The 7th Assumption

Welcome to the Objective Experience.

“If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer.” -The Objective Experience

This assumption is an odd addition to the other pragmatic assumptions, but in order to establish any form of a morality we need to, at least, make one more assumption on top of the other assumptions. This is my attempt at establishing an objective morality.

This morality doesn’t define what is good, but what is bad. It defines bad as suffering that is not in the best interest of the sufferer or senseless suffering. The reasoning behind this is that senseless suffering can be either physical or psychological damage.These damages cause stress to the thing experiencing it. That stress leads to even more health issues. It is scientifically detrimental, to the well being of anything, to senselessly suffer, thus a universe that doesn't contain senseless suffering is better, in terms of well being, than a universe that does.

“If something possesses the ability to suffer” is the first portion of this morality. In the scientific community, suffering is mainly observed through changes in behavior and comparing the anatomy that controls human pain to other animals. Like intelligence, we can’t quite quantify varying levels of suffering, but we can establish that certain things can suffer. This morality only honors rights to those who can suffer.

“and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer” is the  second portion of this morality. This portion establishes a way to lose the right essentially through cause senseless suffering to something else. This allows the sufferer to defend itself even through means of more suffering. In a case where excessive force is reached with self defense, the roles would become reversed. So you have to not be currently trying to cause senseless suffering.

“it possess the right to live free of suffering” is the third portion of this morality. This is where the right is actually applied. If the something meets the first two criteria, it possess the right to live free of senseless suffering.

“unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer” is the fourth and final portion of this morality. This allows suffering to be cause as long as it is in the best interest of the one suffering. Forcing a child to go to school is an example of this. As is being forced to pay taxes as an adult. Once again, science should be used as an indication of what something’s best interests are. We can observe that people who don’t finish or even attend school lead worse lives. Not only financially, but in terms of safety, independence and overall quality.

The very foundation of this morality is an assumption. A blind assumption that is made only if the first six assumptions are true. We can’t test or verify any of them, but living your life becomes extremely difficult and impractical if they are not assumed. I argue, in terms of morality, that the same is true of the seventh assumption.

“We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are around us.” -John Locke

‘,:)

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

http://education.seattlepi.com/effects-high-school-students-not-finishing-high-school-3118.html

Vaccinations

Welcome to the Objective Experience. This will be the first real argument for this blog, and it will not be about whether vaccines work or whether they’re dangerous. Vaccines work, and they are not dangerous to those who have a normal-working immune system and to those who are not allergic to the ingredients of the vaccine. The Youtube channel “Healthcare Triage” has a few videos thoroughly explaining that vaccines work and are not dangerous. Two of them are aptly titled “Vaccines Don't Cause Autism: Healthcare Triage #12” and “Vaccines and Herd Immunity”. The evidence is overwhelming. So this will not be an argument for whether we should get vaccinated, but about whether parents should have the right to choose whether their child gets vaccinated.

Parents should not have the right to choose whether their child rides in a car seat, and they do not. In all fifty states,  there are laws that require a child, of a certain size, to ride in a car seat or a booster seat. The rights of the parents remain unacknowledged when comes to this topic. This is because it is fully recognized that a child is substantially safer when riding in a restrained seat that fits him/her. Vaccines are of this same certainty.

Parents should not have the right to choose whether their child gets vaccinated, and they do. A child, who is not vaccinated, is extremely more susceptible to the diseases and illnesses that other children are vaccinated from. This is not only horrendously dangerous for the unvaccinated child, but it is even more dangerous for those who can not get vaccinated due to a compromised immune system. The costs, of not vaccinating your children, can be deadly, while the benefits are nonexistent.

There needs to be new legislation that addresses the issue of vaccination because it is child abuse to choose to have a child be more susceptible to diseases and illnesses that can kill them. The rights of the affected come first. Especially when it is the right to live.

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.” -Dalai Lama

‘,:)

Sources:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/childsafety_laws.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65l1YAVaYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuiHFg_nfnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJqderdey_I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_npl3A3KHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjlZO2UkT8Q

Beliefs

Welcome to the Objective Experience. Terms are important, and defining your terms is even more important when you're discussing controversial topics, especially when you discuss them with people that don’t share the same opinion as you. Religion is a really good example of this. People, often times, are fuzzy about what theist, atheist, gnostic, and agnostic mean, and it’s not their fault. Online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster are atrocious at defining these terms. That’s where most of us will get our definitions from, but it is essential that those definitions make sense. It’s important to note, at this time, that the words atheist and agnostic can not exist without the words theist and gnostic, and that’s what brings us to our first term, a-.

The use of the letter a- in front of a word is of greek origin. An example of this is asymptomatic. Where symptomatic means having a certain symptom, asymptomatic means not having a certain symptom. Asymptomatic simply means not symptomatic. A- simply means not.

Gnostic also has a greek origin. The origin of the word is gnostikos which is the adjective related to gnosis or knowledge. Gnostic means to have knowledge of or to know. So when a- is used in front of gnostic, it means to not know. Agnostic means to not know.

Theist is another word that originated from the greek. It is the adjective related to theism. Theism derives from the Greek theos meaning god. We use it to describe someone believes in a god or gods. A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. Atheist simply means not a theist, which logically equates to someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

It’s important to note at this point that the words know and believe do not mean the same thing. Know means to be aware of something based on observation and believe simply means to accept something as true. Observation is not required to believe.

For clarity, here’s a table of the four terms being combined.

	Gnostic	Agnostic
Theist	Someone who believes in a god or gods and knows whether a god or gods exists. “I know god is real.”	Someone who believes in a god or gods and doesn’t know whether a god or gods exists. “I believe in god, but I’ve never seen any evidence of him.”
Atheist	Someone who doesn’t believe in a or gods and knows whether a god or gods exists. “I know there are no gods.”	Someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods and doesn’t know whether a god or gods exists. “I don’t believe, but I’m willing to if there’s evidence.”

Hopefully this post cleared up any misconceptions you had about what these words mean.

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” -Confucius

‘,:)

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Assumptions

Welcome to the Objective Experience. This is a blog that is devoted to finding the truth. It will express an unbiased, impartial, non partisan, neutral opinion about the world. So to start things off, I must explain what is objective, and to do that, I must explain why only one thing is truly objective. That thing is the fact that there are thoughts. It’s bit vague, but I can’t really get more specific without being intellectually dishonest. If I want to write about anything else, I have to make assumptions.

We all make assumptions, but there are assumptions that we are forced to make if we want to interact with any part of reality. The first is that the universe exists. The second is that the universe is intelligible. The third is that models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability. These three assumptions may seem odd to think of as assumptions, but currently there isn’t a way for us to determine the validity of them. We assume them because it is practical to do so. Now the scientific method is what we use to determine specific and general characteristics about the universe, but even before we can use that, we must make three more assumptions. The first assumption of science is that there are natural causes for things that happen in the universe. The second is that evidence from the universe can be used to learn about those causes. The third is that there is consistency in the causes that operate in the universe. After making these six assumptions, you can begin to figure out the going-ons of our universe.

This blog will also attempt to cover a lot of controversies. Some of these controversies will involve morality. Morality is especially not objective. Your current morals are probably based solely on empathy and the influences of the environment you grew up in. So naturally, morality will be different from person to person. With that being said, I’m going to propose a moral code. Given that the first six assumptions I mentioned are true, I can make this assumption about morality. If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer. The reason why this assumptions requires the first six assumptions to be true is that suffering itself can and is determined by science. Scientists understand how we feel pain fairly well. It’s not until we look at animals, that we share a very distant relative with, do we start becoming unsure on whether they experience suffering of any kind. For example, we don’t know if insects can suffer, but we’re convinced that mammals can. As for the part about suffering that is in the best interest of the sufferer, there are many aspects of life where we are forced to do things we do not want to do. Going to school as a child and paying taxes as an adult would be examples of this. You’re being forced to do something that may cause you to suffer, but it is still in your best interest to do it. Last but not least, you can lose the seventh assumption right if you cause something to suffer, where that something doesn’t benefit from the suffering. This allows for self defence and the defence of others.

So from this point on, I’m going to write with the idea that the following seven assumptions are true:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe is intelligible.
3. Models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability.
4. There are natural causes for things that happen in the universe.
5. Evidence from the universe can be used to learn about those causes.
6. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the universe.
7. If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer.

If these assumptions are true, what I write about will be objective. I will try to add to this blog monthly so come back soon.

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -Voltaire

‘,:)

Sources:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals