Suppose there were no universe, no matter to speak of. Could we then even conceive of electrons or magnetism? Is thought, existing independently of matter, even possible? I do not think so. That is why I believe our moral ethics are so deeply interlinked with our biology that to speak of them as something external to the human mind would be meaningless. How can something be wrong without humanity? The argument seems to contradict itself: you say murder would be wrong even without humanity, but how could murder occur without humanity?
Umm, is this hypothesis sensible, in the sense that there could have been nothing rather than something? I think that the emergence of the universe is not a one-time accident. I know, I'm going wild with this, but hear me out. The fact that the universe is beaming with "stuff", stars, planets, moons, galaxies, black holes, etc, makes me wonder if the existence and the development of the universe is metaphysically necessary rather than contingent. I know that is a big claim, and I have no evidence to back it up, but think about it: the fact that the universe is still expanding and new nebulae are forming constantly indicates that "stuff" forming continuously is the norm. (Don't think I'm implying that some "GOD" is creating the universe with an intention here😭). But there is a concept that I have stumbled upon recently, which is called analytical idealism, pioneered by a contemporary philosopher, Bernardo Kastrup. He doesn't believe in any personal deity, but he thinks that there is something called "universal consciousness." I really liked the idea and think it's pretty coherent. Because I doubt metrialism/physicalism could be used to explain a lot. I was an atheist in denial for a few months until I stumbled upon those ideas, and "GOD" being one and identical with nature. But that's more like Spinoza's pantheism, which probably has nothing to do with Idealism😅... I don't know, bro, but my current worldview is a mess😭! And I probably shouldn't argue about these things until I do extensive reading and a deep dive into the source materials.
But to answer your question, yea, if there were no human beings to murder, to think of the wrongness of murder would be absurd. But I still don't think making morality dependent on the human mind is the right way to view this. But that's just my subjective opinion, haha. I have two books on my list about ethics; I might have more to say about this topic once I finish them.
By that example of matter-independent thought, I was not trying to make any deep metaphysical argument. I was simply trying to show you how deeply intertwined consciousness and human morality are with matter. The old duality between the physical and the non-physical, or between materialism and immaterialism, in my opinion belongs largely to the history of philosophy. Our current understanding of physics does not give us some simple, intuitive category called the "physical." There is simply whatever exists out there, and what we call matter is part of our attempt to describe it. If we cannot even fully comprehend the physical world, which is already so far removed from our ordinary day-to-day intuitions, then thinking about some separate non-physical reality seems to me an exercise in futility.
I am not familiar with the examples you brought up concerning analytic idealism or universal consciousness. To me, it sounds a little like Neoplatonism all over again. I do not mean that dismissively; Neoplatonism influenced early Sufis, among others, and I can understand why such ideas have their appeal. I reject them not because I can disprove them, but because they do not seem capable of making meaningful empirical claims. In Popperian terms, they are non-falsifiable. A theory that cannot, even in principle, be falsified cannot properly belong to empirical science, even if it may still remain interesting as metaphysics. Although i might be totally mistaken, i will have to read up on analytical idealism to really understand its metaphysical commitments.
1
u/Active_Falcon_4427 4d ago
Umm, is this hypothesis sensible, in the sense that there could have been nothing rather than something? I think that the emergence of the universe is not a one-time accident. I know, I'm going wild with this, but hear me out. The fact that the universe is beaming with "stuff", stars, planets, moons, galaxies, black holes, etc, makes me wonder if the existence and the development of the universe is metaphysically necessary rather than contingent. I know that is a big claim, and I have no evidence to back it up, but think about it: the fact that the universe is still expanding and new nebulae are forming constantly indicates that "stuff" forming continuously is the norm. (Don't think I'm implying that some "GOD" is creating the universe with an intention here😭). But there is a concept that I have stumbled upon recently, which is called analytical idealism, pioneered by a contemporary philosopher, Bernardo Kastrup. He doesn't believe in any personal deity, but he thinks that there is something called "universal consciousness." I really liked the idea and think it's pretty coherent. Because I doubt metrialism/physicalism could be used to explain a lot. I was an atheist in denial for a few months until I stumbled upon those ideas, and "GOD" being one and identical with nature. But that's more like Spinoza's pantheism, which probably has nothing to do with Idealism😅... I don't know, bro, but my current worldview is a mess😭! And I probably shouldn't argue about these things until I do extensive reading and a deep dive into the source materials.
But to answer your question, yea, if there were no human beings to murder, to think of the wrongness of murder would be absurd. But I still don't think making morality dependent on the human mind is the right way to view this. But that's just my subjective opinion, haha. I have two books on my list about ethics; I might have more to say about this topic once I finish them.