What Makes an Experience Good?

[Dglgmut]

What makes an experience good or bad? Is this the question of ethics?

As far as personal well-being is concerned, is experience not all that matters? If the job of ethics is to determine how volitional beings ought to live, then the question is: Why is there necessarily an "ought"?

Is it not because we (or for individualist ethics, I) do experience that there even is an idea of "ought"? Of course.

There can be an "is" without consciousness, but certainly not an "ought".

So, it seems, striving for good experiences is what rational self-interest is all about.

Why would you intentionally make your experience worse than it has to be? Self-sacrifice, of course.

Why would anyone minimize their quality of experience? Not because they want to (or else it would still be a good experience), obviously, but because they "ought" to. Or at least they think they ought to.

I guess this is that whole thing about not worrying about things you cannot control. It would not be rationally selfish to do so.

[caroljane]

"Moral is what you feel good after"

-Hemingway

[Xray]

If the job of ethics is to determine how volitional beings ought to live, then the question is: Why is there necessarily an "ought"?

Imo there isn't, because an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is".

[Brant Gaede]

If the job of ethics is to determine how volitional beings ought to live, then the question is: Why is there necessarily an "ought"?

Imo there isn't, because an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is".

That depends on the "is" in "is." When "is" refers to physical phenomena more "is" automatically follows as in cause and effect. Finding out about this is the job of science. The "is" you are referring to doesn't follow automatically for it needs an instituting human agency. The "ought" is tentative until put into action then all and sundry get to complain about what the "ought" ("is") in "ought" ought to be. These arguments, and agreements, follow automatically. These moral oughts, though, are for personal use. What ought the government be is another matter for that's social. There ought not be rights' violations vs. there ought to be (some? a few? just what?) rights' violations. Personal or social oughts come from referencing the human animal and that's where all the ises are for that. The personal does re-enforce the social as does the Objectivist Ethics, but a morality of rational self interest ("selfishness") is only implicit in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers while the philosophy of individual rights is explicit.

When you say ought doesn't follow from is you are demanding a metaphysical absolutism only possible from science and are actually saying philosophy doesn't follow from any "is." But all philosophy is saying is here is human nature and in so far as we now understand it we ought to be and do A, B, and C to avoid X, Y, and Z. Love vs. war.

Going deeper, outside of science, you are implicitly rejecting reason itself by denigrating it's use. You are saying there is no epistemological bridge for philosophy as opposed to science. Philosophy becomes an arbitrary, floating abstraction. While this seems true of most of what passes for philosophy note that this is a negative. What is characteristic of a negative is the necessary existence of a positive even if yet undiscovered. So a correct statement might instead be "'Ought' does come from 'is,' but we still have to find it"--that is, somewhere there's (yours?) objectivism.

--Brant

if you embrace objectivism, objectivism will embrace you--if you only knew the power of this force: Then!! Objectivism!! will getcha!! (hear those Randian footsteps coming up behind you as you scurry pass her graveyard in the darkness of your life)

[Xray]

When you say ought doesn't follow from is you are demanding a metaphysical absolutism only possible from science and are actually saying philosophy doesn't follow from any "is."

I said that an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is". Big difference.

Which means that the mere existence of a fact (= an "is") does not imply the necessity that one "ought to" act in a certain way in relation to that fact.

Example: Does from the fact that ultrarich people exist necessarily follow that they "ought to" donate a large part of ther wealth to charity?

One could even argue that telling others what they "ought to" do is the very opposite of individualism.

[Brant Gaede]

When you say ought doesn't follow from is you are demanding a metaphysical absolutism only possible from science and are actually saying philosophy doesn't follow from any "is."

I said that an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is". Big difference.

Which means that the mere existence of a fact (= an "is") does not imply the necessity that one "ought to" act in a certain way in relation to that fact.

Example: Does from the fact that ultrarich people exist necessarily follow that they "ought to" donate a large part of ther wealth to charity?

One could even argue that telling others what they "ought to" do is the very opposite of individualism.

Your first sentence is true. (I am assuming for this discussion "is" and "ises" are the same things.) Your house is on fire implies you ought to ...? Do something besides stay in bed. If you want happiness the implication is you ought to pursue it. Your example is too general and vague. The fact that people exist implies they ought to do and will do something and since they are conceptual beings they will have many choices. You ought not initiate force against me because I will act in self defense until the police arrive and do that for me. That would be your reward for violating my rights. All the is-ought problem is is the relationship between what is out there and in there. Our corporeal selves are more than existential phenomena. Our heads are full of ought-to do's. We are all in and out beings (and tomorrow I'm going to In and Out Burger).

--Brant

one can argue there is no necessary ought only oughts and you ought to choose the ought for you--or, if this then that (ought)--so we now get into free will (if, then to free will, then to ought)

so, do you have any oughts?

[Dglgmut]

But just because people exist does not necessarily mean they ought to do something--or does it?

Why ought they live?

Isn't this the starting point of ethics?

Edit: Doesn't the premise that people ought to live imply a benevolence towards humanity and betray a subjective bias towards people?

Is the very idea of ethics benevolent?

[BaalChatzaf]

A good experience is like a good landing. There is an old saying in the flying trade: any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

[Brant Gaede]

But just because people exist does not necessarily mean they ought to do something--or does it?

Why ought they live?

Isn't this the starting point of ethics?

Edit: Doesn't the premise that people ought to live imply a benevolence towards humanity and betray a subjective bias towards people?

Is the very idea of ethics benevolent?

Over six billion people are living right now. They are living and they will be living. "Ought" is a smaller ballpark. So, no, for the starting point of ethics is pain. As for your last question, yes, for the idea is to minimize force in human relationships--that is, pain.

--Brant

[FuturistNow]

What makes an experience good or bad? Is this the question of ethics?

As far as personal well-being is concerned, is experience not all that matters? If the job of ethics is to determine how volitional beings ought to live, then the question is: Why is there necessarily an "ought"?

Is it not because we (or for individualist ethics, I) do experience that there even is an idea of "ought"? Of course.

There can be an "is" without consciousness, but certainly not an "ought".

So, it seems, striving for good experiences is what rational self-interest is all about.

Why would you intentionally make your experience worse than it has to be? Self-sacrifice, of course.

Why would anyone minimize their quality of experience? Not because they want to (or else it would still be a good experience), obviously, but because they "ought" to. Or at least they think they ought to.

I guess this is that whole thing about not worrying about things you cannot control. It would not be rationally selfish to do so.

The following is fairly informal.

Good experiences only exist because you are alive. Which is why life is the standard of value.

When we talk about "ought", we typically mean that someone should do something in order to gain something. With life as a standard of value, one places all possible values as being predicated on one's life, therefor making the ultimate standard on how one's actions affect one's life. This means thinking about how your actions affect your ability to achieve other values. A value that leads to destruction or severe impairment are usually seen as bad by this standard and actions that lead to longevity and enhanced aptitude are usually good.

Although the goal of egoism is happiness (good experiences doesn't quite work in my mind), it can't be the standard, the standard is life. By making life the standard one can increase one's probability that they will be happy. By enhancing your ability to achieve value and mitigating risks, one can increase their life span and the amount of pleasures they have access too.

[Xray]

one can argue there is no necessary ought only oughts and you ought to choose the ought for you--or, if this then that (ought)--so we now get into free will (if, then to free will, then to ought)

so, do you have any oughts?

Plenty.

But the philosophical question is whether my (or anyone else's) "oughts" refer to 'objective' moral values ...

[Xray]

Over six billion people are living right now. They are living and they will be living. "Ought" is a smaller ballpark. So, no, for the starting point of ethics is pain. As for your last question, yes, for the idea is to minimize force in human relationships--that is, pain.

--Brant

Pathocentric ethics indeed has a lot going for it. It is based both on empathy and rationality.

[Darrell Hougen]

The fundamental alternative faced by every living thing is the alternative between existence and non-existence --- between life and death. Non-volitional creatures act automatically to keep themselves alive (or, in certain cases, to die). But, humans have the ability to choose whether to live or not. If you decide to live, every other choice you make can be judged by whether or not it helps to keep you alive. "What you ought to do" means, "what you ought to do to keep yourself alive." Since some means of keeping yourself alive are objectively better than others, some values are objectively better than others.

That is the argument in a nutshell. Of course, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and further, but that is the basic argument.

Darrell

[Dglgmut]

But just because people exist does not necessarily mean they ought to do something--or does it?

Why ought they live?

Isn't this the starting point of ethics?

Edit: Doesn't the premise that people ought to live imply a benevolence towards humanity and betray a subjective bias towards people?

Is the very idea of ethics benevolent?

Over six billion people are living right now. They are living and they will be living. "Ought" is a smaller ballpark. So, no, for the starting point of ethics is pain. As for your last question, yes, for the idea is to minimize force in human relationships--that is, pain.

--Brant

That sounds very collectivist though: "to minimize force in human relations". Is philosophy not meant for individuals? Then how can it have a role concerning all of humanity?

[Brant Gaede]

But just because people exist does not necessarily mean they ought to do something--or does it?

Why ought they live?

Isn't this the starting point of ethics?

Edit: Doesn't the premise that people ought to live imply a benevolence towards humanity and betray a subjective bias towards people?

Is the very idea of ethics benevolent?

Over six billion people are living right now. They are living and they will be living. "Ought" is a smaller ballpark. So, no, for the starting point of ethics is pain. As for your last question, yes, for the idea is to minimize force in human relationships--that is, pain.

--Brant

That sounds very collectivist though: "to minimize force in human relations". Is philosophy not meant for individuals? Then how can it have a role concerning all of humanity?

Benevolence is toward others, no? What's the collectivism? Minimizing force means you and I can go peacefully about our productive business. Deny that to "all of humanity"?

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

But benevolence is not philosophy, it's a feeling. Minimizing force in human relationships entails organization amongst humans, which is a collective endeavor.

How an individual uses philosophy and why people talk openly about philosophy are very different questions. Using philosophy is obviously selfish, talking about it can be an attempt to learn, a benevolent effort to share knowledge, or an irrational attempt to validate one's own philosophy by convincing others that it is useful.

[Brant Gaede]

But benevolence is not philosophy, it's a feeling. Minimizing force in human relationships entails organization amongst humans, which is a collective endeavor.

How an individual uses philosophy and why people talk openly about philosophy are very different questions. Using philosophy is obviously selfish, talking about it can be an attempt to learn, a benevolent effort to share knowledge, or an irrational attempt to validate one's own philosophy by convincing others that it is useful.

Did I say or imply it's a philosophy? Please learn the difference between collectivism and "collective endeavor." Benevolence is not a feeling. Feeling benevolent is--that is, the former is the broader category we might call a thought-feeling, just like self-esteem.

Good luck with sluicing this conversation into your conclusions.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Well if you expect other people to adopt your philosophy I think that's collective.

I don't know why you'd waste your time talking about a philosophy that is meant to minimize force in your own human interactions--which would be more about technique than philosophy...

[Brant Gaede]

It's human interactions generally.

--Brant