Morality brainstorming

[Zetta_x]

**Please point out any illogical sentences**

My Definitions:

Belief - an element of a set of Morality

Intersection - Intersection of two sets is a common element

Individual's Morality - The set of an individual's beliefs of right and wrong (I.E killing is wrong)

Society's Morality - A defined set of beliefs by society of right and wrong

True Morality - A defined set of correct beliefs of right and wrong


Opinions and Morality

As a reader of this topic, carefully review what you consider right or wrong. The values you define as right or wrong can be joined to make a set and labeled as your individual morality. Some notes is that this set is countably infinite or finite which means you can list out all your beliefs if you had enough time.

Now assume a universe exists where there is an infinite amount of people spread across an infinite amount of time. Just like, as an individual, you were able to define your morality, each of these infinite individuals have a well defined set of morality with their beliefs. Since the number of individuals is countably infinite, we can denote these sets to be P_1, P_2, P_3 ... P_N (N belongs to the natural numbers)

We can than explicitly define the True Morality set to be the intersection of P_1, P_2, P_3 ... P_N. Keep in mind, elements of these sets are beliefs, so if everyone in this universe shared the same belief over an infinite amount of time, then that would be defined as the correct belief of right or wrong. The proof is trivial but basically follows the concept that if an infinite amount of people over an infinite amount of time had the same belief, b_1, then there is no possibility of thinking otherwise or not b_1.

I claim that the True Morality set, or U, is the empty set. The proof is not so trivial, the concept is over an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of people there does not exist a definite time where everyone has the same belief. Even in our wee bit of years of human civilization, has there ever been a time where every individual's morals have been the same? Now imagine an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of people, the intersection would be the empty set.

Another claim, if the True Morality set is the empty set, there does not exist any beliefs a single individual is bound to (or has to follow). Lastly, if an individual is not bound to a belief, then every individual has the option to choose what is right and what is wrong. Simple hypothetical syllogism would take the last fact and show that every individual has the option to choose what is right and what is wrong. Therefore the individual set of morality is the choice or opinion of the individual themselves.

In conclusion, an individual's beliefs are opinions.

----

The problem with the set of society's morality


Please take note, before proceeding into this reading, we are defining society's morality as unique based on a place and time. For example, the place of United States and during the present time society will define killing as wrong and never killing is right.

Let S define the set of society's morality. The properties of S is that it is unique to a specific time and place. The function S(Time,Place) = {set of beliefs}. As an individual, we have established we can define our beliefs by opinions, but 'society' is not an individual. How is 'S' created? The only obvious fact about the creation of S is that it was created by individuals. Which individuals and why calls for speculation which can be subjective. The most important fact is that it is created by a set of individuals.

Why is S a problem? Let P_i be an arbitrary individual's morality. If the intersection of S and P_i does not equal t S, you are deemed wrong. This is a contradiction, as we stated above, there does not exist true morality equivalently true right and wrong beliefs. This implies the way society is set up, is to weed out people who do not follow society's morality and keep people to believe in elements of S. What is the purpose?

-----

who benefits from P_i = S

This is where speculation begins but only so slightly. Please note, I am deeming it speculation because I cannot think of a proof. However, there is a universe of difference between a proof does not exist and I cannot think of a proof.

Think of a few elements from S(United States, Present):

- Pirating is wrong
- Stealing is wrong
- Killing is wrong
- Spending money for other people is right
- Requiring Car insurance is right

...

As for Pirating, wealthy developers who can control pirating is benefiting
As for Stealing, wealthy people who have things worth stealing is benefiting
As for Killing, wealthy people who require the use of people is benefiting
As for Spending money for other people, wealthy people who have control of products is benefiting
As for Car insurance people, wealthy car insurance companies is benefiting

This is why it is speculation, while the following above may be benefiting, only the most wealthy benefit. But who said wealthy is the most powerful which is why a proof is hard to follow.

If the above premise is true, then powerful people are benefiting from P_i = S. The more P_i there are, the more powerful people benefit (another reason why killing would be wrong).

Since the world is balanced, non powerful people are not receiving the same benefits powerful people are, how can both sides of the spectrum receive the benefits?


Conclusion

The conclusion is that it is in-human to believe that there exists a true right and wrong belief. However, as an individual, we do not have power. We are forced to have society's beliefs otherwise we will be weeded out. Things like being put into jail and made an example of for pirating is only to benefit the most powerful and not individuals. Finally it is not in-moral pirating or killing. There are so many things that can be shown from the above work if true.

 

[Magmorph]

If I don't want to be killed I give up my right to kill others. If I want to own personal property I give up my right to steal. If I want to own digital property I give up my right to Pirate. That's assuming you want people to have equal rights. I don't understand your reasoning.

Also, you keep using "is" in place of "are".

 

[Zetta_x]

I think you may have misunderstood some points.

I am simply playing with the concept of right and wrong. I am not saying people have rights to do things or should give up rights to do things. if you believe that killing is wrong, you can still kill people and act against your morals in certain cases given that it is a different time.

Blame my English. Whenever I type things up now or try to communicate what I think I confuse myself. My thoughts are extremely clear in my head but trying to put them out in the structure of English Grammar confuses the hell out of me. Which is strange because I teach mathematics just fine. It may be because most of the above stuff was spewed out in an hour of thinking.

 

[Lacius]

You might want to read The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. I haven't read it myself, but it suggests that we can use science in order to "quantify" morality.

 

[Zetta_x]

You might want to read The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. I haven't read it myself, but it suggests that we can use science in order to "quantify" morality.

Very interesting. I have always been trying to establish a bridge between moral and numbers. For example, as an individual, I can assign numbers between (-1,1) that would reflect my morals (negatives being wrong and positives being right). ( ex: Killing = -.5) However, with a symmetric system and an infinite amount of people over an infinite amount of time, the summation of all these values would equal to 0. Because the real numbers form a group, we are taking the property that inverses exist and there can exist another person who believes that killing = .5. With an infinite amount of people in a symmetric system, the center would be 0.

Another problem I am trying to overcome is that I am being lost in my studies. With my abundance of classes in logic, mathematics, statistics near graduate studies, I am starting to see how biased and flawed we are as humans. We feel as if we are united, but it is a false sense of hope of domination. As greed continues to inspire, we are being more directed in thinking like a robot (true morality) vs individual morality.

What's worse is I cannot prove that anyone on these forums are actually real. No, you guys are not bot spammers, but what if life is like a dream and everyone you interact with are just illusions of people like you who can think and act like you? Life is turning into a game for me, a game in which I need to figure out by studying harder and thinking more abstractly about things. But the more i do this, the more I separate myself from society and the more I am a target to be weeded out.

If I never have any connections with an arbitrary person. Meaning in no way possible there can exist a map or connection between this arbitrary person, does this person technically exist to me? If no, then why wouldn't my life be made up an illusion like before?

I'm not loosing myself, I am alienating myself from society. I rarely type formally anymore since my last English class; it is a wonder how I can still type proper English =P. I have heard about logicians, mathematicians, and other professions abstract related to loose themselves, am I doomed the same fate if I continue =P

 

[Magmorph]

What's worse is I cannot prove that anyone on these forums are actually real. No, you guys are not bot spammers, but what if life is like a dream and everyone you interact with are just illusions of people like you who can think and act like you? Life is turning into a game for me, a game in which I need to figure out by studying harder and thinking more abstractly about things. But the more i do this, the more I separate myself from society and the more I am a target to be weeded out.

Are you talking about solipsism?

 

[Zetta_x]

Are you talking about solipsism?

Holy crap, that is exactly what I am talking about. I have so many ideas that revolve around this but I would be considered more insane than I already am to be posting them

Lets consider reality to be an illusion. If you had no doubt that something is possible, is it possible to alter your illusion to bend reality? For example, If I didn't perceive my whole life to be gravitated to the ground, would I be able to fly? The first 21 years of my life I have been attached to the ground, no matter how hard I try convincing myself I can fly, there will always be greater doubt (unconsciously or consciously) that I cannot fly. Does this create my reality un-flyable.

Is it possible to exceed limits created by the mind, is your mind an enemy as it creates limits? I have observe people pass limits they didn't think it was possible, this allows a possibility for me to pass limits, if I can convince myself that it is possible to pass limits, can I alter my illusion of reality to pass these limits?

FRRIIICCCKKK so many questions, no answers. I'm nerd raging out of here

 

[epicCreations.or]

Blame my English. Whenever I type things up now or try to communicate what I think I confuse myself. My thoughts are extremely clear in my head but trying to put them out in the structure of English Grammar confuses the hell out of me. Which is strange because I teach mathematics just fine. It may be because most of the above stuff was spewed out in an hour of thinking.

Do you happen to be my math teacher, Mr. Tan?

 

[Zetta_x]

It was a good shot but I am not