Although my article about Logicomorality is quite old, some of you still find it interesting. I really liked thoughtful comments made by "a friend", so I will continue my discussion.
This morality could be applied not only to humans, but also animals, machines and whatever comes in mind, even God.
It seems that Matas has an (the?) extraordinary ability to grasp and then formulate the theory of morality from God's point of view and thus apply it to everyone.
The first question that struck my mind is "why can't a human precisely define the words he uses every day?". Let's put God aside, I use him merely as a definition of omnipotent and omniscient being. These words of a friend sound like "no one can formulate what is morality", but my whole post was an attempt to do so and I just simply ask "why not?". If one can find another definition, I would really like to hear it as I don't like sayings like "no one can do this", "no point in defining something that is undefinable" or "don't do it, because it smells funny".
First of all - is it possible for a human being to know ALL the necessary variables? Secondly - even if he knows (let's presume it's possible to know this), does it mean he does 'the very of his best'?
Yes, according to laws of physics - no human can know all exact variables. It's just that a man who has a more precise knowledge acts better than another. By looking at the definition of God - he knows all variables, so he always acts perfectly good (I don't question here whether he is or what he does, etc.). Friend's another question ("does it mean he does 'the very of his best'?") is really interesting, but according to the very definition of Logicomorality it is not important: only actions can be judged to be good or bad, your intentions don't play a thing here. For example, if you understand that by stealing a car you can go to jail for up to 3 years or earn extra money by selling it in black market, and you choose to steal it - you are acting better than another thief, who steals a car, but he's not sure where to sell it, how to transport or mask it.
My most important point was that a man can judge what is worse and what is better, not by looking at some man-made statements, but by objectively analyzing situation. Even random actions can be good if you know the outcome of all probable situations (for example, you win by rolling 6 with a dice, otherwise you loose).
Morality can be reduced to this level, because this makes it clear and comparable, far more objective.
Oh, can it really? If so, then that sort of reduction seems to be pretty tomfool, because it airly follows the rule 'if I can't explain it, let's reduce it to the level I can explain it'. Is it worth doing so do you think?
I am amazed how such assumptions can arise from my simple text. My one of the first sentences was "The purpose of this text is an attempt to describe morality without the interference of any ideology." This truly shows that my friend thinks that no one can explain today's morality (whatever that is...), but all I wanted, was to shift morality from the uncertainty it has fallen into. For example, today we believe, that killing another man is a bad thing, but a curious mind might ask "why is that?". I bet you could give a couple of answers to that, like "it causes pain to him, his friends" or "you don't want this to be done to you" or "killing one of your species reduces the population" or smth. I might answer "I don't care" or "he's a bad guy - kills other people" or "he would feel no pain" or "has no friends". So once again "why killing another man is bad?" and I bet no one has the one and only right answer or have you? (Please, excuse me for my harsh example, I am not some maniac, just wanted to illustrate my point clearly.)
Afterall, my friend really spotted a mistake I made: it's indeed bad to use word like "reduce". It's rather a new type of thinking than some reduced level of traditional ideas. The meaning which was put inside that sentence ("Morality can be reduced to this level") is that morality can be clarified, without intervention of any ideologies.
How are laws possible then if there is no determinism? Besides, if you say that everything is just probable, you possibly mean that 'necessary everything is probable' and not 'probably everything is probable'? Or do you not?
These questions appear to be a bit off topic, but I can try answering them, as my friend is into studies of law. Of course all the laws of physics are merely approximations in the real world. Why are they called "laws" - I don't know. A physical definition for a "law": generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature. Determinism doesn't play a role in defining law: physicists say that a dice can roll 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 - that's a law, you can't roll 7 with a single dice. It doesn't matter which number you get while rolling, the law only states the options.
I am not sure how to answer next question, but the second statement "probably everything is probable" looks like from the series "Every generalization is false. Including this one." Anyway, I don't quite get the meaning and the context of the word "probable", never used it. Maybe my friend will clarify this in future.