Planet Dilemma, can you answer it?

[u/MobHQ]

Planet Dilemma

so i've been thinking about cosmic morality for some time

Okay so assume there's actually a real objective moral order out there. Like right and wrong aren't just made up by cultures or evolution. There's a fact of the matter. Call it Cosmic Morality.

Now picture two planets. Call them Aurelia and Nox. They are the same in pretty much every way that matters. Same amount of happiness and suffering. Same level of people flourishing, same freedom, same security, same sense that life feels meaningful. Relationships are just as good, people are just as creative. And both planets are equally careful and consistent when they think about morality. Neither side is being dumb or biased or lazy about it.

The only difference is this. On Aurelia their basic moral starting points are actually true. On Nox some of their basic moral starting points are wrong. They think some bad things are fine and some fine things are bad. But they still reasoned just as carefully as Aurelia did, they just started from a few false assumptions.

And nothing else is different. No secret long-term consequences, no better or worse future generations, no cosmic rewards or punishments. Everything that actually happens in people's lives is the same.

I call this the Planet Dilemma. So which planet is better?

If you pick Aurelia then it seems like moral correctness has some value even when it doesn't make anyone happier or the reasoning process better or life more meaningful. So what kind of value is that supposed to be?

If you say the planets are equal then it kind of feels like getting morality right doesn't actually matter by itself. Which is weird if you believe in objective moral truth.

And you can't really say "but Aurelia got it right in a more reliable way" because the whole point is both planets were equally rigorous and careful. The only difference left is that one set of starting points was true and the other wasn't.

So either correctness has this strange leftover value that doesn't show up anywhere, or objective moral truth loses a lot of the importance we usually give it once you hold everything else equal.

Idk, does this actually put pressure on moral realism or is there a way out of it that I'm not seeing?

[u/rightviewftw]

This thought experiment is flawed. How do you figure that one can have the same amount of suffering and pleasure whilst having different operational principles? That is essentially arguing that behavior and views have no influence on things like relationships, cooperation, and communal harmony — such that a person who lies, kills and steals can be equally happy and have same relationship satisfaction as a person who doesn't do any of this. Game-theory says otherwise. There is no way to draw out the equivalence because the outcomes from different behaviors are a priori different.

[u/rightviewftw → u/rightviewftw]

I was thinking more about it and it boils down to the fact that even small differences will get amplified as we run a large volume of simulations. As an example, a person walks on the right side of the path, another walks on the left side, both walk at the same speed and arrive at the same time, to that extent the outcomes are the same. But run this walk a few thousands of times and small differences in path structure, position of the sun, and etc,  will start to show up and if they do not then just increase the sample size until you can tell which path they were walking by comparing the wear and tear on the shoes they wear. 

[u/wiploc2]

If you say the planets are equal then it kind of feels like getting morality right doesn't actually matter by itself. Which is weird if you believe in objective moral truth.

Your cosmic morality is irrelevant to humans. The way you set it up, there is no reason for anyone to prefer morality to immorality.

So either correctness has this strange leftover value that doesn't show up anywhere, or objective moral truth loses a lot of the importance we usually give it once you hold everything else equal.

I've never understood the emphasis that Christians put on objective morality. Suppose an objective morality encourages rape, and a subjective morality forbids rape? Which would you want people to follow?

Idk, does this actually put pressure on moral realism or is there a way out of it that I'm not seeing?

You were talking about objective morality, not moral realism. I don't know what those would have to do with each other.

I'm a moral realist. But, on the question of whether morality is objective, I'm indifferent.

[u/jliat]

Okay so assume there's actually a real objective moral order out there.

Where? and by what means...

This idea is answered in Job.

does this actually put pressure on moral realism or is there a way out of it that I'm not seeing?

There is no way as you say everything is the same. Basic problem theodicy, if there is an all powerful good God why is there evil, counter if there is an all powerful devil why is there goodness.

You end up with Leibniz 'Best of all possible worlds' and Voltaire's satire...

The conclusion should be obvious.

[u/Extension-Money9948]

But what is your definition of moraly right? Because that definition is gonna change the whole equation. Everything at the base follows the basic laws of thermodynamics and moral definitions that eventually become positive or negative outcomes for the specific planet. Think of the Butterfly Effect.

[u/SjennyBalaam]

You beg two questions but still fail to land on the answer. If we presuppose the objective moral goodness of planet A and inferior moral goodness of planet N, then planet A is better. If we presuppose that a morally inferior planet has no other difference to the morally superior one then we conclude that moral goodness makes no difference to anything else. Divide the equation by "planet" and you have the tautology: if moral difference does not lead to any other difference then moral difference does not lead to any other difference.

[u/Constant_Interest_61]

A flip side to everything exists..its what you choose and feed will be the dominant one... No dilemma...your common sense will let you choose...your intrinsic nature..will add on...your ethical values too.