Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[disarray]

 

But if you imagine that some unseen other is evaluating your actions as to their correctness, justice, fairness, or depth of understanding as to whether the action is universally "right", you have established a moral judge. Whether this judge has a police force, or a paddle is not material. Punishment is not required if you police yourself. The judge must still be imagined. That unseen other, whether a historical hero like Jesus or Mohammed, or a revered professor or grandparent or local priest or shaman, or that respected social contact or writer or speaker, is a significant other, whether real or imagined. You are not alone in your determination of what is proper behavior. You have other human beings to live up to. Other people that you want to please.

This is basic and real in my estimation. We are built to be social animals. We care deeply about the "look" we get from others.

 

 

Here you are downplaying the role of punishment and reward, or perhaps saying punishment is not necessary if you always do the right thing (a tall order), so focus more on determining what is right/wrong.

 

I agree that we are social animals, as many from Aristotle to David Brooks insist, but that observation in itself is open to interpretation. It appears that you are recapitulating Freud’s notion of internalizing the moral instructions of others, much as parents tell their children to pretend that the parents are always around, as if listening to the inner voice that their parents have put their.

 

But at some point, unless one is just a moral automaton, one might find it desirable to reassess what society, ones parents, ones coworkers, ones country, or ones religion tells one.

 

This transition is reflected in Kohlberg’s highest stage of moral development in which, though taking into consideration the wishes of society, “I decide what is right or wrong based upon my own self-ethical principles.”

 

Kohlberg also claims that one realizes at this level that there are universal moral truths, but personally acknowledged that this is only speculation. Indeed, some religions suggest that one doesn’t follow ones own moral judgments, but just follows the external moral guidelines given to one by God, and to follow God’s plan for your life, not your own plan, and to let your conscience be guided by God, not just taking you where it wants.

 

In an nutshell, there is always the issue as to how extrinsic or intrinsic this sort of moral companionship (not being alone) of which you speak actually is. It is similar to the question as to whether one needs extrinsic verification from others that one is loved, or whether one ultimately relies most on loving oneself so that one is not reliant on others for constant self-validation and approval.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Yes I like Freud's thinking about the ID, Ego and Super Ego. I like to short hand the understand as the ID is the physical self, responding to hormones and adrenaline and dopamine and the like, and is very pleasure/pain based. The super Ego is that unseen other I was talking about, that one converses with to be informed of the laws and morals and morays and expectations of that judge, which is standing for your group's rules. The Ego is the moderator between the animal and the society, between the ID and the SuperEgo.

 

The stages of Kohlberg are fine, and if you parse through each stage, you see it is talking about the moderation between the ID and the Superego. It could still be as simple as I state, that one wants to please and be accepted by the group, and behaves in the manner that the group upholds as moral.

 

I am wondering about the last stage however, and the implication that accepting sexual orientation is a universally mandated moral obligation. This is one example of recent moral change, and an example of moral changes that have occurred in just some societies, and in the hearts and minds of just some of even those society's citizens. That is it is morality under construction, and is therefore not consistent with the thought that it is a universal truth.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 9, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Yes I like Freud's thinking about the ID, Ego and Super Ego. I like to short hand the understand as the ID is the physical self, responding to hormones and adrenaline and dopamine and the like, and is very pleasure/pain based. The super Ego is that unseen other I was talking about, that one converses with to be informed of the laws and morals and morays and expectations of that judge, which is standing for your group's rules. The Ego is the moderator between the animal and the society, between the ID and the SuperEgo.

 

The stages of Kohlberg are fine, and if you parse through each stage, you see it is talking about the moderation between the ID and the Superego. It could still be as simple as I state, that one wants to please and be accepted by the group, and behaves in the manner that the group upholds as moral.

 

I am wondering about the last stage however, and the implication that accepting sexual orientation is a universally mandated moral obligation. This is one example of recent moral change, and an example of moral changes that have occurred in just some societies, and in the hearts and minds of just some of even those society's citizens. That is it is morality under construction, and is therefore not consistent with the thought that it is a universal truth.

 

Regards, TAR

 

As I mentioned, Kohlberg himself was hesitant about the highest stage, since he agreed that it is difficult if not impossible to substantiate claims that there are absolute or universal moral truths....and I agree, one can't. I would liken it to the scientific attitude and the notion that one should always be open to further explanations and better paradigms (as per Kuhn). Indeed, as well as the term moral paradigm shift, one might cite the existence of moral paradigm paralysis, in which people prone to confirmation bias are so conservative that they only acknowledge information that confirms and conforms to their moral worldview. Some people find that relying on absolute and unchanging moral traditions (e.g., Catholocism until recent decades) comforting and detest ethical and cultural relativism as if it repudiates any higher ethical touchstone provided by religion and therefore leads to moral chaos, and other people detest the notion of absolute ethical codes for being too rigid, too general, too anti-critical thinking, etc.

 

But yes, unless one wants to have a closed mind and to let others do all the thinking for you, I think that ones values, attitudes, and beliefs should always be open to "construction."

Edited August 9, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

 

Still, one cannot construct a morality alone. Any morality constructed solely for personal consumption, would be of dubious value. This indicates to me, that objective reality has a big say in the development of morality. What is good for the rest of reality, is a crucial consideration. The environment sets limits, as it offers possibilities. We in this way, as humans, are not created alone.

Morality is somewhat utilitarian in that only what works, what fits, what is useful, will be established as the "right" way to be. And to any one man or woman, the other 8 billion people on the planet, as well as the weather and the Sun and the Moon and the stars and the birds and bees, fishes and animals, the rotation of the Earth and the plants and minerals represent objective reality.

 

Regards, TAR

Here, my wanting to have it both ways becomes obviously required. One cannot establish a morality that satisfies everyone. One must uphold the morality of the groups to which they belong. So a balance is required. One must satisfy themselves, and their family and their neighborhood, and their club and their school and (their church) and their town and their company and their association and their state and country and alliance, first, and then see if such can be done in such a way as others are given latitude to coexist.

 

I am thinking in particular at the moment about how eating a hamburger is a revered summertime barbecue tradition...that would be considered an immoral act to some from India, for instance.

Edited August 9, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Still, one cannot construct a morality alone.

Here, my wanting to have it both ways becomes obviously required. One cannot establish a morality that satisfies everyone. .

 

I am thinking in particular at the moment about how eating a hamburger is a revered summertime barbecue tradition...that would be considered an immoral act to some from India, for instance.

 

Well, yes, obviously an individual is not alone, if you are going to interpret the title of this thread in that way...no man is an island, sort of thing. We do become civilized by becoming enculturated, by learning the laws, language, customs, beliefs, etc. of the society into which we are born.

 

But we of course need not passively accept everything our society tells us. Nowadays in the U.S., parents are not shocked or even outraged if their children don't grow up to accept their political and religious beliefs. But it was not always that way. Even a few decades ago parents were puzzled and annoyed if parents who were Protestant and Democrats had a child who decided at some age to adhere to Catholocism and vote Republican.

In day to day living, we also hear the phrase that one should always have a bit of 'alone' time for oneself.

 

Similarly, cultural relativism and multiculturalism encourages us to explore and seek to understand cultures that have different customs and beliefs.

 

It is certainly a good point that one focuses on ones own needs as opposed to others needs in varying proportions, even in any given day. We might spend the first two hours dashing around trying to get the kids off to school, and then take an hour off to just watch ones favorite t.v. program before starting to fix the midday meal for oneself and ones partner, for example. We play a variety of roles...wear a variety of hats, as they say. I think that one has to have a balance....those who become too self-focused (narcissists, megalomaniacs, hardened criminals) or too other-focused (martyrs, self-victimizers, obsessive self-sacrificers) tend to be neurotic or even psychotic.

 

So I agree we are on the same page here, though I suspect we are straying from the topic of this thread which is whether the universe is alone or is created alone. But obviously, it matters a great deal more that we are not alone as individual humans on this planet in comparison with the speculative question as to whether there are intelligent beings on other planets or in other universes.

Edited August 10, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Yes, we are getting a bit off track. The OP did not ask about whether we were alone in the universe, it asked whether the universe was alone.

 

Other intelligent life is not really material...because as soon as we met them, and got to know them, and them us, they would not be third person any more, and could be considered "us" intelligent folk that inhabit this universe.

 

Not sure either how we got unto morality, but it was pertinent in my estimation, in considering what is important to "us". That is, along the line of an earlier argument of mine, it would not matter if there were other universes if the other universes never interacted with this one, or were affected by this one, or caused or in some way was associated with this one.

 

Same with morality. There cannot be a relativistic morality in the cultural relativistic way you are suggesting, in my estimation. That is, you can't call a thing within your own head, universal...unless you have a connection to something outside your head...in which case you are admitting to a connection with the cosmos and admitting that something about the place matters, even after death.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Yes, we are getting a bit off track. The OP did not ask about whether we were alone in the universe, it asked whether the universe was alone.

 

Other intelligent life is not really material...because as soon as we met them, and got to know them, and them us, they would not be third person any more, and could be considered "us" intelligent folk that inhabit this universe.

 

Semantics...the issue would be whether we are not in communication with them at this point in time if we were to ask if we are alone in the universe; but yes, they would no longer be a third party were they to visit. Given that all our sky scanners seeking signals from alleged creatures on other planets in other parts of our galaxy have turned up zilch, I suspect the chances of encountering beings, much less intelligent beings that we could communicate with, much less meet face to face, is so absurdly remote that I don't take the issue of UFOs seriously.

 

That is, along the line of an earlier argument of mine, it would not matter if there were other universes if the other universes never interacted with this one, or were affected by this one, or caused or in some way was associated with this one.

 

So you are basically suggesting that the question of this discussion thread is insignificant? As we would never meet any intelligent creatures from another universe and as we can't in some back-patting way call other universes our own as we don't belong to them, I would agree in that sense. However, there no doubt may be some scientific value in making such a discovery, much like we learn much from studying the early conditions of the universe.

 

But personally, I am pretty cynical myself when it comes to space exploration. Given widespread poverty and social unrest, for example, I think that the billions spent on collecting a few moon rocks or taking snapshots of Jupiter or checking out the atmosphere of Mars could be better spent.

 

Same with morality. There cannot be a relativistic morality in the cultural relativistic way you are suggesting, in my estimation. That is, you can't call a thing within your own head, universal...unless you have a connection to something outside your head...in which case you are admitting to a connection with the cosmos and admitting that something about the place matters, even after death.

 

I'm sorry...perhaps you could rephrase this for me as I don't understand how you are providing evidence that there can't be moral or cultural relativism, especially since you have already acknowledged that "eating a hamburger is a revered summertime barbecue tradition...that would be considered an immoral act to some from India."

Edited August 11, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the term 'cultural relativism' but I maintain that taking a stance, other than your own, is not realistic. That is, one cannot, from within ones head, understand themselves from the outside, looking in. This is an insight of mine, that is running close to central in my discussion of this thread question. You cannot take a position that sees this universe, from the outside, to where you could compare it, to other universes. And by definition, one can not understand the universe from any point of view, other than a human point of view. 'cause we are human and this is how we see the place.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

 

Disarray,

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the term 'cultural relativism' but I maintain that taking a stance, other than your own, is not realistic. That is, one cannot, from within ones head, understand themselves from the outside, looking in. This is an insight of mine, that is running close to central in my discussion of this thread question. You cannot take a position that sees this universe, from the outside, to where you could compare it, to other universes. And by definition, one can not understand the universe from any point of view, other than a human point of view. 'cause we are human and this is how we see the place.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I think that what you are describing has more to do with subjectivism (see current thread on solipsism).

 

That one (as an individual or as part of a group) cannot get out of ones own perspective at any one given moment in time is something of a tautology. If anything, you are suggesting here that morality and culture are relative, be it on an individual or a group level.

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Well maybe so, but my complaint is with people that pretend they are not bias toward their own group's rules, and that they somehow can see the situation from an objective viewpoint.

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is obviously the way to understand others, but pretending you have a viewpoint superior to a mere mortal is silly. I think without having a human viewpoint you would have no view at all.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 11, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Well maybe so, but my complaint is with people that pretend they are not bias toward their own group's rules, and that they somehow can see the situation from an objective viewpoint.

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is obviously the way to understand others, but pretending you have a viewpoint superior to a mere mortal is silly. I think without having a human viewpoint you would have no view at all.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Yes, though, in terms of logic, one can't be other than who one is, one can take certain steps towards expanding ones intellectual horizons: Travel, read, investigate ones upbringing and prejudices, listen to different opinions, etc. And yes, many claim to be objective when they are not...it is sort of an argumentative technique, much like claiming that what one believes is a fact rather than an opinion, or claiming that one must be right because your claims are in agreeement with some scriptural passage.

Edited August 11, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Yes, but billions follow the Koran, and many follow the Bible, and billions again the teachings of the Eastern religions. Suppose a Humanist takes the best from each and discards the worst. They are still going to find themselves in agreement with some scriptural passage or another. I am not thinking one can construct any sort of morality at all in the vacuum of space, out of quarks. So I am an atheist, and have constructed a morality of my own out of what I learned in Sunday School and at religiously founded prep school and college, and what I have learned from my family and friends and from what I have read and run into in my travels and discovered through my own insights and muses...but it would be foolish to think I came up with the best way of being, in opposition to the way that billions upon billions for thousands of years have done it. I am thinking I must have borrowed just a little of the ideas from that which has worked before.

 

Perhaps a child raised by wolves in the woods, could come up with stage 7 morality...but I think the odds are against it.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 11, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Yes, but billions follow the Koran, and many follow the Bible, and billions again the teachings of the Eastern religions. Suppose a Humanist takes the best from each and discards the worst. They are still going to find themselves in agreement with some scriptural passage or another. I am not thinking one can construct any tsort of morality at all in the vacuum of space, out of quarks. So I am an atheist, and have constructed a morality of my own out of what I learned in Sunday School and at religiously founded prep school and college, and what I have learned from my family and friends and from what I have read and run into in my travels and discovered through my own insights and muses...but it would be foolish to think I came up with the best way of being, in opposition to the way that billions upon billions for thousands of years have done it. I am thinking I must have borrowed just a little of the ideas from that which has worked before.

 

Perhaps a child raised by wolves in the woods, could come up with stage 7 morality...but I think the odds are against it.

 

Regards, TAR

 

No, I was never suggesting that one can somehow come up with a "reasonable" moral worldview completely on ones own, anymore than a "wild/feral child" could. My emphasis earlier was to disagree with ultraconservative/fundamentalistic views that ones morality should just replicate that of previous generations. It is here that religion tends to slow down progress, critical thinking, personal creativity, tolerance, and concrete circumstances. In short, again, one must strike a balance between slavish adherence to tradition and sociopathic ignorance (ignoring) of it.

 

To get back on topic, I would note that it is good to be intellectually open-minded as much as possible by entertaining a natural curiosity and interest in those outside ones own family, ones own circle of friends/relatives, and ones own city and nation, in an attempt to understand and accommodate them...this is indeed, a fundamental aspect of (universal) morality.

 

If it ever became possible for me to add 'those on other planets in our galaxy, or those on other planets in other galaxies, or even those in other universes', I would be the first to do so.

 

But yes, apart from adding to and integrating our present scientific body of knowledge, I would agree that spending too much time, money, and effort trying to determine if there is life on other planets somewhere or in other universes does not make a great deal of sense, particularly when there is so much here on earth in this universe to embrace and to nourish.

Edited August 11, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray

 

But, being that the universe we know of, is already sufficient, more than sufficient, to engage our minds and provide for our needs, almost to the point of unfathomable size, extent, intricacy, duration and history, what would be the purpose of discovering "another" universe, that has no connection to this one? It is completely a fantasy if it is not empirically tied to this universe. Completely dream stuff, like Moontanman pointed out with the existence of a mirror image universe to this one.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Disarray

 

But, being that the universe we know of, is already sufficient, more than sufficient, to engage our minds and provide for our needs, almost to the point of unfathomable size, extent, intricacy, duration and history, what would be the purpose of discovering "another" universe, that has no connection to this one? It is completely a fantasy if it is not empirically tied to this universe. Completely dream stuff, like Moontanman pointed out with the existence of a mirror image universe to this one.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Again, as with Relativity in its early days, theories about the existence of a multiverse are based upon what the math suggests. Unlike relativity, it is true that it apparently is impossible to test the multiverse theory empirically. Nevertheless, many scientists feel that it is worth studying or at least including the notion of a multiverse in order to fill in some of the pieces missing in string theory, and to gain better insight into the anthropic principle.

 

Again, as to the average person on the street just trying to adapt to his physical and social environment (i.e., his/her own world), concepts such as the Higgs Boson field or the possibility of other universes is irrelevant.

Edited August 12, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Yes, I suppose that is a problem of mine. I don't get why something should be considered real, just because an equation, which is some analogy in someone's head, says it is possible.

 

To me, I need to know what the thing means, in an empirical sense, or it is just a hypothetical. I am not up on string theory, so I do not know, what is needed or required, or forced in terms of the equations, but if the thing just works in someone's head, and does not work in the waking world that we all experience, then what is the point?

 

Past 4 dimensions, there is no meaning to the equations.

 

Regards, TAR

what for instance would taking the derivitive of a cow, mean? You can say some further dimension is wrapped up within a string, but what is standing for what, and how do you know the rules and causes and effects and what will work and what will not and such if you are not representing reality in some empirical sense, to where you can experiment?

[Strange]

Disarray,

 

Yes, I suppose that is a problem of mine. I don't get why something should be considered real, just because an equation, which is some analogy in someone's head, says it is possible.

 

 

I can't think of any examples where that is the case. Things are considered possible or likely because of mathematics (Neptune, dark matter, neutrinos, etc). But they are not considered real until there is evidence (Neptune, dark matter, neutrinos, etc).

[tar]

Strange,

 

Fair point. I get confused somethings, or think others are overstating things, when they point to an equation and consider it proof of the reality of a theory. Just because the equation works does not mean that is exactly how reality works. Often I can think of reasons why things might work a little differently than the equation forces. Like, for example, talking about how time would be affected by an object traveling 9 tenths the speed of light, without considering the effect on the system the object is inhabiting, of syphoning off enough energy to get the object traveling at 9 tenth the speed of light, or considering to what or which or how you are determining the speed of the object. Or how much mass has been converted to energy to accomplish the task and what reaction has been caused by the action, or how the object might be affected in terms of resistance or deformity, by the gamma ray energy hitting its nose, by virtue of its speed turning radio waves and visible light its running into into higher energy and frequency electromagnetic waves. That is, often, when experimenting with the real world, were everything must fit together, you get a slightly different result than the simple equation would predict, because you didn't account for the effect that Neptune's gravity, has on the media the neutrino is traveling through.

 

Regards, TAR

[Enric]

Thinking about the No Evidence of God or Something Beyond... It must be this way. It's vital. If somebody finds an evidence of something beyond, the big part of humanity would live paralyzed by a big paranoia. And another part would suicide to leave this world of pains... A reasonable doubt must exist. It's critical. It must be this way: doubt and exceptions. (exceptions not in the laws of the Universe, in order to handle it).

 

Regards.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Enric

[Memammal]

@ Enric,

 

With respect, I don't agree. Humanity is more than capable to adapt to certainty; reasonable doubt is not a critical prerequisite.