Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

483

Between Ethics and Intent

We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse.

Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell.

But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of intent, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality".

And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the intent and outcomes of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great multitude of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality.

It is to say intent, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent supersedes the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it.

It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act according to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later.

To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very intent contained in said acts, propose a future set of beliefs.

To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them.

This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings and common men."

This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society.

And a truly free people, we must and can only conclude, ought to want and believe utterly and completely that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

Between Ethics and Intent We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse. Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell. But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of *intent*, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality". And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the *intent* and *outcomes* of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great *multitude* of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality. It is to say *intent*, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent *supersedes* the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it. It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act *according* to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later. To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very *intent* contained in said acts, *propose* a future set of beliefs. To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them. This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings *and common men*." This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society. And a truly free people, we must and can *only* conclude, *ought* to *want* and *believe utterly and completely* that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

I did not understand a single concept that you discussed. The topic is nonsensical.

I agree with the last statement.

Can you re-state the rest of what you said into simple terms?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I hope I've broken this down a little better.

You have a fundamental right, from birth, to decide things for yourself. This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is different from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition.

Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace.

Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of both those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway.

And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propaganda then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!"

Sure, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread?

"two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc.

Because who makes the rules and who defines evil?

The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

> You have a fundamental right, from birth, to decide things for yourself.

I am not sure what this means. I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't seem correct to say that you are a 'right' to decide things your self. Decisions are a feature of the universe, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO DECIDE THINGS FOR YOUR SELF. I don't see why this statement is necessary.

I am disregarding the problem of free will vs determinism and assuming free will.

> This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is different from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition.

I don't see how this follows from the first statement. You are born, you have no choice but to make choices to the extent your neural networks are capable of. Lot's of things will happen to you, good or bad. You seem to be referring to a power structure juding and reacting to your decisions? Why? Where are you going with this?

> Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace.

Okay, so I guess you are talking about our relationship to the matrix of rules imposed upon us by the power structure we are surrounded by? I mean, I don't see the point of this statement. Doesn't everyone know that there are no such things as rules? Laws and rules are make believe in an elaborate set of games we all decide to play. For example, there is a law that says you stop at a stop sign. But, there is nothing in the physical universe that can make you stop at the stop sign. You simply decide if you want to obey that rule or not. The rule is imaginary, it might cause other people to act and enact consequences on you, but at the end of the day, a dog or a cat doesn't obey the stop sign because the law / rule that says you must stop is just made up. It is a game will all agree to play. Sometimes we agree to blow through the stop sign and nothing happens. Sometimes, in a black part of town it is ADVISABLE to blow through the stop sign to not get killed. It's all a game. And these aren't social mores. They are just rules in a game. Civilization is software, you memorize a few rules and you decide if you want to follow them or not. Morality, mores, right, left, are just labels for arbitrary groupings of laws and rules. I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

> Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of both those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway.

Okay, so again, there is no right to decide for your self. You have no choice, it is a property of the universe. Also, there are no such things as universal laws. The universe only has the laws of physics and for the purpose of this conversation we have to assume that free will exists so we can actually talk about choices that we are forced to make by the universe. Next, I don't see what is this thing you call "modern morality". How is it defined? How is it different from "non-modern morality"? And I don't see why you are jumping to intent. Intent is just a calculation of a situation -- your intent is to cross the road, you evaluate the situation by looking left an right, you cross when it is safe, when you reach the other side you have achieved your intent. There is NO POSSIBLE decision that can be made without intent. It is literally a calculation. And at the end you are discussing the morality of self defense / violence, saving life and then again you mention "modern morality" and say that modern morality labels all of that as a lie? What?

> And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propagana then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!" Sure, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread?

What? What gets into the discussion about the greater good? You claim that propaganda claims the mantra as being "the greater good is lesser of two eveils but it's still evil" ... what? If it is the lesser of two evils, what is the other evil?

> "two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc. / Because who makes the rules and who defines evil? / The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them.

I appreciate what you wrote and I kind of like this challenge sometimes so I'm just having a bit of fun here. You proposed something that has no meaning in your first statement, tried to talk about whether or not it makes sense to follow rules, something about morality, greater good and propaganda, ending with questions that are not related to anything.

I am curious, what is the very first statement actually supposed to be? What question are you interested in asking and exploring? Can I get just a single question that you are trying to answer and we can work through it backwards from there?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I am not sure what this means. I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't seem correct to say that you are a 'right' to decide things your self.

But theres the rub, isn't it? For the entire premise to be true, it has to be axiomatic. I make the assertion that it is correct to decide things for myself, and more, to decide for others because no choice, no act, no decision making, comes without external costs. Why should it be different? Why does it make any more sense that others should decide for me? And if we run with the idea that each should decide for themselves, we are back to my first assertion: making decisions for yourself, because they will always have an external cost (or can be interpreted as such by an existing society), is never wrong.

Decisions are a feature of the universe, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO DECIDE THINGS FOR YOUR SELF. I don't see why this statement is necessary.

It is necessary to say it, because people have forgotten it.

You seem to be referring to a power structure juding and reacting to your decisions? Why? Where are you going with this?

I'm examining morality and ethics in the framework of the individual versus a society or civilization. Welcome to america 2021. Its just rome all over again.

Doesn't everyone know that there are no such things as rules?

This seems trivial to you and I, but its not to others. Knowing and believing are two different things. There are plenty of people who know it, and very few believe it. The very statement of the thing is itself an understatement because the implications typically go unspoken.

it's like telling a kid they can have "anything for dinner." And instead of saying "really?" wide eyed, they look in the frigerator at the options already available, without a greater thought of the options truly available.

or example, there is a law that says you stop at a stop sign. But, there is nothing in the physical universe that can make you stop at the stop sign.

This is correct but oversimplified to the point of being a tautology.

Almost everyone, except the very stupid, stop for stop signs, because we all know from long lives, and experience, that those who dont, based on nature, and how nature works, tend to die when hit by five tons of cross traffic.

A better example is "would you stop for stop signs late at night, when not a soul is around and you may run out of gas in a dangerous area? Or skip em so you don't?"

Thats worthy of discussion because it has some modifying factors and constraints. And then for good measure, "50% of the time a police car sits near one of the intersections, hidden behind a corner."

And now "would you stop if in addition to all this, the police had a habit of impounding cars because the locals are corrupt?"

How about if your wife is in the back pregnant?

These are not elaborate intentionally convoluted examples, but rather questions that arise continuously in every society man has ever built: the consequences of taking exception to rules and authority where exception seems appropriate but where authorities are unbending. Where societies fail to do so, fail to maintain that right, to make exception, those societies are eventually smothered and stifled, as was russia under the soviets, and citizens under other regimes.

Okay, so again, there is no right to decide for your self. You have no choice, it is a property of the universe.

I'm not arguing free will vs determinism at this time, it's too broad a subject thats tangent to what we're already discussing.

[–] • 1 pt

Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to.

That is, treating the corrupt humans as just part of the natural world, with inherent danger, to be navigated around to minimize damage.

The challenge is to properly identify such people and treat them as dangerous objects, but still respect genuine people.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

That is, treating the corrupt humans as just part of the natural world, with inherent danger, to be navigated around to minimize damage.

That is a fair way to put it.

If you think about it, what this does is puts people on a dichtonomy:

Corrupt and uncorrupt.

Where the corrupt are those who make their own rules and decide internally which external rules are worth following and which are worth breaking

And the uncorrupt are those who simply follow rules imposed on them.

I don't distinguish between "bad corrupt" and "good corrupt" because again, every action is an assertion. If an action is outside rules, or laws even, then it imposes a cost on those who act within said rules, and those who act within the rules impose a cost on those who dont (taxes, fines, fees, criminal penalities, shunning if you're amish, lol). There is only the imposition, the externalization of some of the cost of any assertion. "good" and "bad" are interpreted, though, by whoever is in power. Of course we can say generally from our traditions, developed through thousands of years of fighting (also a form of assertion, or one type of act), that unjustified homicide, theft, and so forth are wrong. You go back 100k years though, you don't see that.

That also allows us to explain the ethical history of humanity as an arc of greater rational understanding of "wrong and right", a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts understanding by the species, its own sort of tradition, of ethics, as a form of natural inheritance from previous generations: we have order because we fought for order, because some men acted to create it. We have peace because we struggled for peace. We have tradition because we established and maintained it. And so on. And this harkens back to one of our core and only true obligations: to make the future better for the generations to come.

[–] • 1 pt

This reads like the papers of the founding fathers in discussion of the creation of America.

Is it yours or a compilation?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Well thank you Abnormal.

Came to me in the shower.

Edit: was thinking about how anything anyone does or persues, regardless of the movement, strategy, or approach, is hampered by the imposition of morality defined by opposition, and interpreted to our detriment in such a way as to exclude intent. Thats the effect of demonization and labelling: nothing one side does can ever be good, because bad faith is always assumed.

And the heart of that goes again, therefore, to intent. And if you look at it from the other side, the idea exposes what any monomaniacal dictatorship might do if it was slowly replacing/suppressing certain demographics like whites or westerners in general: create rules that suppress them. So that ultimately the only rules to play by is "fire for fire." at the ethical level. What I mean to say is they create rules to destroy us regardless of their own intent, deny it, and then use the interpretation of those rules to suppress us regardless of ours.

Why shouldn't we play by the same strategy or metarules?

And I'm trying to explain the ethics of it, that in a naturalist sense that the rules dont really exist at all, whatever they may be, whoever may have made them. That the only real obligation, according to nature, is a better future for the next generation, than the present which currently exists, and that ultimately thats the only truly moral obligation and justification we need to have.

The examination of existing law, rules, and social mores from the question of "what do I think is the intent?" strips away any pretense of prior moral constraints. Like 'the light of reason', rationality arises from asking the right questions, and exposes bad governments and rotten cultures for what they are simply by the questioning. Because false things cant stand up to the pressure of sufficient questioning, let alone survive the truth.

Modernity has suppressed the ability to discern truth, blasted us with 'noise' from all angles, muddled all questions, and nearly obliterated any understanding of reasoning or history.

What they have failed to do is eliminate the power of questions to destroy that which is false.

To do that they have to silence outright those who ask questions. And there is no assumption in an honest question, no mere assertion so it cant be labelled with any other slander except "verboten".

Which makes the suppression obvious on its face.

Which makes the intent of the laws and rules and censorship and political-police system glaringly obvious on its face.

Question everything.

Figure out how to ask damaging questions, the most damaging questions you can. Thats all you have to do. Force the state and its brainwashed supporters to justify itself. (remember crowder?)

The state can't justify itself. It has no credibility behind its policies or actions. It has none.

And eventually if you do this enough, the state will simply resort to out-in-the-open violence and naked suppression because those are very nearly the only cards western and globalist governments have left.

And then they've lost the support of the middle and the game is over.

[–] • 0 pt

Well put sir.
My first thoughts lead to the discussion of quality with Persig, my second went to an article I read from the starting point of disagreement, violence is the gold standard.

You make excellent points, the rules are a funny one. Perhaps simply referring to animal farm by Orwell gives us the roadmap back on the meaning of words and rules.

More than that though, is how rules are assigned and interpreted differently. Women view rules different from men, blacks different from whites, children different from adults.

The memes you see about second amendment rights, where removal only affects law abiding citizens, and criminals continue to abuse them is an easy point here.

Rules differ, taxes differ, punishment differs... an even and tangible and rigid Set of rules to be followed by all is a culture and genetic specific thing. Ever seen a howling mob flow Into a store while taking selfies and cheering and looting, to exit and run away or taunt the cops by twerking on the cop car, in Norway? No. Japan? No.

The concept of equality disturbs me here. Let’s question it.

Questioning everything is how the world developed and advanced, and now it seems intent on full speed ahead while throwing rocks into the motor.

Perhaps it was Putin who described a meeting with a president as trying to play chess with a pigeon, who just shits on the board and struts away.

Trying to ask questions just then lead to an honest debate about the answers, and I don’t see that able to happen anymore. Not on the public larger scale, or even many companies small boardroom meetings.

I’ve seen the warhead questions that should have sunk presidents, ignored. Watched the bankers destroy the world economy and saw no arrests. For trillions... the culture now seems so intent on reverse Darwinism I don’t think there is a way out, short of a tropical island of enough of the worlds smartest that will quietly wait its destruction and then rebuild.

I would love to be wrong here.

The middle is weary of it all, everyday more and more to bear. The desensitized masses simply continue to allow the ground to tilt away, as long as it’s at a slow enough rate. No shot heard round the world, no final straw, no IM MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE.

The drugs in the water and the frequencies in the air and the contamination of the food has done its part as well. How fit for a fight and listening to reason is that middle? Or are they weary, scared, sick, delusional, hungry and fearful. While trying to squeeze in some of modern life’s comforts to forget it all for just one more day.

The cultural revolution has been very effective, and while resistance is building, the forces they must one day stare down for that power over who is in control grow stronger and more expansive.

I very much enjoy you sharing your thoughts, few here are willing to do so anymore or with such a penchant for it.

[–] • 0 pt

I'd go further and say that it is consequences rather than intentions which validate morality. Indeed, there is an intended outcome behind any moral prescription/proscription, but it is the actual outcome which informs us of the true worth of those moral formulae. Your empathy (and thus conscience) can be manipulated—your personal beliefs can be miscalculated, but the health and thriving of your genetic collective (which is your moral collective) is a moral standard which can be objectively and empirically assessed.

You're absolutely right about dispelling the notion of universal morality, I'm completely with you on that.

Nice to see a fellow philosopher at work. Rigorous logic won't move most people, but I do think it's important to have a reserve of intellectuals who can think in this mode.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

As I understand it, the origin of the term "Rights" was an abbreviation of the phrase "Right Things" , as in "universally good things". Discussing so-called rights in legal context is messy, as legalities, laws, are just the enforced opinions of office holding bad people. Nothing encoded in law is Right. Laws and Rights cannot be made to mesh.

[–] • 1 pt

As I understand it, the origin of the term "Rights" was an abbreviation of the phrase "Right Things" , as in "universally good things".

Well I'm redefining it.

Discussing so-called rights in legal context is messy, as legalities, laws, are just the enforced opinions of office holding bad people

you got it.

[–] • 0 pt

Morality must serve a purpose. If there weren't a need for it, it wouldn't arise. At its core, it seems an aid for people to do the better thing when their desire for personal gain is overriding that of regard for others. People generally act without the big picture of things or the consequences. Ideally it helps one to act as if they knew them.

Naturally an organic one would come from examination of things by people, and be open to change. One from authority is probably a tool for control for their gain.

[–] • 0 pt

Something you need to keep in mind is that ethics are universal (e.g. one ought not to initiate the use of force), but morality (using violence to enforce ethics, such as by shooting an axe murderer breaking into your house) can only apply to those who share overlapping ethical principles.

E.g. Refusing to shoot a rabid wolf because that would be initiating the use of force is irrational, because wolves have no ethics. The same can be said of evil beings such as Genghis Khan - he didnt share your ethical values in the non-aggression principle, so you'd be insane to treat him as if he was a moral equal for the same reason as the rabid wolf isnt your moral equal.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't care to debate the 'non-aggression' principle as it were, it serves as ample idle masturbatory distraction material for a hundred thousands others on the internet.

I am saying ethics and morality are an assertion of the act, but founded on the intent, independent of the abstract 'universal moral truth' of them. If we only examine outcomes, then we can justify any 'evil' as it were, by simply saying "as long as the outcomes are eventually good, then it doesnt matter what the intent was."

For example, without intent a happy accident where a man saves another man from a car crash that could have resulted in manslaughter, is ethically, indistinguishable. Focusing on outcomes and relation to the subjects involved, such as shooting an intruder versus shooting a wolf, doesn't tell us anything ethically, because outcomes exist in the future.

If everything we do is hypothetically good, because we only intended good, then regardless of the actual outcome, theres a rational disconnect between intent and outcome, and then there is no way to distinguish, from a naturalist perspective, what is 'good' or 'bad'.

We cant even say our outcomes, however intended, are good or bad, because the interpretation of said outcomes relies on who is in charge to interpret them. History is post-facto. The present is subject to the future yes, but the future emerges from the present.

I hope I'm making any sense at all.

[–] • 0 pt

> I don't care to debate the 'non-aggression' principle as it were, it serves as ample idle masturbatory distraction material for a hundred thousands others on the internet.

Okay.

> I am saying ethics and morality are an assertion of the act, but founded on the intent, independent of the abstract 'universal moral truth' of them. If we only examine outcomes, then we can justify any 'evil' as it were, by simply saying "as long as the outcomes are eventually good, then it doesnt matter what the intent was."

What is this 'universal moral truth' you keep on talking about? Who defines this? Where can I look it up? How do I measure this 'universal moral truth'?

> For example, without intent a happy accident where a man saves another man from a car crash that could have resulted in manslaughter, is ethically, indistinguishable. Focusing on outcomes and relation to the subjects involved, such as shooting an intruder versus shooting a wolf, doesn't tell us anything ethically, because outcomes exist in the future.

So what if it is ethically indistinguishable? Does the man that is alive care if you meant to save him or not, or is he just happy to be alive? Why is this distinction important at all?

> If everything we do is hypothetically good, because we only intended good, then regardless of the actual outcome, theres a rational disconnect between intent and outcome, and then there is no way to distinguish, from a naturalist perspective, what is 'good' or 'bad'.

What is this "naturalist perspective"? Naturalist perspective as opposed to what? What would a "non-naturalist perspective" actually be?

> We cant even say our outcomes, however intended, are good or bad, because the interpretation of said outcomes relies on who is in charge to interpret them. History is post-facto. The present is subject to the future yes, but the future emerges from the present.

If this is true, why would anything you wrote prior to this make sense or even be necessary to write? If it is up to the person watching the events to decide if they are good or bad regardless of outcome, why write any of what you wrote in your thread? What is the purpose of this?

[–] • 0 pt

What is this 'universal moral truth' you keep on talking about? Who defines this? Where can I look it up? How do I measure this 'universal moral truth'?

Exactly what I'm driving at!

So what if it is ethically indistinguishable? Does the man that is alive care if you meant to save him or not, or is he just happy to be alive? Why is this distinction important at all?

I don't ask what is 'important', only what is a 'useful' distinction.

What I am getting at is that, if there is no universal ethical standards, or if ethics is an evolving standard, that we build on over time, then looking at outcomes and how those involved are related, doesn't comparatively, tell us if a thing is by itself 'good' or 'bad' as it were. Whos it good for? The subject acting, or the subject acted upon? Depends on who the subject is, what is done, and who is acted upon, doesn't it? Its a big nasty mess. But if we take the easy route and say look at outcomes, then anything, on its own, can be justified. And so neither the act and its subjects, nor the outcome, are sufficient to say whether we may even begin to approach a determination of 'good' or 'bad'.

What is this "naturalist perspective"?

'Natural' in the sense of 'rational' and 'irrational': of, or arising from, human obvervation and reasoning upon nature and on the nature of how the world works.

What is the purpose of this?

Showerthoughts.