A reality which is highly unpredictable is less useful for implementing a moral theory, but subjects could still experience value within/interacting with it. Of course, that unpredictability means the situation could become quite dire with no forewarning, or undesired events could happen seemingly randomly.
Quote:
|
From a moral standpoint is difficult to define, because of the aforementioned reason of morals changing with respect to our relation with each reality. Since the limitations of that reality will set the perceivable moral boundaries. Despite them being linked since it's most likely that we will still continue to exist on this plane of existence. So without the ability to physically transcend reality, how useful would this ethic hold. Aside from providing a deconstruct for moral frameworks.
|
This version is merely the foundation. Once your have the foundation, you may begin to implement a moral complex moral system, such as a form of Utilitarianism* or other consequentialism. Given that this foundation survives reality nesting, it can be used to properly evaluate possible actions to be taken, and thus guide agents.
For example, I may conclude, with philosophical grounding, that implementing human rights in a legal framework is a good thing, because of the good effects it causes. I may evaluate certain rights implementations as being better than others based on evidence.
(*I can discuss a version of Utilitarianism that I've been working on later, if there's interest.)
---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the notion of universal principles is a device that one can appeal to. it's not logic itself. logic is a procedure for organizing information. its a (set of) tool(s).
there's an argument i read somewhere that if there really were universal principles there'd be no need for an ethics because everyone would recognize the validity of the prohibition and that would be that. because the principle would be, you know, universal. because that's what universal means, yes?
|
I exist. This is a fact which is independent of language or symbolic representation/manipulation, even if language is insufficient to fully describe it.
I experience. Similarly, even if language cannot properly or fully describe this, it is true.
I cannot both exist and not exist at the simultaneously. Even if the language is not sufficient, that is also true.
Consider, human beings are able to hold mutually contradictory views. Let us further consider that a sufficiently large or complex system which is not completely synchronized might also be able to do so, as its operation is dependent on causality.
Some piece of information may be flowing along one part of the causal chains which compose the system, while another may be at some earlier (in terms of hierarchy, not time) point in the chain.
If so, a universal would not necessarily be reached or acknowledged by such a system. It could even reject the idea of the existence of a concept without which it could not operate! It could reject the statement "A = A" while still possessing some component which operates on that assumption.
Edit: A system can also be too small to contain or store some piece of information.