A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Without getting into too much math:

Subjectivity (by definition) is the perspective of an observer.
Objectivity (by definition) is what is real absent an observer.
Our (human) condition is that we are observers, our experiences are by definition subjective ones.
Objective reality is only implied by a "consensus" of observations, objective reality "makes sense" as a model because it conforms to our observation. Things seem to exist whether you observe them or not [cue the QM discussion].
We have no reason to believe that there exist observers without interests. Every "observer" we observe has them. We imply the existence of these other observers by the way they interact with the objective model of reality. In short they behave as though they can also observe objective reality. They also behave as though they have interests. The skill of observing other observers and attempting to understand their perspective is called empathy. Empathy is amoral. It is a skill.
As an observer you feel preferences (interests) these may be anything, but they have to be something. Show me a person without interests if you think this untrue.
Compassion is using the skill of empathy for the interests of another observer. Empirical evidence shows that the more interests that individual human beings place in another observer the happier and healthier the are. They shows of signs "happiness" and "health". This is still not a moral position. This is a labeling of certain states. These states are more stable, they confer on the observer less risk of death (they are healthier). Being "happy" makes you more inclined toward more compassion (feel good, do good phenomenon). This is a constructive circularity or a vicious loop (depending on whether "happy" is good or bad).

Anti-compassion is the non-use of empathy for the interests of another. This might be by not having empathy as a skill, or by not having interests outside of self, or both.
For the case of not having empathy. Not having the skill to know what the interests of another observer are. In this case there could be no intentional help provided, since there is no knowledge of what the other wants. There is also no possibility for intentional harm, since there is no knowledge of what the other wants. This is ignorance of others' interests. There can be no moral actions in this case. Amorality.
For the case of having empathy, but no interests outside of self. This case is one in which all interest is self-interest. If this self-interested person is rational, they will examine which behaviors are going to lead to fulfilling their own self-interests (Machiavellian). If the Machiavellian acts in ways which appear self-interested they will of course have some success. Success as measured by health which is simply a measure of stability. If the Machiavellian chooses to place interest outside of self, they will have more success (by psychological empirical evidence), they will "convert" to compassion.
Assume the self-interested person is not rational, they will be incapable of judging what is or is not in their own best interest. They will be less successful on average than the either Machiavellian, due to their inability to even predict their own interests. This is ignorance of self interest. Moral behavior is impossible, because it cannot be intentional. Amorality.

The only situations which allow for moral behaviors are the compassionate and the Machiavellian. The difference being in whether the totality of interest is in the self (M) or any interest outside (C).

C's are healthier than M's. They are healthier, they live longer. (as supported by psychological evidence)

Now look at the situation as an optimization problem, looking at the stable state. The C strategy is superior on a "sociological" level. It is a more stable solution. The M strategy is volatile (less stable).
Societies favoring the C strategy will tend toward existing longer than societies favoring the M strategy. Because collections of C-ish people create a more stable state, than collections of M-ish people.

Dynamics favors C to M as a strategy of interacting agents.
This would be true no matter what the arbitrary interests of the individuals happen to be. You could assume that anything is the "base preference" of individuals (the best thing in the world is watching reruns of Lassie for example, or running around in circles) the process of optimization will favor the steady states that employ C-ish strategies in the individuals.

I'm sure Frank appreciates all that work.

I can only hope.
There is a more abstract treatment in the back and forth with Fil a ways back in the thread. I do make the assumption of an ontic reality. This is because the assumption seems to have greater predictive power (empirical evidence).
From my realist perspective there exist optimal states, when viewed over sufficient duration and over the broadest collection of agents.
This is analogous to extension of ego to include more and more of the system. Transcending the self.

I have a justification for degrees of Emotional IQ when seen from the system perspective, meaning empathy is not always desirable in a social Ecosystem...just think of physicians and surgeons or airplane pilots n such...the colder and the more pragmatical the better...Evolution of social contexts might explain why some people are so oblivious to how others feel while so good in other tasks...they are specialized genotypes. The numbers for each genotype must fit the environmental needs.

It's a string of unwarranted assumptions. For example, that "M" societies won't last as long. There is a simple-minded assumption there to the effect that societies are only affected by their own internal dynamics; it ignores that societies have to survive in a larger world. The Roman Empire survived for over two thousand years. Machiavelli's great work was not The Prince (although it seems that's all many people know of), but was rather The Discourses (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livius [Livy]). In that work, Machiavelli details the policies of the Roman state toward it's neighbors in the period when it was building its empire. Rome's neighbors did not simply oppose its expansion, but frequently attempted to destroy it. Not only did it survive, but it expanded to cover both shores of the Mediterranean and a good deal of what we call the Middle East and most of western Europe south of the Baltic.

The very word social comes to us from the Romans. Socii refers to the clients of a patron, with the relationship intended to benefit the patron and the clients. This was later expanded to describe Rome's client tribes and states in what we call Italy. It was a durable basis for the benefit of Rome, and to a lesser extent of the client tribes and states. Eventually, those tribes and states rebelled in what is now called the Social War. They lost.

Rome endured because her policies were effective for century after century. It had nothing to do with compassion.

It seems to me that people around here are too fond of simple answers.

The physicians and surgeons are still acting compassionately (with the information available to them).

In terms of evidence and patient outcomes among family practice physicians (USA), nurse practitioners actually get better outcomes than medical doctors. There is a philosophical training difference in between the schools.
Medical philosophy is to treat illness (reductionist).
Nursing philosophy is to treat patients (holistic).

This even though NPs currently have a minimum requirement of a masters degree, while MD require 4 year post graduate education.
The requirement will soon be PhD for NPs, I assume the difference in outcomes will only increase.

I was referring to the Machiavellian as it has become used in psychology. Sorry for the ambiguity.

I am not fond of simple answers, I think that the application of morality, ethics is extremely complex.

I don't have time available right now to address the rest of your concerns I will return to them, when time permits.

Yes...I meant degrees of compassion or empathy that they do not compute otherwise they would freeze in the middle of a heart surgery...they still to the best of their ability are contributing to help others but rationally...they have an operational distance to emotions themselves...In the social Ecosystem a given % is needed of X genotypes for different roles with contradictory needs...to my view, I know this is a generalization, best surgeons must be emotionally impaired...same could be said of soldiers and the likes, and nevertheless they are needed and are viable evolutionary speaking...

How is that not what i was referring to?

I didn't need a definition of machiavellian. However, from your Wikipedia article:



That's what Machiavelli was writing about in the Discourses, and that's what i was writing about in that all too brief description of Roman policy.

Okay. I am going to catch up on some sleep.
Here is a more humorous treatment of moral relativism in the meantime.
Wait, Why Can't We Eat Other People Again?
I am not claiming that eating people is wrong under ALL circumstances however.

Why are you bringing up "moral relativism?" I suggest you haven't paid any attention to my comments about morality in this thread. In fact, i don't believe that any such thing as morality exists. My discussions here have been of the assumptions and contentions of other people posting.

I'm sure he meant the other Frank, but I do appreciate the work.

While manipulation is very successful in the short term in the long run is doomed to fail if there is not any sort of equilibrium in place or a true cooperation, dominance of one side over the other is irrelevant so long both benefit it doesn't have to be a perfect match, dominance must be legitimately natural, that is, it must imply a benefit for the submitted partner...The success of the Romans while explained partially by their military power and political skill, in my simple minded non expert view, is equally justified and explained by their tolerance with the conquered nations as no Empire can last long without it...for one they brought in organization and stability without trumping local costume. So how is there any relevance on what you said ?

My remarks were directed at Matt's unwarranted inductive reasoning from individuals to nations. Rome did not survive because it was compassionate. It was tolerant of people who surrendered quickly and then paid their taxes without quibble. Read Machiavelli's Discourxes. Rome's alleged tolerance is not the same as the compassion which Matt was touting.

I think the idea that compassion can form the basis of a moral code in modern society is laughable.

It would be compassionate for people to steal food from Supermarkets to give to the poor. A moral code that had compassion as it core value would support theft (or even mandate it).

There are few people in modern Western culture who would agree with this.

I agree. Compassion can inform a particular action but not an entire moral code.

Two comments:

You seem to have an inordinate subjective affection for the concept of "optimization of success"…so much that you want desperately to elevate it to a moral absolute…or to a foundation for a moral absolute.

So far, in my opinion, you have been unsuccessful.

Be that as it may, the single sentence from your essay that jumped out at me was:



Forgetting the subjective implications of that thought, Matt, we (meaning humans) have no reason to “believe” anything…although some of us seem incapable of refusing to do so.

I am not one of those people. I simply will not “believe” things.

Sometimes I guess about things; sometimes I estimate things; sometimes I sense things; sometimes I hope for things…and on those occasions mention that I guess, estimate, sense, or hope for whatever it is that I am guessing about, estimating, sensing, or hoping for. Nearly as I can tell, “believing” is a way of disguising all those other processes I just mentioned.

In any case, because a person has no reason to guess (or estimate) that there do not exist observers without interests….does not mean there are none.

I think you were correct when you suggested that we not discuss these things. You are unable to get outside the box in which you find yourself…and I, quite frankly, am not intellectually up to the job of helping you do so.

You can out-fancyword me; you can out-appeal-to-authority me; you can certainly seem to others to know more about this issue than it might seem to them that I do.

But so far, Matt, all you have done is to assert subjective considerations about what could be a moral absolute.

In all those words…you have provided zero substantiation.

I understand why...and in a perverse way, I sympathize with you.

Unless you are able to provide evidence of a SUPREME BEING that dictates some single item that every living creature (not just humans) must accept as a moral absolute…substantiation appears to be impossible.

Thanks for all the work...consider me incapable of understanding if you choose. But unless you can provide some substantiation of a moral absolute...I will continue to GUESS that all you are doing is making a subjective guess that such an item exists.

That's false, Frank. You even believe things when you are faced with facts that show those things are complete nonsense. But, in this you aren't much different than Matt. Perhaps you two can help each other overcome your incredulous natures.

Then you can start in on Setanta, Thomas, Joe, ... .

A balance between cooperation and competition doesn't make any less of their absolute need...can you at all understand the need for the State ? I wonder...

There is no absurd transcendent like Christian good justification for compassion if only the very clear notion that miss fortune can strike you next...Compassion is a compromise with and for the future, a war on the 2 law of thermodynamics...