[yaromil]

Here are the main theses of the theory of objective ethics.

1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. Determinism is learned by observations and reflections. Determinism predetermines the future but freedom makes the future unpredictable and unknowable by denying determinism.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. Freedom begets all other values. The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. Cognition is part of this process. Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom.

4) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom. The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. The animal follows the laws of the universe, submits to forces without trying to overcome them.

5) There is no absolute moral law; ethical norms are derived from the general contract. The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. The requirements of ethics cover conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) and compliance with it (fidelity to given word, adherence to rules, responsibility for violation).

6) Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; the old are replaced by new, more free and fair – this is the essence of moral progress. The meaning of the norms is to stimulate creative and constructive activities by limiting violence. The ethics treats people as abstractions; all private is ignored.

7) Personal relations are governed by a sacrificial morality (emotions, love, care, etc.), and catastrophic situations by a heroic morality. Both types of morality are informal, limited in space and time, and require a clear separation from the public space (non-personal relations) governed by the ethics.

[atreestump]

Thanks for posting, welcome to OPF!

I like the metaphysics of freedom, we would all like to be free(r), but as you said, there is no way to know freedom, so how can you possibly know if freedom is the primary moving force of the Good, or even progress?

Also, doesn’t framing freedom in a context of duty take away freedom?

[yaromil]

Thanks for posting, welcome to OPF!

I like the metaphysics of freedom, we would all like to be free(r), but as you said, there is no way to know freedom, so how can you possibly know if freedom is the primary moving force of the Good, or even progress?

Thanks. First, we “know” freedom from its oppositions, ie determinism. We learn natural laws and then we find ways to overcome the limitations they put on us. The more useful our knowledge (ie the freer we get), the closer we are to the truth. Second, determinism is by definition repetitions, which means it cannot create anything new. So, the only alternative left is freedom that lies at the basis of evolution (and all kinds of progress which are the continuation of evolution in society).
 

Also, doesn’t framing freedom in a context of duty take away freedom?

Again, it is the question of alternatives. Either we have a duty to be free(r) or we are (to have a “duty”) to be the subject of natural laws. In other words, there cannot be freedom without the moral duty to be free because all our other wishes are consequences of determinism (of physical, biological, etc forces).

So the only solution is to clearly define social rules in such a way they do not put unnecessary limitations on our drive to freedom. This could be done through the general universal contract only.

[atreestump]

First, we “know” freedom from its oppositions, ie determinism.

Are we to take oppositions to be necessarily true? Is freedom really the opposition of determinism?

[yaromil]

First, we “know” freedom from its oppositions, ie determinism.

Are we to take oppositions to be necessarily true? Is freedom really the opposition of determinism?

We cannot define freedom formally but for all practical needs including discussions it is so.

[Rubsy]

Hi there, just wondered how this duty to be free and encourage freedom could apply to law, would we not preference some freedoms above others through habit, like the right to own property over freedom of movement ? Or would there be no law as law is backed by force which is not freedom. Ideally there would be no law.

[atreestump]

I was thinking at best, this is all pragmatic – freedom is a necessary illusion within a complex determinism. Novelty can come out of determinism, as determined conditions change over time, less like laws and more like ‘tendencies’ or ‘habits’.

Determinism isn’t evil, it just IS.

[kFoyauextlH]

Plus Evil.

[atreestump]

Evil is a religious concept, determinism is just the way things are conditioned to interact, if I had to value it, I would say ‘good or bad’ depending on the outcome.

Actually, I just thought of something- we can often speak of determinism in the same breath as ‘pre-ordained’ and I don’t think determinism leads to certainty or is predictable, as the conditions do change over time.

[kFoyauextlH]

Evil to me means simply having the potential to harm or leading to potentially harmful experiences, thus not benign, but rather potentially unpleasant. Just about everything or anything can be considered evil with such a broad definition, such as determinism, as well as Freedom from which it likely or necessarily stems, the most Evil or capable of freely harming of all.

[atreestump]

I think harm can just be seen as ‘bad’, but as I mentioned, determined sm can lead to good things occuring too, even novelty.

[kFoyauextlH]

Definitely, and I find good things rather tragic too, especially in that they can be taken away in many senses and would thus be perhaps less painful having never been known. Yeah people tend to use the word Evil these days mostly in a moral sense, which I also believe the case to be. That anything with consciousness and power thus knowingly hoists harm and temptations upon us and is thus and can really only be Evil if it has Freedom which it must necessarily have.

[yaromil]

Hi there, just wondered how this duty to be free and encourage freedom could apply to law, would we not preference some freedoms above others through habit, like the right to own property over freedom of movement ? Or would there be no law as law is backed by force which is not freedom. Ideally there would be no law.

Hi, without (normative) laws there will be arbitrariness. The only way to avoid it (and all violence that comes with it) is by contract. The contract is equivalent to “rejection of violence” (BTW “the property” or “freedom of movement” is also the consequences of the contract). It seems confusing at first — why freedom can only be brought to society by laws? Freedom is one for all, common for all. There cannot be freedom for one at the expense of others (for several reasons, one is such conditions create fear). Human freedom manifests itself by the unique own personality, ability to create something new, and it is only possible when nothing suppresses it (ie violence, determinism).

Laws are backed by force as long as there are those who do not want to participate in the contract. If all people were ethical no force would be necessary.
 

I was thinking at best, this is all pragmatic – freedom is a necessary illusion within a complex determinism. Novelty can come out of determinism, as determined conditions change over time, less like laws and more like ‘tendencies’ or ‘habits’.

Natural laws never show themselves exactly. They all are our abstractions of stochastic (more or less random) processes. And still they are the same. Otherwise we could not be able to see/learn them. We learn laws because their manifestations repeat. The definition of the new, novelty, is “it did not exist before” which directly contradicts the definition of the law (ie “repetition”).
 

Determinism isn’t evil, it just IS.

As long as we strive for something better, the existing is evil. However, this matter is more complex because there are degrees of evil. If we can use something deterministic as a means to our goal (ie freedom) we consider it as a relative good. If something deterministic interferes, obstructs or hinders with our goal (for instance death, tsunami, human violence, etc), we see it as (relative) evil.

Basically, freedom as the supreme value gives us the scale to measure evil.

[kFoyauextlH]

You may be interested in this: https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-The-Garden-of-the-Believers-Saracen-Playground since it discusses freedom.
[hr]
This: https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Initiation-through-the-Eye discusses striving for better, so you may also be interested in that.

[Author]

Posts