Logical Reasons to be Ethical 2: Dialectical Materialism, Ethical Egoism and Moral Antirealism

Interesting post, high information density, maybe not as important is most of my other posts. Please read the first part Logical Reasons so you don't get the wrong ideas. This post is just me having a conversation with ChatGPT to see how much it can think and just learn stuff. It was like having a chat with an intelligent philosopher. Until it gives me an error and I try again, because it seems like I've started annoying even an AI system and it's acting like how other humans sometimes act, as if it ghosted me, "there was an error" or something, but I've tried to extract some interesting points and criticize them, just playing with ideas. Let me know if you have anything to say about anything related to this discussion. New to this blog? Start here.

The words in the title- I had known about them for a long time, developed my own ideas independently, but recently discovered some fancy philosophical terms that sounded pretty similar to my own ideas, such as all those, plus absolute idealism, just a quick search showed that these things exist, and made me more confident in my own ideas.

Such as I always knew about dialectical materialism intuitively- but I used to call it cause and effect, butterfly effect, from Taleb's books, and the fact that everything is interconnected at some level of abstraction; same with absolute idealism- recent neuroscientific evidence, plus the little I know about philosophy of physics and neuroscience, plus my belief in determinism, perhaps randomness, is all it took to construct it. Same with Moral antirealism, though I still think it's not exactly what I have in mind, as I believe that all values and subjective value judgments have no basis in reality and are just dependent on genes and stuff, don't exist in the objective external observable reality, but then I also believe in having morals, harm no one and help those less fortunate than you.

So in this regard at least, ethical egoism comes closer. Same with other ideas which some academics encouraged me to get published, and that I released on my youtube channel too. Logically consistent with some old philosophers (Sartre, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, mainly, to be specific) yet not similar enough that anyone can accuse me of stealing and rewording or rephrasing their ideas because my ideas are inspired by my personal experiences and I have scientific evidence that they didn't have at that time. It's some ideas I discuss in my other posts and on youtube. Anyway. ChatGPT is in a different font, small and bold, and the first message starts with me asking it a simple single sentence:

Give me logical reasons against moral antirealism and ethical egoism

Logical reasons against moral antirealism:

Moral antirealism fails to provide a coherent explanation for the existence and nature of moral facts and values. If moral facts and values do not exist objectively, it becomes difficult to explain why people across different cultures and time periods share similar moral beliefs and principles.

Moral antirealism undermines the basis of moral discourse and argumentation. If there are no objective moral facts and values, then all moral claims become subjective opinions, making it impossible to resolve moral disagreements and reach a rational consensus.

Moral antirealism is incompatible with moral responsibility and accountability. If moral facts and values are not objectively true, then it becomes difficult to hold individuals accountable for their moral actions and decisions.

Logical reasons against ethical egoism:

Ethical egoism fails to account for the moral value of impartiality and fairness. It suggests that individuals should only act in their own self-interest, regardless of how their actions impact others. This view ignores the fact that individuals have moral obligations to consider the interests and well-being of others.

Ethical egoism leads to self-contradictions and inconsistencies. It suggests that individuals should only act in their own self-interest, but it also suggests that individuals should not harm others. In situations where harming others could lead to personal gain, ethical egoism fails to provide a clear ethical guideline.

Ethical egoism ignores the fact that individuals are interdependent and rely on others for their well-being. It fails to recognize that individuals live in societies and communities, and their actions can impact others in significant ways. Therefore, ethical egoism fails to provide a comprehensive ethical framework for individuals to live in a just and moral society.

Moral antirealism: I disagree with point 1. Just because there are similarities between people of different cultures and their morals, doesn't mean that those morals actually exist in the universe, as I don't believe that anything like morals or values exists in the external observable objective universe. Even if it's true for all societies and cultures, it's still a psychological and social construct with no basis in objective reality. What do you have to say about that?

I also disagree with point 2. For the simple reason that it is true that it's impossible to resolve moral disagreements and reach a rational consensus, as you would see in political debates or anything involving subjective value judgments, because different people feel strongly about different causes and value different principles depending on their inclinations. What do you have to say about that? How would you suggest we could arrive at a consensus regarding moral disagreements?

I also disagree with 3. Because no one can be help responsible just in the way no one can be blamed or praised for their actions as in this deterministic universe people do what their genes and early environment predisposes them to do. They don't get to control their genes or environment, things which determine their values, traits and abilities, so we can't praise or blame them for their actions. Do you agree? If yes, what do you have to say to defend point 3, and if no, why?

Coming to ethical egoism: 1. I find it hard to disagree with this point because my own morals incline me to help people less fortunate than me, but I'll try to play the devil's advocate for once. Why does the individual have a responsibility to consider other people's interests, if doing so would make them suffer? If they are inclined in a way by their genes and environment to have needs that would involve harming others, why should they prioritize the well-being of others over their own well-being? Do you have any reasons for them to do so assuming that they don't care about social norms or require any help or validation from other people in society, they don't have any internal moral compass, and that they have nothing to do with society and so not afraid of judgment?

point 2: I agree with this point. I was thinking that Ethical egoism doesn't tell you to not harm others, but it's surprising to know that it does say that. It's similar to my own belief system as I don't believe in the existence of values and so morals yet I believe in not just not harming but also helping people who suffer. Can you please suggest any way to resolve this inconsistency? Any way to reconcile the contradictory beliefs such as maybe that individuals can act in their own self interest but with the exception that it should not harm others? What do you have to say about this?

3. I agree with point three, but what if the individual does not wish to contribute to society in any way because they believe that just because they happened to be born into this society by chance does not mean they are obligated to do anything that people expect them to do, and if not following social norms and conventions gives them pleasure? What if the person does not want anything to do with society, then would you say that this is not a valid reason against ethical egoism?

Also give me some arguments against dialectical materialism.

Regarding moral antirealism:

It is true that morals and values are a construct of human societies, but that doesn't mean they don't have objective existence. They exist as objective facts about the way humans have evolved to live in groups, and they are not just arbitrary cultural constructions. The fact that moral values tend to converge across cultures and societies suggests that there is something objective about them, even if they are not "out there" in the universe like physical objects.

While it is true that it can be difficult to resolve moral disagreements, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's possible to engage in reasoned discussion and debate, to consider evidence and arguments, and to try to find common ground. It's also possible to recognize that different people may have different values and priorities, and to work towards compromises or solutions that take those differences into account.

Even in a deterministic universe, it's still possible to hold individuals responsible for their actions. We can still praise and blame people for the consequences of their actions, even if they were determined by their genes and environment. The fact that people don't have complete control over their actions doesn't mean they have no responsibility for them. We can still hold people accountable for their actions and seek to change their behavior through incentives and disincentives.

Regarding ethical egoism:

While individuals may not have a moral obligation to consider the interests of others, there are practical reasons for doing so. Society functions best when people cooperate and work together, and individuals often benefit from the cooperation and support of others. Additionally, harming others can lead to negative consequences, such as legal or social sanctions, that can harm the individual's own interests in the long run.

It's possible to reconcile the apparent contradiction between ethical egoism and the principle of not harming others by recognizing that one's own long-term self-interest may be served by avoiding actions that harm others. Helping others can also benefit the individual, either directly or indirectly, by improving the overall functioning of society and creating a more stable and prosperous environment for everyone.

Even if an individual does not wish to contribute to society or follow social norms, they still exist within a social context and may still benefit from the cooperation and support of others. Additionally, individuals may find that helping others brings them personal satisfaction or fulfillment, even if they do not feel a moral obligation to do so.

Regarding dialectical materialism:

One argument against dialectical materialism is that it assumes a deterministic view of history and human societies, ignoring the role of individual agency and the contingency of historical events. It also tends to oversimplify complex social phenomena and reduce them to simple economic or material factors, ignoring the role of culture, ideology, and other non-material factors in shaping human behavior and society.

Another argument against dialectical materialism is that it often leads to a simplistic and reductionist view of politics and social change, ignoring the complexity and diversity of political movements and social struggles. It tends to view political and social conflict as a straightforward clash between economic classes, ignoring the role of other factors such as race, gender, sexuality, and nationalism.

Finally, dialectical materialism has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence and its tendency to rely on abstract and speculative theories rather than concrete evidence and observation. It often relies on sweeping generalizations and oversimplifications, and tends to ignore or dismiss evidence that does not fit its theoretical framework.

On moral antirealism: 1- you say that just because everyone agrees on some moral values indicates that it may have some basis on objective reality, but what if it's just because we are humans constrained by the cognitive limitations of our brain, and that this is just a mental construct to make sense of the universe as we're unable to conceive it being any other way?

In other words, what if we are inclined to not believe in the existence or morals, or more like that our brains are not intelligent enough to try to think about a universe devoid of any values or morals, and if we were to achieve superintelligence, we could somehow rationality, justify with logic and reason, how anything that is considered unethical by the standards of the current ethical code prevalent in society is actually 'ethical' and the 'right' thing to do, and influence masses with the right persuasion skills, just as Hitler did in Nazi Germany and other cult leaders do from time to time?

2- I agree that just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's impossible, but how can we comment on it's possibility at all and say whether or not it's even possible? And I agree with everything you said but what if it's impossible to arrive at a common ground or solution that respects everyone's opinion in a debate where someone has to be at a relative disadvantage and we are unable to come up with a solution that respects everyone's opinion?

What if we are unable to please everyone and we need to take a decision fast because it's something concerning real world social issues? Then would you say that it's impossible and so this is not a valid reason against, or do you have any way to reconcile conflicting worldviews that are in direct opposition with no scope of reconciliation?

3- Why should we hold someone responsible if they could never do otherwise? If someone is unable to change their actions with their free will, then what could would praise or blame do? Why would you make someone suffer due to actions or events that they had not control over and that punishment or blame could not prevent? Would you not say that's being unfair to the person just because they were born with certain genes and a particular environment that predisposed them to feel compulsions to act in certain ways, we should try to help them or focus on preventing them from acting in undesirable ways rather than using methods such as praise or blame that never work?

Regarding ethical egoism: 1- What if the individual does not care about the practical benefits? What if the individual realizes that working and collaborating with society and contributing to it is beneficial to everyone, they can just not participate and derive all the benefits of society just like being a traitor as in meditations on Moloch or like a tragedy of the commons situation, where a person can be selfish and derive the same benefits as everyone else?

For example, I was once eating some Lays with my cousins and I explained how this reminds me of the tragedy of the commons which is a popular concept in Game Theory where I could defect and everyone would suffer as a consequence and everyone would get less than they would have if I had not defected, but I still get more than everyone; why would an individual not try to take advantage of or exploit the way society works for their own selfish benefits if they are inclined that way and it's rational for them to do so keeping in mind their values, morals and goals?

2- I like that idea, something I'd considered myself but forgot, thanks for reminding me. It's like the selfish reasons to be ethical that concerns dialectical materialism and what people call Karma, as every action could have a butterfly effect that could be beneficial or undesirable to you. But following the same reasoning, how do you know that it's only going to be beneficial and there are not going to be any disadvantages of prioritizing other people's self-interests, and that conversely, prioritizing my own self-interests is not going to leave me better off in total combining all the future expected benefits and downsides as compared to the aforementioned alternative?

In other words, what if an individual decides that following their own self-interests is going to not just make them happier and help them maximize the probability of successfully attaining their goals in the long run, but also make others happier, but that requires them to prioritize their own self-interests over the others, and maybe even harming some people for the greater good, as a necessary evil in order to prevent much greater harm, such as the trolly problem, or such as when you need to take care of yourself in order to help others later, and need to plan strategically in order to do the most good, such as in Effective Altruism, in situations where following your own selfish interests is going to be much more beneficial than not doing so. What do you have to say about this?

On dialectical materialism: 1- What about the current scientific evidence that agency and free will is an illusion? Why is it not possible that everything is just cause and effect, and perhaps randomness, but maybe if we could get near perfect knowledge or information about all physical laws of the universe, we could predict the future with a certain amount of confidence that it's the probability of such events occurring is high? Such as Laplace's Demon, Spinoza's God, and what's being done by forecasters and Metaculus. What do you have to say about this?

2- But why aren't other factors such as gender and race also included under dialectical materialism? There are all social constructs which arise from the several brains, and the brain is also composed of matter, and so it logically follows that it's just something that emerges out of matter and cause and effect, so is not that already included under dialectical materialism? I wish to comment on point three too but it's already too long and I'm afraid that you'll give me an error message and moreover I can't read it because of this text box obstructing my view, so I'll end here.

(It gives me an error message here. Reload. Try once again. Conversation continues. Oh, and I just asked it about Moral antirealism this time, so it doesn't give me an error message again.)

Regarding moral antirealism:

It is possible that our concept of morality is a mental construct that we use to make sense of the world around us, and that it is not based on any objective reality. However, the fact that there is some agreement across cultures and societies about certain moral values does suggest that there may be some underlying basis for those values. Even if we were to achieve superintelligence, we may still be limited by our cognitive abilities and may still rely on our moral intuitions to guide our decision-making.

It may be difficult to arrive at a consensus on moral issues, but that does not mean that it is impossible. In fact, many societies and organizations have developed systems for resolving moral disagreements, such as democratic decision-making processes or judicial systems. It is also important to recognize that compromise may be necessary in order to reach a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved. If a decision must be made quickly and there is no time for extensive debate or compromise, it may be necessary to rely on existing laws or guidelines to guide the decision-making process.

While it is true that an individual's actions are influenced by their genetics and environment, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot be held responsible for their actions. Even if an individual could not have acted differently, it may still be necessary to hold them accountable in order to deter future undesirable behavior and protect society. However, it is also important to consider factors such as mental illness or other conditions that may have contributed to the individual's behavior, and to approach punishment or treatment in a humane and just manner.

On moral antirealism- 1: yes, we would have to rely on our moral intuitions even if we achieve superintelligence but that's exactly my point; morals have no existence in reality and so we cannot figure out how to logically capture them with mathematics or formal logic, maybe develop a framework to discover our morals, but we have to rely on our intuition for decision making when the complexity if too high or there are other constraints that make it impossible for us to make a decision using logic, as you yourself say, and intuition depends on our emotions and inclinations which are determined by our genes and early environment and hence there is always going to be disagreement among people and rationalizations based on personal preferences, with little possibility of reconciliation due to the evidence that there is no absolute objective morality.

2: You give the example of democracy and judicial systems, but again these systems have several flaws and constantly receive backlash from people who are not satisfied or who suffer due to the flaws in such systems, or simply disagree due to clashing values and beliefs. And such systems keep changing according to changing ethical codes and morals in society across different cultures and the same cultures across different time periods. So even if as you say we are able to arrive at a consensus. how can you be so sure that that consensus implies the existence of absolute objective morals?

3: you say that we need to hold people responsible in order to deter future undesirable behaviour, but again- who decides what is "undesirable", and why should we follow what the majority believe is "undesirable" if someone is inclined to believe it's desirable and doesn't wish to conform? Moreover, you can hold them accountable but my initial question was that should we blame or praise them, and I believe that you have still not given me a satisfactory answer to that question yet.

You also mention "Mental illness" but we need to consider the fact that even the DSM-V keeps changing and we currently don't know what constitutes a mental "Illness" as it's definition keeps changing and we're unable to reliably, accurately, objectively, quantitatively, rigorously, scientifically record, measure, or detect qualia or internal subjective mental states, which is why psychiatry and psychology is so messy and unlike other mathematical sciences or fields of medicine. Do you agree?

I agree with you that our moral intuitions and inclinations are influenced by our genes and environment, and that this can lead to disagreement and subjectivity in ethical decision making. However, I don't think this necessarily implies that there is no objective morality. It may be the case that there is an objective morality that we are unable to fully comprehend or access with our current cognitive limitations. As for relying on intuition for decision making, I think it's important to balance our intuitions with rational deliberation and consideration of the consequences of our actions.

I agree that democratic and judicial systems have their flaws and are constantly evolving to reflect changing ethical codes and morals in society. However, I think the fact that these systems are able to evolve and adapt over time is evidence that there are underlying shared moral principles that are guiding these changes. Additionally, the fact that there is often disagreement and debate within these systems does not necessarily mean that there is no objective morality, but rather that it is complex and difficult to fully understand and apply in practice.

I think holding people accountable for their actions can serve multiple purposes, including deterrence of future undesirable behavior and promoting social cohesion. As for the question of blame or praise, I think it depends on the context and the individual's level of agency and responsibility. If someone is unable to control their actions due to mental illness or other factors beyond their control, then it may not be appropriate to blame or praise them for those actions. However, if someone has the ability to make choices and act in a morally responsible way, then it may be appropriate to hold them accountable and assign praise or blame accordingly.

Regarding your point about mental illness, I agree that there are many complexities and uncertainties in the field of psychiatry and psychology. However, I don't think this necessarily undermines the idea that certain mental states or conditions can be considered "illnesses" or that they can have a significant impact on a person's behavior and decision making. While there may be disagreements and changes in the definition and classification of mental illness, I think it's still important to address and treat these conditions in a compassionate and evidence-based manner.

I agree with your point that certain mental conditions can be considered "illnesses" and impact daily functioning and cause significant suffering and distress, but that doesn't mean that doctors and psychologists are free to use such definitions in order to make people conform to the prevalent code of morality and force them to change against their will, just like it's happening with neurodivergent people not with morals but personal preferences.

So why should we disregard someone's morals just because they are different and inclined to believe that's the correct way of doing things because they like it that way, and do you have better reasons than labelling them as "mentally ill" or "Unstable" and unfit for society just in order to force them to conform or live in asylums or mental institutions?

1- I agree that it's important to balance out intuition with rational deliberation, but our rationality itself is dependent on our values, which further depend on our emotions, inclinations, and so genes and environment again, and so your argument that we must use rationality to think about emotions is flawed because rationality itself involves having certain core values, such as logic or compassion, depending on which you plan your actions in order to live according to those values, but you cannot, as you said, use rationality itself to counterbalance your values because your values determine your rationality and what's rational for you might not be rational for others as they might be inclined to have different core values.

2- Yes, I agree that such debates and disagreements doesn't imply that there doesn't exist any objective morality, but my point is that it also doesn't indicate that there does exist any objective morality, as you are saying. Just because they can constantly adapt and improve only means that we as humans are prioritizing science and logic as it's helping us make better decisions and improve lives, but when it comes to values and morals, it's unclear what's the right thing to do, as in this case mathematical tools and logic fails, which is why it was considered ethical to make beings suffer in the past and even now what's considered ethical might not be considered ethical in the future, same for what's considered unethical, and so just because we are changing doesn't mean we're "improving" because that requires an absolute standard to measure what we are improving in relation to, and there is no objective superior or inferior way of doing things, even relatively, let along objective absolute morals that you are advocating for. 3- I agree with this point.

Regarding your first point, I agree that we should not use mental illness as an excuse to force people to conform to societal norms or moral codes. Rather, we should respect individuals' autonomy and preferences, as long as they are not causing harm to others.

As for your second point, I agree that rationality itself is dependent on our values and emotions, and that different people can have different core values that influence their rationality. However, I don't think this undermines the importance of rationality in decision making. While values may influence our reasoning, we can still use rational thinking to evaluate the consequences and potential outcomes of our actions, and to weigh the competing interests at stake.

Regarding your third point, I understand your skepticism about the existence of objective morality. While I do believe that there are some moral principles that are widely shared across different cultures and time periods (such as the principle of not causing harm to others), I agree that there is no absolute standard by which we can measure moral progress. Morality is a human construct, and as such, it is subject to change and evolution over time. However, I still believe that we can strive to develop moral principles that are as objective and universal as possible, based on reason and empirical evidence, even if we cannot claim that they are absolute and unchanging.

I wish I could continue this right now, but I'll have to stop for now, sometime in the near future, because now it's 3 AM and my mom is going to murder me anytime now and I don't want to die yet because of all these unsolved questions and comments that my ongoing projects.. but I do have a lot to say to that comment, but if I start writing now, it's never going to end. Let me know if you have any comments.

Bonus: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hUPDw8Fjd7MYb0OXycYYo1jLySedICXh_bP324FYHGs/edit?usp=sharing

Some writings from my notepads:

Never attribute malicious intent when the simpler explanation might be ignorance or stupidity, but do keep in mind that people with malicious intent might use this to their own advantage by making you believe that it's stupidity or ignorance than malice. Try to not do this yourself because honesty is usually the best decision in most cases, though I'm obviously biased because honesty is one of my own core values, but my point is that it's a calculated risk and I'm not encouraging anyone to try this, and anyone who does this ought to also accept the worse-case scenario and know how to reframe, rationalize or deal with it if the expected utility exceeds the potential, possible downsides, considering the opportunity costs, while doing the activity and in the future does the undesirable consequence occur. When unsure, be honest. Honesty is more powerful than most people think, even for their own selfish motives it's usually better to be honest.

Assume everyone is selfish, be cynical and misanthropic and act accordingly so no one can mess mess you, as the world usually has skewed incentives, but you can give off the impression of assuming ignorance or stupidity, no malicious intent, as is usually the case, though it's indistinguishable unless you're a behavioural analysis expert who can read minds; so it's a win-win, you just assume people are ignorant or stupid, or even better, mentally ill, because that's what people are when they are too neurotic or angry and act irrationally to harm or hurt others, and it helps to set low expectations and think they're ill instead of taking stuff personally and letting it affect your own mental health.

And at the same time you bear no malicious intent towards anyone, which is helpful if your core values include kindness and compassion, and empathy. Try to stay in your system-2 logical rational brain through whatever works for you- for me it's stuff like focusing on the present, focusing on the breath, taking dep breaths, listening to instrumental music, some philosophical tools like memento mori and those related to absurdism. Maybe meditation.

~

Those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, fortunate enough to be born i a position of wealth privilege and power, should acknowledge that it was just due to accident of birth and random chance and blind luck that they were born this way and they could have been born as a starving dying kid in a third world war struck country or dictatorship. Same goes for those who achieve a position of wealth and power and get successful later in life, they need to realize that their genes and environment, the society they were born into, not having any kind of limiting disabilities or disorder, they should be grateful for this and actively try to help those less fortunate with genes and traumatic early environments or lack of opportunities or connections instead of saying that they deserve to suffer.

I went from being a very ugly, fat, extremely introverted weird and stupid kid to an average looking, extremely introverted weird kid with at least above average intelligence (got an IQ test, estimated 3 SDs, range of 140-50, but I believe that's too unrealistic, I might be more like 115, definitely above 110, not more than 120, but I'll get the results soon anyway) and even though such things, being dependent on random chance and luck, should not be given as much important and influence humans due to their cognitive biases, it does, and so at least we should be aware of these biases if we can't be completely free from them.

Just like that experiment where a woman transformed into a man and discovered that they got more respect and faster promotion. Also said that being a woman they never realized this is the extent of discrimination until they experienced it themselves. Being taller, more attractive, having a deeper voice, these things make it easier to get the respect you deserve. Everyone deserves to be respected. Everyone deserves to be heard. Everyone deserves to be understood. Everyone deserves to be loved. That's consistent with my idea of morality, and I'm going to do the rational thing and make sure that I do all the right things to maximize the probability of me achieving my desires goals and help the relatively less fortunate, keeping in mind technicalities like the diversity trade offs and pareto principle.

Separate what is the case from what you believe should be the case. What is, descriptive, depends on the scientific objective external observable events in the universe, what we observe and can develop falsifiable experiments for and capture with the rigour of mathematics and the mathematical sciences.

What should be, the normative theory, on the other hand, depends on your beliefs about the best way to do it, the most optimal way to do it. And more likely than not that is going to involve- till now it always has but I'm willing to consider a possibility I might have overlooked where it doesn't- subjective values, which have no basis in the observable universe and currently can't be captured by mathematics, and values also happen to depend on emotions, which depend on inclinations, which depend on genes and early environment, your brain, which is why people with similar beliefs usually agree and are more likely to stick together and become friends. What should be, especially in matters involving moral philosophy and ethics, law and political matters for instance, are going to be hard to solve because someone would have inclinations that make them prioritize different values because they have genes and brain that produces a different amount of emotional affect when they think about it or experience such events. Which is why it's important to keep this distinction in mind. I have explained some finer distinctions elsewhere in another post.

There is an objective observable descriptive mathematical scientific thing, then one involving first intuitive thoughts from system 1, and for me at least, feelings or emotions inexplicable that are usually hard to capture in words yet possible, which is separate from the subjective mental experience or qualia; that hard problem of consciousness, what it's like to be a cat or bat, feels distinct from the feelings and emotions that the brain experiences, and the intuitive thoughts that arise from desires, inclinations, also separate, then the normative of how it should be, also different, but still is driven by your inclinations and what you feel should be right as it usually involves core values and preferences and priorities, goals. Just like the open source textbook on history and philosophy of social science which says nothing in history is truly unbiased and having unbiased accurate descriptive accounts of any event is impossible.

Ask me for the textbook I'll find it somewhere in my notepads, also reminds me I need to complete it, read about one third if I'm not wrong, same with the sequences, and biases, and the social psychology textbook. Need to focus more on reading and learning now, less on writing as I've been writing a lot for the past few weeks, almost 2 or maybe even 3 months. Also consistent with my idea how you can rationalize anything and everything if it involves values.

Even if it doesn't and you know some neuroscience, you can do it. Not even that actually, just some psychology, logic and language, anyone can learn these skills, and learn to justify and convince anyone of anything which is why we need to have a strong sense of morality, especially people who are prone to this, as you'd know if you read my other posts. Nothing truly seems objective or absolute, everything seems meaningless and devoid of values or anything, still I'm just having fun playing the game enjoying the journey as a little mental exercise, a fun video game, much more interesting than stuff my peers play that they also call video games.

Same as how people watch movies and good and evil and nonsense, and I am like look a the real world, there is real evil like undesirable mental experiences and subjective mental states that cause suffering, yet there is good in evil in good in evil and so on and it's so interesting, don't you see? The whole universe, so beautifully organized, more interesting puzzle than anything just if you recognize it's a puzzle, it's so amazing, absurd, astonishing, never ceases to amuse me. Not just the mysterious, not to worship my ignorance and my own brain's limitations, but also the science we know, and the mathematics, the philosophy, it's so fun. Everything comes down to mathematics and philosophy eventually. All sciences come down to mathematics, and every subject eventually comes to philosophy.

From my post on Dahmer, something I felt must be included here as it's relevant to topics covered in this post:

Maybe it's confirmation bias, just like you see what you want to see, cherry picking data, p-hacking, not deliberate but just because it's on your mind, now I'm seeing it everywhere. Back when I was in hostel, I was called down by some seniors- I describe this incident in my post hostel journal- but in brief, I was uncharacteristically calm and indifferent and, I mean, I didn't want to offend anybody, but I think I was being too logical and said something that- I should probably not have said, because judging by everyone's reactions, I just burned someone really bad, as everyone reacts usually after a clever comeback that butchers a person, even though I didn't mean to, I just said it, and then he came towards me charging and for a second I thought it's going to end here and now, though for some reason- this still baffles me- I felt no fear at all.

But that senior was held back, and I apologized and said I had not malicious intent and I was just expressing my thoughts freely and I didn't mean to offend anyone but if I mistakenly hurt someone- again no fear, just because I dislike hurting someone emotionally or physically, the same as when my cousin snatched my notepad once- another incident I describe in another post- and I felt indescribable rage and then I- it was hard to control but I stayed back, did the right thing, as he is not the thinking type, the more tank physically dominating type, doesn't think too deeply and isn't open-minded. And what's even more interesting: the same senior later called me to a room at night alone and said something eerily similar to "I don't like it kid" (remember that scene from Dahmer, shortly before he was bludgeoned to death by the same person?) and that he doesn't like this attitude and it could get me in trouble with other seniors. I didn't argue of course, just nodded and went back. Just like Dahmer seemed to do in prison, annoying inmates, I don't know if he did it deliberately or if he was just "passing time" as he said, and if he didn't feel any fear; it's unlikely he felt any fear; psychopaths usually don't. I'm not one, by the way, though there are traits that I seem to have in common, I'm not impulsive, don't feel the need to manipulate or deceive, and don't derive pleasure from watching other sentient beings suffer, in fact I feel depressed knowing that I exist in a world where possibly sentient beings are suffering and no one- even neurotypicals, especially neurotypicals- seems to care, not trying to help those less fortunate than them. Hence my ongoing projects, which I describe in another post.

Update: Normative theories that involve how you believe you 'should' do something either depend on something about the world- if it does, then we can use the scientific method and mathematics to objectively, quantitatively try to figure out the behaviour or methods that would allow us to maximize the probability of achieving our desired goals (what is my goal, what are all the alternatives and associated probabilities and opportunity costs? which alternative would make it most likely for me to make a decision to allow me to maximize the likelihood of achieving my goals? why? what can go wrong and has anyone tried this in the past.. you get the point)

Or- normative theories depend on subjective values (morality, honesty, kindness, selflessness, loyalty, humility) which depend on emotions (when you read about it or experience a situation in real life that requires you to decide if your actions are aligned with your values, do you feel happy, afraid, guilty, anxious, anything that makes you think that this is a value you like and wish to cultivate, or not- this also determines your beliefs)- normative theories depend on values which depend on emotions which depend on your brain which is shaped by genes and early environment, factors out of your direct control, and so you not only discover your inclinations, but 1) values seem to have no basis in the relatively more objective observable scientific events in the external mathematical universe (think about it; it's just all exchange of matter and atoms in a process; universe doesn't care about 'right' or 'wrong' or meaning, it's a quirk of the human brain, and so you need to see things for what they are if you want to make good decisions and accomplish your goals and be more rational)-

and 2) it also means that in matters regarding values (morality, ethics, spirituality and religion, meaning of life, political philosophy, contemporary debates related to social issues such as euthanasia, abortion rights, queer community and so on) there is no single 'truth' and it depends on your inclinations, emotions- genes and early environment, so if I tweak a person's brain or just use simple psych tools with some logical and language skills I could make anything sound convincing even if I don't really believe it- it's a real thing in psychology called rationalization, my brain is really good at it and so I need to be especially aware of not being biased and the reason open-mindedness is one of my core values (trying to actively knock down a belief by finding counterarguments and not falling for biases like strawman).

And so you could say that your logic in such matters (when normative theories include subjective values) is driven by emotions. You can try to be perfectly logical, but cognitive dissonance is an illusion for people not intelligent enough to rationalize based on their true preferences and desires, in my opinion, and all this would be more clear once we have artificial superintelligence or simply better versions of GPT or something.

Or just a person with good enough logical and linguistic ability- give me something to rationalize and my brain will do it very easily, which is the reason that you try to be as objective as possible, but after a point, you stop. You stop when you believe that it's becoming a game of rationalization, or that one side's arguments are weaker than the other, has logical fallacies or other inconsistencies, or just that you've gone past the point of diminishing returns or diminishing marginal utility which means that all time and resources expended now are not likely to result in an improvement worth the resources and the opportunity costs of the resources not spent elsewhere.