NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I've been thinking on this for a while, and here's what I've got so far. Please let me know of any flaws in my thinking, or anything I'm unwittingly stealing from someone else.

Precepts:
1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.

2: we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.

3: We must make assumptions about the underlying reality in order to live our lives. We cannot go through life without believing, at least for practicality's sake, in causality, or in physical constants, or in persistence. The world might boil away into nothing tomorrow for all we know, but we must assume it will not in order to accomplish anything.

4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.

5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.

6: We must assume, in order to live our lives, that some morality must exist, for in the absence of morality all actions are equal, and thus equally meaningless. While it may be true that there is no universal objective moral truth, we must act as if there is. Otherwise both self interest and selflessness are meaningless, and there is no reason to choose anything over anything else. It is impossible to make choices without a moral system, because even something like "it would serve my own interests" or "it would make me feel good" imply moral worth in self interest or pleasure.

from here I wanted to work to suggest what system of morality makes the most sense, but I want to know of any flaws in my reasoning before I get that far.

Ibtf

Ok, I've been thinking on this for a while, and here's what I've got so far. Please let me know of any flaws in my thinking, or anything I'm unwittingly stealing from someone else.

Precepts:
1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.


How can you be sure about this part?

How can you be sure about this part?

i work from "I think therefore I am." I can be sure of my own existence because I am conscious. If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me and the world around me is nothing but the product of my mind. Existence implies underlying reality, and we can confirm existence, if nothing else.

Sorry, my brain melted after trying to read your post. I'll try again in a moment :)

EDIT: I'm not too sure about number 6...

i work from "I think therefore I am." I can be sure of my own existence because I am conscious. If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me and the world around me is nothing but the product of my mind. Existence implies underlying reality, and we can confirm existence, if nothing else.

But can you be sure that you think or the you exist? Perhaps you are a program that was written to emulate consciousness and are not actually conscious despite your belief that it is so.

for in the absence of morality all actions are equal, and thus equally meaningless.

So? Also, using the word equal would be a meaningless way to describe it, since if there is no morality then there is no real measurable merit to actions that can be compared.


Otherwise both self interest and selflessness are meaningless, and there is no reason to choose anything over anything else.

No, under your assumptions, there would appear to be no objective reason in the absence of any particular desired end, to choose an action. Not quite the same thing.


It is impossible to make choices without a moral system, because even something like "it would serve my own interests" or "it would make me feel good" imply moral worth in self interest or pleasure.


But not an objective moral worth.

You left out the corned beef :(

6) => why must we assume an objective morality and not a subjective one? for instance a moral system in which everybody's own preference is the only 'good' instead of an objective good which supposedly has to exist in order to live our lives.
We could then try to find a system which tries to maximize preference satisfaction.

Or maybe even better, why is it important that there is meaning? Why not go with meaninglessness?

So? Also, using the word equal would be a meaningless way to describe it, since if there is no morality then there is no real measurable merit to actions that can be compared.



No, under your assumptions, there would appear to be no objective reason in the absence of any particular desired end, to choose an action. Not quite the same thing.



But not an objective moral worth.

the idea that subjective moral systems should be followed implies that those moral systems have objective moral worth. Without assuming at least some kind of objective moral value system, it is impossible to so much as form an argument in favor of getting out of bed this morning, because every reason you could put forth would be based on a percieved objective moral worth to that action.

If I am getting out of bed because, essentially, I "feel like it", then I must apply some form of worth to my own feelings, at the very least.

6) => why must we assume an objective morality and not a subjective one? for instance a moral system in which everybody's own preference is the only 'good' instead of an objective good which supposedly has to exist in order to live our lives.
We could then try to find a system which tries to maximize preference satisfaction.

Or maybe even better, why is it important that there is meaning? Why not go with meaninglessness?

Because to live your life while believing it is meaningless would be about as useful as attempting to make breakfast without assuming that the hot pan causes the eggs to solidify.

And to assume a "subjective moral system" we must apply moral worth to our own subjective moral frameworks.

I'm aware of the other points you made, and they aren't bad ones to work from. What i will say is that you've got a tall order to prove all of those points and then make a system of morality.

4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.

5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.
I sense a contradiction in terms here.
Because if point 4 proves that there is objective moral truth then we can know for certain there is objective moral truth thus disproving point 5.
If point 4 proves there is not objective moral truth then we can know for certain that there is not moral truth, thus also disproving point 5.

What i'm saying is, there's a foul-up in your logic and if you wish to make a moral system, it's better to avoid further foul-ups.
I'd advise rephrasing or dropping point 4 and 5 because the two do not work together.
Oh and do you have any examples to prove the other points? e.g. how the system would work in real life situations.

the idea that subjective moral systems should be followed implies that those moral systems have objective moral worth.

But this is where, in my opinion, you're flawed. Just because certain actions will have be subjectively good to different, doesn't imply an obligation to follow them.


Without assuming at least some kind of objective moral value system, it is impossible to so much as form an argument in favor of getting out of bed this morning, because every reason you could put forth would be based on a percieved objective moral worth to that action.


There is no objective absolute reason to get out of bed, but this doesn't negate it from being pragmatic or desirable. When you argue whether you should get out of bed, you don't argue whether it is an objective good that must be followed, but something you desire and is good for you. This does not imply an objective moral worth, it only implies that you alone desire it.


If I am getting out of bed because, essentially, I "feel like it", then I must apply some form of worth to my own feelings, at the very least.

But why would you label this 'worth' an objective moral truth?

I'm aware of the other points you made, and they aren't bad ones to work from. What i will say is that you've got a tall order to prove all of those points and then make a system of morality.


I sense a contradiction in terms here.
Because if point 4 proves that there is objective moral truth then we can know for certain there is objective moral truth thus disproving point 5.
If point 4 proves there is not objective moral truth then we can know for certain that there is not moral truth, thus also disproving point 5.

What i'm saying is, there's a foul-up in your logic and if you wish to make a moral system, it's better to avoid further foul-ups.
I'd advise rephrasing or dropping point 4 and 5 because the two do not work together.
Oh and do you have any examples to prove the other points? e.g. how the system would work in real life situations.

This isn't a moral system, it's a justification for adopting a moral system, or rather an explanation that we already adopt a moral system by default.

Point 4 states that there either is or is not an objective moral system of value, and point 5 states that we can't know for sure if there is or isn't. How do these conflict?

There is no objective absolute reason to get out of bed, but this doesn't negate it from being pragmatic or desirable. When you argue whether you should get out of bed, you don't argue whether it is an objective good that must be followed, but something you desire and is good for you. This does not imply an objective moral worth, it only implies that you alone desire it.

But you still need to apply objective moral worth to your own desires in order for that to make sense. If you believe that your desires have no objective moral worth, then you still cannot give a good argument for getting out of bed. Essentially this boils down to "why should you get out of bed?" "Because I want to." "Why should you do the things you want to do?"

But why would you label this 'worth' an objective moral truth?
Because an objective evaluation of the worth of our actions is essentially what an objective morality is.

i work from "I think therefore I am." I can be sure of my own existence because I am conscious. If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me and the world around me is nothing but the product of my mind. Existence implies underlying reality, and we can confirm existence, if nothing else.

No, that only implies that logic exists, not existence. Descartes used human logic to prove that contention. There's still no guarantee that there is any physical reality.

No, that only implies that logic exists, not existence. Descartes used human logic to prove that contention. There's still no guarantee that there is any physical reality.

No guarantee of any physical reality, but a guarantee of reality itself. If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me. If something exists, it exists in reality.

This isn't a moral system, it's a justification for adopting a moral system, or rather an explanation that we already adopt a moral system by default.

Point 4 states that there either is or is not an objective moral system of value, and point 5 states that we can't know for sure if there is or isn't. How do these conflict?

I've already explained the reason why points 4 and 5 conflict, i'll try again.

Because if you take either side of point 4 then that negates point 5 because you then have a certain belief that objective morality does or doesn't exist. In this point 5 is saying that we aren't certain, should point 4 be proved either way then it disproves point 5.

I've already explained the reason why points 4 and 5 conflict, i'll try again.

Because if you take either side of point 4 then that negates point 5 because you then have a certain belief that objective morality does or doesn't exist. In this point 5 is saying that we aren't certain, should point 4 be proved either way then it disproves point 5.

I don't think we'll ever prove, with 100% certainty, for everyone, that an objective moral system exists, any easier than we'll prove, with 100% certainty, for everyone, that that's air you're breathing right now.

No guarantee of any physical reality, but a guarantee of reality itself. If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me. If something exists, it exists in reality.

I could use the evil demon argument and the dreaming argument to refute the belief that we do exist.
Because really, there is no knowing for certain if we do exist.
Take our senses for example, they are what we use to find out and explore new things all of the senses can be tricked, therefore how do you know you aren't tricked all the time? If this is the case then how do you know you even exist?
What are the criteria for existance?
Take a rock, an Ameoba, a dog, a chimp and a human being, which one has the most existance?
I could say we are just a collection of sense experience, once those senses are gone then the idea of existance is also gone.

Why should you do the things you want to do?


Ok, this is essentially what the whole thing boils down to. This is a common point that props up, and is used as a justification for certain ethical theories, like the objectivist theory, which holds that doing what makes you happy must have absolute moral worth, since for one thing saying that being unhappy is moral is too silly to consider.

But why should there be a reason to do what you want to do that makes consistent logical sense (assuming for the sake of argument that there isn't)? Emotions and desires are essentially irrational, why can't you just leave it at that?

I don't think we'll ever prove, with 100% certainty, for everyone, that an objective moral system exists, any easier than we'll prove, with 100% certainty, for everyone, that that's air you're breathing right now.
And you're right.
Therefore point 4 cannot stand. It states there either is or is not objective moral truth, there is no wriggle room with this point.

If I exist, then something exists, even if it is only me. If something exists, it exists in reality.

Again, you're only proving that human logic exists. If you're so sure that human logic can prove the existence of anything, then why can't we discover all the mysteries of the universe simply by deep contemplation?

I'm afraid I've dashed this off a bit quickly, since I'm just on the way out. Sorry if it's disjointed.

Please let me know of any flaws in my thinking, or anything I'm unwittingly stealing from someone else.
You don't have to worry about stealing from someone else. It may be that you simply came independently to the same conclusion that they did; or perhaps you read what they had to say and agreed with it. There's no copyright on philosophy, as far as I know.

1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.
It'd be nice to think that there's a layer of reality somewhere that we can depend on as absolute, objective truth - but personally, I don't think there is. Assuming, that is, that your definition of 'reality' is a construct that's common to everyone and is the same from any point of view, and which is independent of human activity or perception. Your point #2 seems to make sense:

2: we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.

And this is why we can't accept point #1 as a premise. We can measure the universe we see around us, but we can only do so using tools and systems that are a part of that universe. If it isn't real, then they aren't real either, so they won't give us real results. They might give us consistent results, but consistency alone doesn't guarantee reality. In order to assess objectivity, there has to be some external scale, some independent frame of reference, that we can judge it against - and since everything we can perceive is a part of the universe whose reality we're trying to gauge, we have no such framework to work with.

3: We must make assumptions about the underlying reality in order to live our lives. We cannot go through life without believing, at least for practicality's sake, in causality, or in physical constants, or in persistence. The world might boil away into nothing tomorrow for all we know, but we must assume it will not in order to accomplish anything.

You're right that we have to make assumptions about the world we're living in in order to function. We have to have faith (and I use the word advisedly, knowing how much it's hated in some quarters) that everything will continue to proceed as we expect it to, and that what we consider 'laws' today - gravity, causality, entropy - will still function in the same way tomorrow.

The most practical path appears to be for us to take the world we see around us at face value - at least to some extent - since in that way we minimise the risk of causing harm. For example, it's better to assume that others have a similar sense of self, and have similar feelings, than it is to assume that reality can't be objectively judged, and that it therefore doesn't matter if we shoot someone and steal all their money. Although, if we make that assumption - that that person isn't real - there seems little point in coveting their cash, which may be similarly unreal.

So yes, we make assumptions about the world because it's the only way we can effectively function within the confines of the world as we see it. We follow society's laws, and we concern ourselves with morals, firstly because doing so takes account of the possibility that those others are vulnerable to harm and that such an approach helps us avoid doing harm, and secondly because we have no specific notion as to what 'reality' - if any - might be like if it's not like the world we're in. There is no alternative perception that we can aim to live in accordance with. The 'reality' we live in - real or not - provides us with the only structure we appear to have.


4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.

My take is that there is no objective moral truth. Again, objectivity requires an independent point of reference, and it doesn't seem as though we have access to one. Therefore, any moral judgement we make - whether we attribute it to common sense, to some sort of deity, or to any other source - can only be subjective. Which, of course, isn't to say that one can't be moral - but that one can be moral only in the eyes of one's society, and (perhaps more importantly) in one's own eyes.


from here I wanted to work to suggest what system of morality makes the most sense, but I want to know of any flaws in my reasoning before I get that far.

Carry on, if you haven't already: I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I'd put it this way:
1. I seem to experience a world and am faced with choices about how to react to the world.
2. If my existence has no meaning then it doesn't matter in the end what I decide so I should not decide what to do.
3. I am forced to decide as even "stay still" is a decision, therefore I must assume that my existence has a meaning and that it matters how I decide to act.

Also why is it a problem to steal thoughts from others, why do you want to avoid thinking any thoughts that anyone else has thought before and do you really think it would work to avoid that?

I'm afraid I've dashed this off a bit quickly, since I'm just on the way out. Sorry if it's disjointed.


You don't have to worry about stealing from someone else. It may be that you simply came independently to the same conclusion that they did; or perhaps you read what they had to say and agreed with it. There's no copyright on philosophy, as far as I know.


It'd be nice to think that there's a layer of reality somewhere that we can depend on as absolute, objective truth - but personally, I don't think there is. Assuming, that is, that your definition of 'reality' is a construct that's common to everyone and is the same from any point of view, and which is independent of human activity or perception. Your point #2 seems to make sense:


And this is why we can't accept point #1 as a premise. We can measure the universe we see around us, but we can only do so using tools and systems that are a part of that universe. If it isn't real, then they aren't real either, so they won't give us real results. They might give us consistent results, but consistency alone doesn't guarantee reality. In order to assess objectivity, there has to be some external scale, some independent frame of reference, that we can judge it against - and since everything we can perceive is a part of the universe whose reality we're trying to gauge, we have no such framework to work with.

We can't assess that any given thing is real, but I think we can assess, through knowledge of our own existence, that there is something that is real, even if we may never know exactly what it is.

You're right that we have to make assumptions about the world we're living in in order to function. We have to have faith (and I use the word advisedly, knowing how much it's hated in some quarters) that everything will continue to proceed as we expect it to, and that what we consider 'laws' today - gravity, causality, entropy - will still function in the same way tomorrow.

The most practical path appears to be for us to take the world we see around us at face value - at least to some extent - since in that way we minimise the risk of causing harm. For example, it's better to assume that others have a similar sense of self, and have similar feelings, than it is to assume that reality can't be objectively judged, and that it therefore doesn't matter if we shoot someone and steal all their money. Although, if we make that assumption - that that person isn't real - there seems little point in coveting their cash, which may be similarly unreal.

So yes, we make assumptions about the world because it's the only way we can effectively function within the confines of the world as we see it. We follow society's laws, and we concern ourselves with morals, firstly because doing so takes account of the possibility that those others are vulnerable to harm and that such an approach helps us avoid doing harm, and secondly because we have no specific notion as to what 'reality' - if any - might be like if it's not like the world we're in. There is no alternative perception that we can aim to live in accordance with. The 'reality' we live in - real or not - provides us with the only structure we appear to have.


Well, first of all to minimize harm is to accept that harm is something to be avoided. We can either do this by believing that harm is objectively bad, or that harm is simply not what we would prefer. But to accept the second, we have to assume that what we would prefer has any value.


My take is that there is no objective moral truth. Again, objectivity requires an independent point of reference, and it doesn't seem as though we have access to one. Therefore, any moral judgement we make - whether we attribute it to common sense, to some sort of deity, or to any other source - can only be subjective. Which, of course, isn't to say that one can't be moral - but that one can be moral only in the eyes of one's society, and (perhaps more importantly) in one's own eyes.

Our inability to assess objective moral truth does not prove that it doesn't exist, just that we can't know if it exists. Our moral judgments are subjective, yes, but we must attempt to rationalize them in an objective manner, otherwise they become mere preferences.


Carry on, if you haven't already: I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I'll try to. I've been stewing on this for quite some time.

I'd put it this way:
1. I seem to experience a world and am faced with choices about how to react to the world.
2. If my existence has no meaning then it doesn't matter in the end what I decide so I should not decide what to do.
3. I am forced to decide as even "stay still" is a decision, therefore I must assume that my existence has a meaning and that it matters how I decide to act.

Also why is it a problem to steal thoughts from others, why do you want to avoid thinking any thoughts that anyone else has thought before and do you really think it would work to avoid that?

It's not a huge concern, I guess, but it's something I'd at least want to be aware of if I were to publish a book or something.

And thanks for summing up my position on subjective morality more concisely than I could. :p

I'd just like to point out that there is no real morality. What is right and wrong depends only on one's life experiences and values instilled in them by outside forces. Morals and values of society change with the decade, after all, and things that were once thought terrible or good can see a reversal.

I'd just like to point out that there is no real morality. What is right and wrong depends only on one's life experiences and values instilled in them by outside forces. Morals and values of society change with the decade, after all, and things that were once thought terrible or good can see a reversal.

Do you care to support that, or are you just going to state your opinion? You may as well have said "I'd just like to point out that there is no god."

That human perception of morality changes does not imply that morality has changed. It could even be seen as progress toward a view that represents "real" morality

If you look at the history of civilization, it's hard not to see what looks like a pattern of actual progress, moving from basic survival-trumps-all thinking to the beginnings of social consciousness of the tribe and the village to the formation of laws and rulers to eventually the recognition of human and civil rights. If this is progress, then it follows that there must be something to progress towards, some ideal concept of morality. And that ideal would, theoretically, be objectively right.

Do you care to support that, or are you just going to state your opinion? You may as well have said "I'd just like to point out that there is no god."

That human perception of morality changes does not imply that morality has changed. It could even be seen as progress toward a view that represents "real" morality

If you look at the history of civilization, it's hard not to see what looks like a pattern of actual progress, moving from basic survival-trumps-all thinking to the beginnings of social consciousness of the tribe and the village to the formation of laws and rulers to eventually the recognition of human and civil rights. If this is progress, then it follows that there must be something to progress towards, some ideal concept of morality. And that ideal would, theoretically, be objectively right.

And why do you assume that human morality must be right? Our species' morality is shaped only be our history and the events we percieve as "bad" in it, usually ones that challenged the current order of things. There are some cultures that see nothing wrong with, for example, lying for the greater good (West) and others that see lying as deplorable no matter what it does (typically East, but that's changed in the modern day).

5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.

How can you be so sure?

Morals and values of society change with the decade, after all, and things that were once thought terrible or good can see a reversal.

Our understanding of other things--like science--changes too.

Our understanding of other things--like science--changes too.

I'm well-aware of that. Earth-centric universe, anyone?

I'm well-aware of that. Earth-centric universe, anyone?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Our understanding of, for instance, physics has changed over the years. Our understanding of morality has changed in a similar manner. We are essentially discovering morality, as we discover physics. Implying that we are striving toward a perfect system of physics that explains all physical interaction is not earth centric, and neither is implying that we are striving toward a perfect system of morality that explains all moral interactions.

Because to live your life while believing it is meaningless would be about as useful as attempting to make breakfast without assuming that the hot pan causes the eggs to solidify.

I have empirical proof that hot pans cause eggs to solidify. I don't have any proof that life has meaning or that life itself is meaningful. Actually I believe it isn't objectively meaningful or valuable. It's just an other form of matter and energy. A form which I love, but nonetheless meaningless.

And to assume a "subjective moral system" we must apply moral worth to our own subjective moral frameworks.

Yes we should, things are only good because we find them good. It's good to get out of bed because we think it's good, we don't think it's good to get out of bed because it's objectively good or something, at least I don't see why getting out of bed would be objectively good. If you take away our own preference for something there remains no good, of course that is true for most characteristics.

I have empirical proof that hot pans cause eggs to solidify. I don't have any proof that life has meaning or that life itself is meaningful. Actually I believe it isn't objectively meaningful or valuable. It's just an other form of matter and energy. A form which I love, but nonetheless meaningless.

But if you think about it, you can't be completely, utterly sure that the pan causes the egg to solidify. All you really have is very strong circumstantial evidence, because all evidence is circumstantial. All you know, at most, is that eggs sometimes solidify, and they seem to do this much more often in the presence of a hot pan. It could all just be really really unlikely coincidence.


Yes we should, things are only good because we find them good. It's good to get out of bed because we think it's good, we don't think it's good to get out of bed because it's objectively good or something, at least I don't see why getting out of bed would be objectively good. If you take away our own preference for something there remains no good, of course that is true for most characteristics.

So you have applied objective moral worth to your subjective moral framework. Now all you have to do is admit it to yourself.

But can you be sure that you think or the you exist? Perhaps you are a program that was written to emulate consciousness and are not actually conscious despite your belief that it is so.

But then the program must exist. And it must exist, at some level, in reality.

Anybody else have anything to say about this?

Anybody else have anything to say about this?
What are we supposed to say? You already said:we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.So why bother?

You have basically declared your own system pointless before you even started. You're just voicing random opinions, based on senses that don't work and reason that is fallible.

What are we supposed to say? You already said:So why bother?

You have basically declared your own system pointless before you even started. You're just voicing random opinions, based on senses that don't work and reason that is fallible.

Because our senses and reason are fallible doesn't mean that they "don't work" or the opinions formed based on them are "random."

And you're right.
Therefore point 4 cannot stand. It states there either is or is not objective moral truth, there is no wriggle room with this point.

Point 4 is a syllogism. It is true. P or not P.

If there is objective moral truth, then either there is or there isn't.
If there is no objective moral truth, then either there is or there isn't.

What we know about the truth or falsity of P has nothing to do with this.

Because our senses and reason are fallible doesn't mean that they "don't work" or the opinions formed based on them are "random."
Sure it does. You said an independent reality exists, but that we have neither empiricism nor reason to accurately gain knowledge about it. As far as I'm concerned, that means that whatever we can gain "knowledge" about doesn't correspond to this independent reality and we might as well not bother.

I agree with you that objective reality exists. It's my starting point. But to first accept that and then say we have no way to know anything about it is to be struck blind, mute, deaf and dumb and all our existence is just happening inside our heads afterall.

Whether this sort of thinking is motivated by the wish to create realities that we're happier with afterall, creating the oh-so-popular need to make everything subjective so that every action works and is justified "in some cases", I don't know.

Perhaps even more significantly: if our knowledge doesn't correspond to reality, then we can't know what moral behaviour is. If reality exists independently of us, then it can certainly be argued that something approaching morality does too (even if it is something incredibly general like: seek happiness). That's why I think the "is-ought problem" is basically the same thing you've done: the denial of knowledge in the quest to create our own when convenient. The beauty being that if we don't know an objective right from an objective wrong, we can call anything we want "moral" and get away with it. But even that problem has the saving grace that it leaves, in theory at least, reason to try and figure something out.

You say that we should live as if there was an objective morality, but you deny all our tools we could use to actually get something we could call that. I don't see the difference between using a "subjective reason" and just making a random decision. That's because if you don't think reason or senses can perceive objective reality, then there is no reason to think that me and you actually perceive the same thing. Reason loses its objectivity and all you end up saying is "we should have the same moral law for everyone, but it doesn't really matter who makes it or how". Rather than calling every action equal and therefore meaningless, you're calling every moral code equal and therefore meaningless - even though moral codes can be seen as big sets containing actions when faced with particular situations.

You haven't really solved the problem of whether, why and in what form morality exists. You've just restated the original problem in different terms and left us with no way of judging one action more moral than another.

What I got out of your so-far philosophy is, "The World exists, or it doesn't."

We can't assess that any given thing is real, but I think we can assess, through knowledge of our own existence, that there is something that is real, even if we may never know exactly what it is.

We can assume that our existence is real - although we can't realistically assess exactly what it is or what we are. And we can't rule out the possibility that what we think of as our consciousness and our perception is not at all what we think it is. We might be the dream of the butterfly; or the extra personality in a divided mind. Maybe we're just a sophisticated computer program. Or maybe we're something even more abstract. How could we possibly know, without that external reference frame?

We have knowledge of our own existence, yes - but that knowledge stems from within our own perceptions and therefore it has the potential to be distorted. If our perceptions are wrong, then any conclusion we base on them is also likely to be wrong. And since everything in our universe is conveyed to us via those perceptions...

Well, first of all to minimize harm is to accept that harm is something to be avoided.

Very true. Again, it's an assumption. But, given the lack of obvious alternatives to the universe we see around us, it's not an unreasonable one. It's fair to proceed in accordance with the knowledge you have at any given time; to try to make the right decisions based on the information to hand. But that doesn't mean that that knowledge is correct or complete. Again, we have to assume. We assume that harm is best avoided, because that's how it seems to us, based on what we perceive. But that conclusion isn't and can't be based on anything more objective than that.

We can either do this by believing that harm is objectively bad, or that harm is simply not what we would prefer. But to accept the second, we have to assume that what we would prefer has any value.

It has value to us, certainly. Whether it matters to the rest of our world - much less to any 'reality' that might actually exist - is more difficult to judge.

Our inability to assess objective moral truth does not prove that it doesn't exist

No, certainly not. A lack of information doesn't normally constitute evidence one way or the other. Even if we accept that we can't objectively judge the reality of the world we perceive, there remains the possibility that it is objectively real. However, as I said, I remain of the belief that morality is what our society makes it. It is a combination of the traditions, conventions and judgements of our communities. It is not, as far as I can see, something that is imposed upon us by the universe, except in the most basic, Darwinian terms (what benefits us and makes us fitter for survival is 'good'). Although I am religious, I don't believe in a universal lawmaker who hands down rules about what we should and shouldn't do: the gods' laws are natural laws - what they care enough to prohibit us from doing, we cannot do.

...we must attempt to rationalize [our judgements] in an objective manner, otherwise they become mere preferences.

But who is to say that they are not merely our preferences? And who, then, is to say that there is anything 'mere' about our preferences anyway? Perhaps the solipsists have it right, and we shape the universe we live in, as the only soul inhabiting it. I tend to think not, but in that case, one's preferences would surely be of central importance to the function of the universe.

I'll try to. I've been stewing on this for quite some time.

Keep going - I'm convinced it's good for you. :o)

My purpose is not to justify moral relativism. On the contrary, it is to demonstrate that without an objective morality, even subjective moral systems are useless. We are then left with two possibilities, in one there is no moral worth to any action, all actions are thus equally worthless, and life is essentially meaningless. In the other possibility, there is some objective moral worth in actions (determining exactly what the worth of any given set of actions is lies outside the focus of this exercise). So, since we must act, even in inaction, we must assume that there is objective morality and that life has meaning, in much the same way we must assume that our tools for observing and making sense of the world around us work to some degree.

It is a human limitation that we cannot ever know, for absolute sure, what is real. We have to assume that what we think we know is at least mostly right, in order to function, and similarly we have to assume that there is an objective moral right in order to make any choice at all.

Whether this sort of thinking is motivated by the wish to create realities that we're happier with afterall, creating the oh-so-popular need to make everything subjective so that every action works and is justified "in some cases", I don't know.
In some cases (ahem) it probably is motivated by this sort of thinking.

But in a lot of cases, I think it's motivated by the simple realisation that we don't have any objective way to judge what's real and what isn't. Each of us only knows what we can see, and hear, and touch. But where are those perceptions actually coming from, and how accurate are they in relaying the world around us? Is there a world around us? What actually are we?

All we can do to answer these questions is trust those perceptions. Is there any reason to do that? Well, personally, I tend to think that what I see is pretty much what everyone else sees. But I bear in mind that we evolved to fill a specific ecological niche (which our technology has now lifted us out of), and our perceptions stem from those evolutionary pressures. I see no reason to assume that we're capable of seeing the totality of existence with the perceptual and cognitive faculties we've developed. We have what we need to hunt and catch food, while escaping predators.

In other words, while I personally accept that what we see probably exists - or at least that something very like it exists - I don't assume that that's all there is there.

Point 4 is a syllogism. It is true. P or not P.

If there is objective moral truth, then either there is or there isn't.
If there is no objective moral truth, then either there is or there isn't.

What we know about the truth or falsity of P has nothing to do with this.
what i said earlier should help explain.
I've already explained the reason why points 4 and 5 conflict, i'll try again.

Because if you take either side of point 4 then that negates point 5 because you then have a certain belief that objective morality does or doesn't exist. In this point 5 is saying that we aren't certain, should point 4 be proved either way then it disproves point 5.

what i said earlier should help explain.

The whole point of 5 is that we can't, objectively, take a side in point 4. Obviously if we knew for a fact that there was objective moral worth, then there would be no point in saying there is or there isn't. We have to assume that one or the other is true, and I am arguing we have to assume the existence of Morality, because the nonexistence of morality leaves us with nothing upon which to base our choices. By acting, you must assume there is some worth in your actions, and thus an objective value behind them.

If you paid attention to I Heart Huckabees its fairly like whats being posted here.
Link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/)
I<3 Huckabees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Heart_Huckabees)

In other words, while I personally accept that what we see probably exists - or at least that something very like it exists - I don't assume that that's all there is there.
But it's an assumption you have to make if you want to know anything. Basically if you want to get something real and true out, you have to put something real and true in. If you fail to do that, whatever you get out will not be real and true and cannot be called an objective or independent moral code.

And if it isn't, there is nothing we can say or do to show that it is better than any other moral code. So as I said, we have the same problem we had before of judging actions without a moral code to serve as a ranking system, except now we're judging sets of actions rather than individual elements. The problem is still there, we haven't answered a thing and worse: we can't answer a thing.

So whatever morality is, it's no longer objectively true. It's rightness depends on the observer, and any action whatsoever could be considered morally good by a given observer. The only way to establish a universal moral code for human behaviour is then through making sure that only one observer's viewpoint counts, which can only be done by violence. In other words: might makes right.

The whole point of 5 is that we can't, objectively, take a side in point 4. Obviously if we knew for a fact that there was objective moral worth, then there would be no point in saying there is or there isn't. We have to assume that one or the other is true, and I am arguing we have to assume the existence of Morality, because the nonexistence of morality leaves us with nothing upon which to base our choices. By acting, you must assume there is some worth in your actions, and thus an objective value behind them.

Sometimes people don't do things because they are directly moral, some people act from instinct. I mean consider sadists, if morality is objective then why do they do horrific actions and consider them normal?

Morality is not the only deciding factor in your decision making, i mean if you go to a shop and decide to buy a mars bar or a snickers bar you probably don't consider the morality of your actions, when in fact they could have horrific consequences for say if the employees of those companies went under poor treatment.
How would you define what is moral and what isn't moral? what is your definition of good?
Oh and your statement is an appeals to consequences fallacy, you're saying without objective morality humanity cannot function and would fall apart. But i suppose in this case that particular fallacy can be refuted because it's true that it's better to have a moral framework and it would be nice if it was objective, however this isn't always the case.
If there is objective morality for humans, does this imply there is objective morality for animals also? What is it about humans that makes them so important to have morality?
It could be argued, morality is just another form of control by the state to tell you what you can and can't do, limiting your freedom by making you believe something which isn't necessarily true. (A variation of evil demon argument)

[In one possibility] there is no moral worth to any action, all actions are thus equally worthless, and life is essentially meaningless.

Just as we (individually or collectively) make the morality we live by, we also make the meaning of our lives. Certainly, from a purely naturalistic point of view, the only purpose to our lives is to survive to breed. That's it. Nothing more. Yet on top of that we've created a whole complex world system of moralities and meanings, many of which have fallen by the wayside; many of which remain with us. And we're constantly developing and enhancing those systems. Are they 'objective'? No. Are they relevant to us? Certainly.

Could we fall into a pit of despondency and say that there was no point to any of it? Yes, if we were so inclined. And we'd probably be right, at that. But this is why it's unwise of the more militant atheists to criticise the religious for holding to their faith as a 'crutch': I see very few people who don't assign some subjective sense of meaning to their own lives. Whether that meaning is anything to do with gods or not, it's how most of us get by.

Sometimes people don't do things because they are directly moral, some people act from instinct. I mean consider sadists, if morality is objective then why do they do horrific actions and consider them normal?
But the sadist has still made a moral judgement, in some way, allowing him to do what he does. Perhaps he sees the highest value in the Will to Power, or in Self Interest. Very few people do things they consider evil, but rather convince themselves that there really is no evil, and thus they can, or must, do whatever they want.
Morality is not the only deciding factor in your decision making, i mean if you go to a shop and decide to buy a mars bar or a snickers bar you probably don't consider the morality of your actions, when in fact they could have horrific consequences for say if the employees of those companies went under poor treatment.
But it all comes back to moral value. If i believe the highest moral value is my own pleasure, I will pick the candy that maximizes my pleasure. without going even that far, I cannot make even that simple choice, because I have nothing to base it on.
How would you define what is moral and what isn't moral? what is your definition of good?
Oh and your statement is an appeals to consequences fallacy, you're saying without objective morality humanity cannot function and would fall apart. But i suppose in this case that particular fallacy can be refuted because it's true that it's better to have a moral framework and it would be nice if it was objective, however this isn't always the case.

that's not what I'm saying. In fact, I still admit the possibility that life is meaningless. But we must assume meaning to function, and so we have to come up with something on which to base our choices. It stands to reason, then, that on the off chance that there is an objective morality, we should attempt to find out what it is in order to live by it, because if there isn't whether we choose to or not doesn't matter anyway.
If there is objective morality for humans, does this imply there is objective morality for animals also? What is it about humans that makes them so important to have morality?
I don't see morality as a force that binds all humans, but more as a harmony in the universe. But what the universal morality might be is tertiary to the discussion. It could be that eating grilled cheese sandwiches is our highest purpose in life, and the rest of the argument would still stand.
It could be argued, morality is just another form of control by the state to tell you what you can and can't do, limiting your freedom by making you believe something which isn't necessarily true. (A variation of evil demon argument)

I suppose that can be argued, but assuming you have broken free of the state's influence, how will you now determine what you should do? even total selfishness is a moral choice.

Just as we (individually or collectively) make the morality we live by, we also make the meaning of our lives. Certainly, from a purely naturalistic point of view, the only purpose to our lives is to survive to breed. That's it. Nothing more. Yet on top of that we've created a whole complex world system of moralities and meanings, many of which have fallen by the wayside; many of which remain with us. And we're constantly developing and enhancing those systems. Are they 'objective'? No. Are they relevant to us? Certainly.
Are they better and better models of objective morality? maybe.

Could we fall into a pit of despondency and say that there was no point to any of it? Yes, if we were so inclined. And we'd probably be right, at that. But this is why it's unwise of the more militant atheists to criticise the religious for holding to their faith as a 'crutch': I see very few people who don't assign some subjective sense of meaning to their own lives. Whether that meaning is anything to do with gods or not, it's how most of us get by.
Why would it be unwise? If falling in a pit of despondency is "right", shouldn't people be encouraged to do so? If life is essentially meaningless, is anything really "wise" or "unwise"?

Ok, I've been thinking on this for a while, and here's what I've got so far. Please let me know of any flaws in my thinking, or anything I'm unwittingly stealing from someone else.

Precepts:
1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.

2: we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.

3: We must make assumptions about the underlying reality in order to live our lives. We cannot go through life without believing, at least for practicality's sake, in causality, or in physical constants, or in persistence. The world might boil away into nothing tomorrow for all we know, but we must assume it will not in order to accomplish anything.

4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.

5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.

6: We must assume, in order to live our lives, that some morality must exist, for in the absence of morality all actions are equal, and thus equally meaningless. While it may be true that there is no universal objective moral truth, we must act as if there is. Otherwise both self interest and selflessness are meaningless, and there is no reason to choose anything over anything else. It is impossible to make choices without a moral system, because even something like "it would serve my own interests" or "it would make me feel good" imply moral worth in self interest or pleasure.

from here I wanted to work to suggest what system of morality makes the most sense, but I want to know of any flaws in my reasoning before I get that far.

Ah but what is "morality," exactly? ;) Is it a code by which we live by? Because then, wasnt there some study that found that we had 3 basic morals?

Ah but what is "morality," exactly? ;) Is it a code by which we live by? Because then, wasnt there some study that found that we had 3 basic morals?

Morality is not a code of behavior, but rather a code of behavior would be followed in the interest of morality.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this study.

Are they better and better models of objective morality? maybe.

No, since in the absence of any true objective morality, no system, no matter how sophisticated, can be more than subjective. Some future generation might one day consider that they've reached the very pinnacle of morality - but that would still only be the judgement of that particular society. Others from elsewhere in past or future might well look at that society and be amused at their weakness or horrified by their cruelty.

If we suppose some greater force behind it all - a deity, perhaps - then, well, then we still only have that deity's opinion against which to judge our system of morality, even if that deity was willing to communicate its views to us. Therefore, our morality would remain subjective.

Why would it be unwise? If falling in a pit of despondency is "right", shouldn't people be encouraged to do so? If life is essentially meaningless, is anything really "wise" or "unwise"?

Nothing is objectively right or wrong, in that case; and for the same reason, nothing is objectively wise or unwise either. We can simply do the best we can do at the time with the information to hand. That life is fundamentally meaningless - the simple ticking of the biological mechanism - doesn't mean that we can't seek to impose some meaning on it, and thus in some way improve it. Even if we're doing that only for ourselves, or for our descendants, it is a purpose. That it's a self-appointed purpose isn't fundamentally 'bad' (or 'good') because there is no objective 'bad' or 'good'. Good and bad are simply what we make them - all of us, religious or not.

That life is fundamentally meaningless - the simple ticking of the biological mechanism - doesn't mean that we can't seek to impose some meaning on it, and thus in some way improve it.
As a matter of fact, if we don't, chances are that at best we won't produce offspring, at worst we'll just commit suicide.

On a vaguely related matter, I finally figured out my answer to the question "What would you do if you only had 24 hours to live?": kill myself.

Precepts:
1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.

Uuh... yeah - although I'd advise you to read about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Anyway, the "reality" (meaning measurable) concept is very useful, so this is a good assumption.


2: we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.

No. Some things can be proven withing a given logical system. Which, of course, doesn't make up reality necessarily. See Kurt Goedel's and Bertie Russel's works.


3: We must make assumptions about the underlying reality in order to live our lives. We cannot go through life without believing, at least for practicality's sake, in causality, or in physical constants, or in persistence. The world might boil away into nothing tomorrow for all we know, but we must assume it will not in order to accomplish anything.

The term "belief" is widely abused of, so you'd better avoid it for the sake of clarity. Also physical constants aren't object of belief: they are object of measuring.


4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.
5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.

Eh, define objective. Then explain why you're introducing ex-abrupto the principle of the exclusion of the third case. Again, some knowledge in quantum mechanics and fuzzy logics might be helpful: we could have mixed states, and have the function collapse into a pure state when we attempt to measure/define it. That is, the observer makes up reality... maybe even truth.


6: We must assume, in order to live our lives, that some morality must exist, for in the absence of morality all actions are equal, and thus equally meaningless. While it may be true that there is no universal objective moral truth, we must act as if there is. Otherwise both self interest and selflessness are meaningless, and there is no reason to choose anything over anything else. It is impossible to make choices without a moral system, because even something like "it would serve my own interests" or "it would make me feel good" imply moral worth in self interest or pleasure.

Why? A "social utilitarianism" could be an example of a morality not based on the assumption of an universal moral thingy.

Also, why should actions be meaningful? Action can be done even without a meaning or purpose except the completement of the action itself, so I don't see a necessity - or an onthological need for actions' meaning.

Again, some knowledge in quantum mechanics and fuzzy logics might be helpful: we could have mixed states, and have the function collapse into a pure state when we attempt to measure/define it.
Speaking personally, I tend to prefer Many Worlds, myself. The reason being (and bear in mind I'm no quantum physicist, so it's just my own feeling) that the idea of collapse still requires that one specific 'reality' to be ultimately selected as 'true'. Given that much of the theory involved elsewhere seems to be pointing towards a lack of uniqueness (planets are more common than we thought; the universe is isotropic; and so on), even bearing probability in mind I don't see why the cosmos should favour one alternative over another.

Dalaam
But the sadist has still made a moral judgement, in some way, allowing him to do what he does. Perhaps he sees the highest value in the Will to Power, or in Self Interest. Very few people do things they consider evil, but rather convince themselves that there really is no evil, and thus they can, or must, do whatever they want.
How can you call sadistic thought processes moral? They seem to avoid any sense of moral thought.
But it all comes back to moral value. If i believe the highest moral value is my own pleasure, I will pick the candy that maximizes my pleasure. without going even that far, I cannot make even that simple choice, because I have nothing to base it on. that's not what I'm saying. In fact, I still admit the possibility that life is meaningless.
How can you equate pleasure with morality?
Also what if you're not buying the candy for your own pleasure but from a compulsive habit of eating too many of them. how is morality a deciding factor here?

But we must assume meaning to function, and so we have to come up with something on which to base our choices. It stands to reason, then, that on the off chance that there is an objective morality, we should attempt to find out what it is in order to live by it, because if there isn't whether we choose to or not doesn't matter anyway.
But if we aren't certain of certain things which exist, how can we be certain that if we did find an objective morality that it wasn't just some confused mass delusion? the threat is still there that people don't exist here, therefore our moral discourse could be meaningless.

I don't see morality as a force that binds all humans, but more as a harmony in the universe. But what the universal morality might be is tertiary to the discussion. It could be that eating grilled cheese sandwiches is our highest purpose in life, and the rest of the argument would still stand.
harmony? but people's definitions of what is good for them differ from what is good for other people. For example where one person might love the sea and swimming another might have a phobia of swimming. Therefore any definition of good or even harmony can be refuted.
I suppose that can be argued, but assuming you have broken free of the state's influence, how will you now determine what you should do? even total selfishness is a moral choice.
You could try to survive as best you can in absence of any state intervention, or any so-called morality, and as not harming other people generally helps you be not harmed also that could be a way to function. Not a written idea of what morality should be as considered by some rich old men with too much spare time, but as a rugged survival theory which also happens to help everyone else who follows this, while allowing for variations.
How is total selfishness a moral choice? is that not just a genetic trait in humans to survive, where does morality come into selfishness? I thought that was a near opposite of morality.

1: An underlying reality must exist. There is something to the world, it might not have anything to do with what we think it is, but it is there.
Must? There's no logical must here. How do you mean "underlying reality"? As if reality weren't what it already is? Considering you have no idea what this "underlying reality" is supposed to look like, how can you know anything about it? If it can't be known, why do you talk about it as if there is a reason for saying such a thing exists? Existence, after all, is used as a description now; it is undefined in your "underlying reality." (What kind of things do we talk about as 'existing'?) What distinction do you wish to make here?

2: we cannot know, with 100% accuracy, anything about how the world works. Nothing is ever proven. We could always turn out to be wrong, because our senses and our reason are fallible.Knowledge is a word with a specific use, and yes, I can know things about the world without needing perfect accuracy. Do I know these things a priori? No-- but that doesn't mean that I don't know anything. Can I prove that I know these things? Sure. If you don't accept the proof given because it isn't an a priori proof, well, I'd think that you're simply mistaken about what constitutes proof in this kind of context.

3: We must make assumptions about the underlying reality in order to live our lives. We cannot go through life without believing, at least for practicality's sake, in causality, or in physical constants, or in persistence. The world might boil away into nothing tomorrow for all we know, but we must assume it will not in order to accomplish anything.Assumptions? I make no assumptions about the things you mention. I would never use the word assumption to describe acting as expected. Assumption does not describe how we act in relation to the world in general (although sometimes we make assumptions in specific cases). What does it mean to assume something? I can say to someone, "You're assuming you'll be going with them to the store", or "You're assuming she likes you", etc. Those are assumptions. Notice that all those assumptions require a standard of normal behavior in order to be assumptions (i.e., you usually go to the store, or you usually find it easy to attract women, etc). However, you will also notice that if you eliminate this standard (e.g., how people normally behave), you actually remove the ability to make assumptions. "Assuming something" as an activity has a certain place within our lives. If you remove the assumption from that place, you no longer have assumption - just words, as you've shown here.

Attempting to dismiss reality by saying it's just an assumption is simply a grammatical error.

4: There either is or is not an objective moral truth.Define objective here.

5: We cannot know for sure whether or not there is objective moral truth.That depends on the definition of objective, doesn't it? And then, of course, if this "objective truth" is in principle unknowable, then it is neither objective nor truth.

6: We must assume, in order to live our lives, that some morality must exist, for in the absence of morality all actions are equal, and thus equally meaningless. While it may be true that there is no universal objective moral truth, we must act as if there is. Otherwise both self interest and selflessness are meaningless, and there is no reason to choose anything over anything else. It is impossible to make choices without a moral system, because even something like "it would serve my own interests" or "it would make me feel good" imply moral worth in self interest or pleasure.Assuming again? I know for certain that morality exists, both a priori morality alternate ideas.

I'd like to differentiate "moral system" from "morality." It's quite possible to have morality without having a moral system (e.g., categorical imperative etc).

How can you call sadistic thought processes moral? They seem to avoid any sense of moral thought.
Conceivably, a sadist could make the moral judgement, ‘being cruel towards people is not a bad thing’.

How can you equate pleasure with morality?
Quite easily: the hedonist says, ‘the good thing is to maximise pleasure’.

Also what if you’re not buying the candy for your own pleasure but from a compulsive habit of eating too many of them. how is morality a deciding factor here?
It wouldn’t be, but then you’re changing the question.

but people’s definitions of what is good for them differ from what is good for other people... Therefore any definition of good or even harmony can be refuted.
Moral absolutists would claim that some definitions of ‘the good’ are wrong definitions, that there is one definition that is true, and that there is one true good (or one true ‘set’ of goods). Different absolutists will claim different things, but many would cite religion or reason as the way to identify this true good.

You could try to survive as best you can in absence of any state intervention, or any so-called morality, and as not harming other people generally helps you be not harmed also that could be a way to function. Not a written idea of what morality should be as considered by some rich old men with too much spare time, but as a rugged survival theory which also happens to help everyone else who follows this, while allowing for variations.
Sure, and what you describe has been advocated as a moral system. Many feel that morality and pragmatism are one and the same.

How is total selfishness a moral choice? is that not just a genetic trait in humans to survive,
There’s a big (and, admittedly, sometimes quite woolly) difference between genetic ‘selfishness’, in the sense that genes will attempt to propagate themselves non-sentiently, and the pejorative sentient human trait of selfishness. Though many, following Dawkins and others, would argue that the gene is ‘selfish’, it doesn’t follow that the gene is actually ‘selfish’ in the sense of ‘greedy’ or ‘non-altruistic’ — that would be anthropomorphising the gene, giving sentience to inert pieces of gloop — and moreover, it doesn’t follow that human beings are selfish themselves.

In fact, one of the points that Dawkins makes in The Selfish Gene is that the ‘selfishness’ of the gene helps humans act in altruistic, non-selfish ways.

where does morality come into selfishness?
In the very meaning of the word.

‘Selfishness’, like the word ‘murder’, is a pejorative term. I don’t think it’s possible to describe someone as ‘selfish’ without casting that person in a morally bad light; just as I believe it’s impossible to call a death ‘murder’ without implying that the death was morally wrong. (Indeed, is that not what murder is; wrongful killing?)

Think of the terms ‘selfishness’, ‘hoarding’, ‘self-serving’. It seems to me that these are all pejorative terms. They are all considered undesirably character traits, at least by the majority of humans I’d wager.