What Is Morality?

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question. It's not meant in a fancy way nor from an idealized cosmological perspective:

If my individual actions are biased towards maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) isn't that the height of morality?

I would argue that all actions (human and animal, natural and artificial) can be seen through this survivalist perspective as being moral, immoral or neutral.

Joe, as to the (euphemistically monikered) immoral meteor et al; from the perspective of the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) in question, the results of the meteor's destruction would be immoral to the degree by which it interfered with the survivalist premise.

Joe, as to the forcible sterilizations; only in hindsight would you be able to confirm as to its degree of morality or lack thereof. Suffice it to say that 500 years later, if it could be shown that the actions in question (forcible sterilizations) resulted in a quantifiable merited difference in maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) in question then yes to forcible sterilizations.

Joe, no I am not "saying that all actions are moral or immoral when measured against the yardstick of human survival" What I said was "all actions (human and animal, natural and artificial) can be seen through this survivalist perspective as being moral, immoral or neutral" which is a different kettle of fish by a large margin,

"artificial" means of man not nature. Do you need amplification on this point as per "all actions…….?

Well, I don't quite understand how results can be immoral. Typically, morality is concerned with acts, not with the results of acts. Even a pure consequentialist, for whom acts are largely judged by their results, evaluates the morality of acts, not results. Consequences that are divorced from human acts (such as the consequences of a meteor strike) are usually not even thought of as morally neutral. Rather, they are considered to be entirely non-moral.

That's a rather odd theory of morality then. Typically, morality not only judges past actions, but future actions as well. If I were to say "murder is immoral," then I am saying that the act of committing murder in the past is immoral and that the act of committing murder in the future would be immoral as well. It would be surpassing strange for a moral code to suspend judgment of an act until all of its consequences could be assessed -- especially if those consequences could not be assessed for centuries. The reason for that is obvious: people want to know now if they are acting morally or immorally. Taking a "check back with me later" approach offers little in the way of practical guidance.

I cannot apprehend the distinction. Whether you call it a yardstick or a perspective, you are saying that all actions are judged by their contribution to human survival.

Yes. You never answered my query about the immoral HIV. Can viruses be immoral?

I've thought along very similar lines before when I was really trying to package this concept of morality up and avoid it's supposed direct links to religion by describing it as something basic and instinctual. It needs intentionality though, as I see it, viewing the effects of a meteor as immoral don't seem to get us anywhere. I think Asherman described your description as being a little too fancy merely because it was too far reaching, any one individual wants to know that their actions are immoral based on more personal, private, unique and specific reasons that relate to their lives, not the lives of the other 6 billion on this planet.

If everyone were to "tend to their own gardens" we might hope to see a knock on effect that was in fact globally reaching, but this would be a by product rather than an immediate goal. It's kind of like your description of morality is one that would appeal to someone or something looking inwards to humanity from afar because it describes a collective effort, but not so much to the people or individuals within the system of question, Earth. I hope I haven't repeated too much of what has been said there but yes I can see where you're coming from Chumly.

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question. It's not meant in a fancy way nor from an idealized cosmological perspective:

If my individual actions are biased towards maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) isn't that the height of morality?

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

For example if we accept that the population is much too extreme (as I do) and thus I support Population Connection that is moral. If one is aware of the population problems, but has kids anyway, that's immoral.

For example if one does not support reduction of man made pollutants and the return to a balanced global ecosystem, that's immoral due to increased risks that man will not survive, and/or will not have the enjoyment/satisfaction from having natural freedoms, and as per our moral responsibility to the global ecosystem.

I would argue that all actions (human and animal, natural and artificial) can be seen through this survivalist perspective as being moral, immoral or neutral.

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

I supplied the term "euphemistically monikered" to try and clarify this confusion. To clarify further I do not mean an inanimate object has morality, but its effects have morality in the context of the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) in question, for example the results of the virus's destruction would be immoral to the degree by which it interfered with the survivalist premise.

Remember Joe, I stated my definition of morality in this context, right at the very beginning as per: "Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question."

Firstly for the scenario you provided it's the only way to be able to assess the morality of forcible sterilizations versus the quantifiable merited difference in maximizing the long term survival of the species. IOW if you cannot know the results of forcible sterilizations you cannot assess its morality from the perspective of maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) in question.

Secondly I would argue that the morals of survival (as I have outlined them) are very real indeed and not at all odd. Please also review my ongoing text to Ash as per the morality of the space program and the morality of man's extra terrestrial survivalist premise etc.

Please also review my initial post as per:
- space program
- Population Connection
- having children
- man made pollutants
- returning to a balanced global ecosystem

Thirdly it's simply impossible for people to expect a sense of morality in circumstances beyond which adequate information is available. Understand Joe I am not saying population control falls into this inadequate information category. In fact you provided the specific (perhaps extreme) sterilization scenario not me. I said something quite different "For example if we accept that the population is much too extreme (as I do) and thus I support Population Connection that is moral. If one is aware of the population problems, but has kids anyway, that's immoral."

Fourthly you are incorrect that I take a "check back with me later" approach per se, if by that you mean I aver this to be my modus operandi, please take the time to read what I said, not simply your specific (perhaps extreme) sterilization scenario and my specific responses. Joe, you would be incorrect to make a generalization from a specific.

Nope, again that is not what I am saying, you are overlooking the neutral aspect (for one thing). Many considerations simply fall outside the umbrella of maximizing the long term survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) in question.

Further the question: "at what point (if any) is the future of mankind's moral price too high?" gives a possible fourth answer of "price too high". Thus we have: moral, immoral, neutral, price too high. I did say however, that "most would pay any moral price if mankind's survival was at stake".

As I said earlier as per "the (euphemistically monikered) immoral meteor et al" a virus's effects can be moral, immoral, neutral from the perspective of the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) in question, for example the results of the virus's destruction would be immoral to the degree by which it interfered with the survivalist premise. A virus in an of itself does not fall under the umbrella of the survivalist premise.

Well, if results are moral or not to the extent that they either contribute to or detract from human survival, then your "morality" is nothing but another way of saying something is "desirable" or "undesirable." Right?

Then what practical value does your morality have? If I cannot determine if my actions are moral or immoral until centuries after I'm dead, then what is either to encourage or deter me from acting?

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

For example if we accept that the population is much too extreme (as I do) and thus I support Population Connection that is moral. If one is aware of the population problems, but has kids anyway, that's immoral.

For example if one does not support reduction of man made pollutants and the return to a balanced global ecosystem, that's immoral due to increased risks that man will not survive, and/or will not have the enjoyment/satisfaction from having natural freedoms, and as per our moral responsibility to the global ecosystem.

…….it's well recognized that the brand of morality that falls under the immediate individual aspect is rife with cultural, religious, personal, and legal subjectivity etc., and the survivalist brand of morality avoids those potential pitfalls. Example I do not think you would find the Mayan religion and culture overly moral by your standards, yet by my definition of moral, a Mayan civilization or a Buddhist civilization could both have the same long term moral goals and thus preserve and protect both man and the environment.

OTOH I do not exclude or denigrate other brands of morality per se, given that this brand (like arguably any other brand of morally) has a neutral aspect.

Read it. Didn't help.

Read it. Didn't help either.

If your morality can't handle "extreme" scenarios, then it's not much of a system of morality.

I have no doubt, and I take those into account. But let me see how far this "neutral aspect" goes: suppose I kill someone who has a terminal disease. It's not that I want to end that person's suffering, it's just that I don't like him and have always wanted to kill him. Since he was going to die from the disease anyway, it's difficult to argue that my killing him a bit earlier than he would have otherwise died has any significant effect on the survival of the human race. Is my action moral?

What is the distinction between "price too high" and "immoral?"

Why not?

Joe to set the record straight as you seem unclear (on what I would have thought was axiomatic) I aver that survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question is good (moral) and the apposite is bad (immoral). Is this complex or unclear to you?

Kind sire, we have been over this before, still if you wish to re-label that as "desirable" or "undesirable" that is your call, but I aver that survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question pivots on a sense of morality as per my definition.

Of course you can, and we have been over this already. Joe, it is illogical to keep trying to make a generalization from a specific. I gave examples in my very first post** thusly:

And to amplify further as already discussed with Ash thusly

Chumly wrote:

…….it's well recognized that the brand of morality that falls under the immediate individual aspect is rife with cultural, religious, personal, and legal subjectivity etc., and the survivalist brand of morality avoids those potential pitfalls. Example I do not think you would find the Mayan religion and culture overly moral by your standards, yet by my definition of moral, a Mayan civilization or a Buddhist civilization could both have the same long term moral goals and thus preserve and protect both man and the environment.

OTOH I do not exclude or denigrate other brands of morality per se, given that this brand (like arguably any other brand of morally) has a neutral aspect.

OK, what do you wish from me kind sire?

OK, are you saying you have zero understanding of the immediacy and moral equation as per:
- space program?
- Population Connection?
- having children?
- man made pollutants?
- returning to a balanced global ecosystem?
Joe see the ** above.

Nonsense, in fact it can handle the most "extreme" scenario (that being the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question), but Joe, there is no moral system that can have assured efficacy and accuracy with inadequate data. You are in essence critiquing the inevitable due to inadequate data.

If is does not affect the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question it's neutral.

Remember however no one moral system can cover all bases, and my moral system does not conditionally either reject or accept any other moral system as you will see should you read the above Mayan civilization v. Buddhist civilization reference to Ash.

Here is the difference: let's assume there comes a time when you are reasonably sure the price of man's survival is too high thus you either do nothing to help it survive or you try and stop it from surviving. In either case the price is too high. This is indeed different than something that falls outside the scope of the survivalist premise (i.e. neutral).

Why would it? Given that a virus in and of itself does not necessarily affect the survivalist premise. But when and if it did, then its effects would have an immoral impact. What's with the preoccupation with the virus? The meteor can play a similar role and it's more fun to discuss as it leverages to the morality of the space program.

I do appreciate our little chat and BTW, I see you have been keeping yourself busy with the comedy duo of spendius and real life (and supporting cast).

Well, it's an example of the [url=]naturalistic fallacy[/url], so I suppose to that extent it's clear.

"Pivots on a sense of morality?" What on earth does that mean?

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

I know you want to talk about the easy examples, but I'm not interested in them. I want to know how a person is to be either encouraged or deterred to act in the forced sterilization scenario. If the morality of his action can only be determined centuries after he is dead, then how is he to decide the moral course of action now?

Are you saying you're a moral relativist?

…….it's well recognized that the brand of morality that falls under the immediate individual aspect is rife with cultural, religious, personal, and legal subjectivity etc., and the survivalist brand of morality avoids those potential pitfalls. Example I do not think you would find the Mayan religion and culture overly moral by your standards, yet by my definition of moral, a Mayan civilization or a Buddhist civilization could both have the same long term moral goals and thus preserve and protect both man and the environment.

OTOH I do not exclude or denigrate other brands of morality per se, given that this brand (like arguably any other brand of morally) has a neutral aspect.

The "above" doesn't help, not when the "above" can't answer my questions regarding the forced sterilization scenario.

Then what practical value does your morality have?

What? What is this "inevitable" to which you refer?

So, under your system of morality, I can kill anyone with a terminal illness and my actions would not be morally blameworthy?

Remember however no one moral system can cover all bases, and my moral system does not conditionally either reject or accept any other moral system as you will see should you read the above Mayan civilization v. Buddhist civilization reference to Ash.

What makes you think that "no moral system can cover all the bases?"

Most moral systems at least attempt to do just that.

Whether they succeed or not is an open question,

but there is nothing that should logically prevent a moral system from covering every situation in which people act.

That yours doesn't (or doesn't even attempt to) is not a common failing of all moral systems, just a unique failing of yours.

That makes no sense. If the standard of morality is the survival of the human race, then there should be nothing that would fall into your "price too high" category, for one simple reason: you are positing a morally immoral thing -- something that is both moral and immoral simultaneously. That's not an exception to the rule or some kind of tertium quid: it's just nonsense.

To all: the question inferred in my above posts, but not spelled out 'till now: at what point (if any) is the future of mankind's moral price too high? I would argue that most would pay any moral price if mankind's survival was at stake.

Further the question: "at what point (if any) is the future of mankind's moral price too high?" gives a possible fourth answer of "price too high". Thus we have: moral, immoral, neutral, price too high. I did say however, that "most would pay any moral price if mankind's survival was at stake".

……..let's assume there comes a time when you are reasonably sure the price of man's survival is too high thus you either do nothing to help it survive or you try and stop it from surviving. In either case the price is too high. This is indeed different than something that falls outside the scope of the survivalist premise (i.e. neutral).

Why would it? Given that a virus in and of itself does not necessarily affect the survivalist premise. But when and if it did, then its effects would have an immoral impact. What's with the preoccupation with the virus? The meteor can play a similar role and it's more fun to discuss as it leverages to the morality of the space program.

A simpler answer (and the one that I expected you to give) would have been that only humans can act morally or immorally. Would you agree with that?

I assure you that I am not engaged in these discussions with you or with real life as a means to amuse myself.

That's an allegation as to it being a logical fallacy. You have yet to provide a sufficiently merited argument (or any argument for that matter) as to why the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) cannot be considered a positive moral goal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

joefromchicago wrote:

"Pivots on a sense of morality?" What on earth does that mean?

"pivots"
A person or thing on which something depends or turns; the central or crucial factor.
"sense of morality as per my definition" thusly:

Chumly wrote:

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

Joe all you would have needed to do is look up the word "pivots" and refer to the "sense of morality as per my definition" as outlined numerous times, including the first sentence of my first post. That should be extremely easy.

Give me more information about the forced sterilization scenario. Again there is no moral system that can have assured efficacy and accuracy with inadequate data.

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you saying you're a moral relativist?

I do not know how you mean the term specifically and in this context. You would need to define exactly how you mean it. I have said thusly:

Chumly wrote:

…….it's well recognized that the brand of morality that falls under the immediate individual aspect is rife with cultural, religious, personal, and legal subjectivity etc., and the survivalist brand of morality avoids those potential pitfalls. Example I do not think you would find the Mayan religion and culture overly moral by your standards, yet by my definition of moral, a Mayan civilization or a Buddhist civilization could both have the same long term moral goals and thus preserve and protect both man and the environment.

OTOH I do not exclude or denigrate other brands of morality per se, given that this brand (like arguably any other brand of morally) has a neutral aspect.

Ah, that's not quite what you challenged earlier, you said thusly:

joefromchicago wrote:

Then what practical value does your morality have?

In fact I gave you practical values for my morality, but you trivialized them by calling them "easy examples" and further did not directly confirm I had answered your question.

You simply reasserted the challenge of forced sterilization, while still not addressing my request to provide sufficient data to draw judgment. Thus again I ask: give me more information about the forced sterilization scenario. There is no moral system that can have assured efficacy and accuracy with inadequate data.

joefromchicago wrote:

So, under your system of morality, I can kill anyone with a terminal illness and my actions would not be morally blameworthy?

You make an wholly unsubstantiated presupposition that a "system of morality" can be all encompassing.

I challenge you to show me a moral system that covers all of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology.

You're welcome to your beliefs that it is an "open question", me I have never seen a moral system that "can cover all bases" so I'll stick to the facts unless or until demonstrated otherwise.

Further why are you limiting yourself to "every situation in which people act"? If you have such a broad and consequential moral system surely it will not only cover Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology but it will cover the Earth's' Ecosystem as mine aptly does. Understand Joe that no ecosystem = no Mankind (unless of until the space program develops more fully that is).

Nope it's not nonsense at all, you have simply misunderstood. I wondered if you would challenge this! Had you read my entire postings, you would have witnessed the caveat which allowed the "price too high". Joe it should be quite clear that some individuals may at certain times assess (for reasons outside the survivalist morality) that the human race and/or the Earth's ecosystem would not be worth preservation.

Understand I have it as an unlikely fourth option and I did not provide it under the umbrella of the survivalist morality. An example of such an individual might be the instigator of a nuclear holocaust who believes destruction of all mankind and the earth's ecosystem is moral (I suspect I could dredge up some religious fundamentalists that would fit this bill).

joefromchicago wrote:

A simpler answer (and the one that I expected you to give) would have been that only humans can act morally or immorally. Would you agree with that?

No kind sire, I would not for the following reasons:

1) We do not know enough about the higher animals that exist on the earth today to confirm with certainty man's uniqueness in this sense.

2) We do not know anything about any possible extraterrestrial higher animals to confirm man's uniqueness in this sense.

Also remember Joe, I have successfully argued even inanimate objects can have in context moral effects, as per the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth).

Just for fun, I'll allow myself the luxury of two entertaining future extrapolations as I am an SF fan:

a) Artificial intelligence (directly or via Turing Machines). Might you be familiar with Asimov, Turing, Minsky & Kurzweill et al?

b) Organic enhanced intelligence (such as Clarke's super-chimps)

Well, identifying it as fallacious reasoning is an argument as to why it can't be considered a positive moral goal, or at least it cannot form the basis of a consistent theory of morality. And I apologize: in the editing process I neglected to include a link to my discussion of the naturalistic fallacy.

You have yet to provide a sufficiently merited argument (or any argument for that matter) as to why the survival of the species (man) and/or the ecosystem (earth) cannot be considered a positive moral goal.

I know what I mean when I use the word "pivots," and I'm fairly comfortable with what the dictionary means when it uses the word "pivots," but I have no clue what you mean when you use the word "pivots."

"pivots"
A person or thing on which something depends or turns; the central or crucial factor.

The problem is that your initial statement:

seems to suggest that the goal of survival of the species is based upon (or "pivots on") a "sense of morality. That, I contend, is the purest nonsense. If the goal of survival of the species is the good (as you have identified it), then it is the goal that must inform the "sense of morality," not the other way around. If, on the other hand, there is something out there -- the "sense of morality" -- that is independent of or superior to the goal of survival of the species, then survival of the species is not the same as "the good." Which is it?

"pivots"
A person or thing on which something depends or turns; the central or crucial factor.

Suppose it is determined that the best way to maximize the long-term survival of the species is to eliminate genetic diseases. The only way to do that, however, is to identify those persons who are carrier of those diseases and prevent them from reproducing. Many of those carriers, of course, are understandably reluctant to refrain from procreating voluntarily. Would a program of forcible sterilizations of these carriers be moral?

What more information do you need?

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

If you judge Mayan or Buddhist morals by your own standards, then you are not a moral relativist. I'm just unsure if that's the case or not.

I didn't confirm that you answered my question because you didn't answer my question (and you still haven't).

Then what practical value does your morality have?

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

For example if we accept that the population is much too extreme (as I do) and thus I support Population Connection that is moral. If one is aware of the population problems, but has kids anyway, that's immoral.

For example if one does not support reduction of man made pollutants and the return to a balanced global ecosystem, that's immoral due to increased risks that man will not survive, and/or will not have the enjoyment/satisfaction from having natural freedoms, and as per our moral responsibility to the global ecosystem.

"I didn't confirm that you answered my question because you didn't answer my question (and you still haven't).

In fact I gave you practical values for my morality, but you trivialized them by calling them "easy examples" and further did not directly confirm I had answered your question. You simply reasserted the challenge of forced sterilization, while still not addressing my request to provide sufficient data to draw judgment. Thus again I ask: give me more information about the forced sterilization scenario. There is no moral system that can have assured efficacy and accuracy with inadequate data.

Well, I'm not sure why you don't have enough information to respond to my hypothetical now when you seemed to have enough when I first presented it. But I'll be glad to provide whatever additional information you need in order to address it fully.

Why is that "unsubstantiated?" Apart from your bare ipse dixit, what would prevent a system of morality from being universal?

Nothing simpler: every one of the moral systems that you listed covers all of those situations, since all claim (or, at least, I suppose they all claim -- I don't know much about witchcraft ethics) to be universal.

I challenge you to show me a moral system that covers all of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology.

Most moral systems at least attempt to do just that.

Be that as it may "attempt" is not actuality, thus I challenge you to show me a moral system that covers all of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology.

but there is nothing that should logically prevent a moral system from covering every situation in which people act.

Ok then, I challenge you to show me your logic demonstrating that a moral system can cover every situation within the context of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology. Further why are you limiting yourself to "every situation in which people act"? If you have such a broad and consequential moral system surely it will not only cover Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology but it will cover the Earth's' Ecosystem as mine aptly does. Understand Joe that no ecosystem = no Mankind (unless of until the space program develops more fully that is).

That yours doesn't (or doesn't even attempt to) is not a common failing of all moral systems, just a unique failing of yours.

Ok then, I challenge you to show that your inferred moral systems succeed within the context of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology thus making the survivalist morality "unique" in it's so-called "failing".

Are you saying that systems of morality can't be universal, or only that systems of morality so far aren't universal?

I limit myself to "every situation in which people act" because morality is only concerned with human actions. But then maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate. What is your definition of "morality?" I'm not asking for your theory specifically, but rather your general definition of the term.

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

OTOH I do not exclude or denigrate other brands of morality per se, given that this brand (like arguably any other brand of morally) has a neutral aspect.

If something is "outside the survivalist morality," then it is either non-moral or else it is somehow "supramoral." If the former, then it is completely nonsensical for something that is non-moral to trump morality -- that would either mean that morality is non-moral or that the non-moral thing is the goal of morality. If the latter, then that would be the goal of morality. Which is it?

It should be quite clear that some individuals may at certain times assess (for reasons outside the survivalist morality) that the human race and/or the Earth's ecosystem would not be worth preservation. Understand I have it as an unlikely fourth option and I did not provide it under the umbrella of the survivalist morality. An example of such an individual might be the instigator of a nuclear holocaust who believes destruction of all mankind and the earth's ecosystem is moral (I suspect I could dredge up some religious fundamentalists that would fit this bill).

And, according to you, blowing up the world would be "wrong?"

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

What attribute is shared by humans, Turing machines, and super-chimps that makes them all subjects for morality?

Might you be familiar with Asimov, Turing, Minsky & Kurzweill et al?

I assure you that I am not engaged in these discussions with you or with real life as a means to amuse myself.

If you would like to tell me what your intentions and motivations are please do. For me it's the fun of the challenge, the structure of the dialogue, and the learning of new things. It sounds like you might have some presumed higher purpose?