How do you arrive at you morality?

[rlnb]

I am interested in understanding the principles and processes that you use to decide what is right and wrong. I am not interested in knowing what is your position on any particular moral issue but in understanding the principles you use to arrive at a position.
Or if your morality is a result of a reasoned decision or is based on what 'feels' right?

 

[Black Rose]

taking that chance in life, (faith), sometimes it doesn't feel right at all.

Hard choices are hard.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I just take principles from people I consider to be my role models and combine them with my sense of aesthetics. There’s no logic, just aesthetics.

 

[onesteptwostep]

For me morality is more emotion than logic. I'm a bit inclined to David Hume's position on the matter. So basically, morality is ingrained in us- the ontology of the imprint is a much more interesting question. Why do we have it.. where are we going with it, etc.

 

[The Grey Man]

For me morality is more emotion than logic. I'm a bit inclined to David Hume's position on the matter. So basically, morality is ingrained in us- the ontology of the imprint is a much more interesting question. Why do we have it.. where are we going with it, etc.

David Hume's position is the correct one. Matters of value cannot be inferred from matters of fact. Now, this doesn't mean that there are no matters of value, just that they are not publicly demonstrable, like the propositions of science, but private objects of introspection. Specifically, they are acts of will that double as moral sentiments.

You don't arrive at morality; you are morality.

 

[Polaris]

By trial and error...

 

[Cognisant]

Suppose you're in a sealed bunker and there's people outside who want in but there's a fair likelihood that some of them are infected with whatever plague is causing the current apocalypse, there's also other people with you inside the bunker.

In the most optimistic scenario you're a "leave no man behind" good guy so you let them in and after some medical treatment they all pull through and nobody in the bunker gets sick, lucky you.

In a less optimistic scenario you're still a "leave no man behind" good guy but this time the gamble doesn't pay off, you let the plague in and now everybody's going to die, but hey at least you'll die with a clear conscience right... right?

In a pessimistic scenario you're not a nice guy, you're a pragmatist, you recognize that lives already saved are worth more than lives potentially saved so you keep the door shut, you might have saved more people if you had let them in, you might have doomed everybody, in any case you made your decision and you stand by it.

In the most realistic scenario the people outside ask to come in and you hesitate, you're scared, if not for yourself you're scared of taking responsibility for risking the lives of the people with you. At first you refuse but then they start begging and pleading and crying so you change your mind because you're a pathetic piece of shit that always takes the path of least resistance and then tries to justify it after the fact.

Oh hey everyone that lets emotions dictate their decisions, that's yooooooou.

Imo it doesn't matter what choice you make because a moral dilemma wouldn't be a moral dilemma if there was a logical option to take, instead you have options, pick one, stick with it and right or wrong at least everyone can respect that you weren't a pansy ass bitch.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

I don't.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I wonder what people mean by morality? We make many decisions a day. We decide what to do every second of our life, but its all dependend on enviroment and on people around us.

Question is whether our true self the true morality of human is revealed when there are many constraints or few. I mean its easy to be generous when you are rich, but its hard to be generous when you have very little.

Its easy to help when you are strong and hard when you are weak.

Its easy to be honest when you have no reason to lie, but when there is much at stake people lie like pros.

Its easy to be virtuous when you learned what it means to be virtous and know how to be virtous, but what if no one ever told you what its like.

Morality can be derived from our value of life. Because be of all and end of all is life.
Thats what morality is about no? Perhaps one could argue its more than that.
What if its about values that dont pertain just to life, but well being and life style a choice of life a philosophy of life a religious, spiritual or cultural complex of rules?

What if morality is derived from sheer ignorance of life. That we idealize and fantasize and live our life by fantasmz and idealismz that dont mean anything at all.

What if our sense of self and the lense we fitler the world through and through is a type of enigma, that we dont even know why we value things we do.

What if its innate deeply rooted sentiment or what if that sentiment comes through life experience?

There are people who ascribe negative value to life. They say that life has no meaning and further yet they say we should all seize to exist and that propagating life at all is wrong, because life is suffering.

Those who say that life is niether this or that and they are neutral about it. They could just as easily kill someone or save someone life and feel nothing about it.

There are those that value life, but only insofar as they precieve happiness.
Or whatabout those who accept that life is struggle, but worth living due to the challenge that it presents.

What if you accept life and inevitably you lose, because life is a losing game whatever you do. What if life is a winning game just for few chosen people and not for all.

What if life is self perpetuating that the more you value it the more important it becomes and the more important it becomes the stronger you believe and fight to survive.

What if there are no universal rules or principals to morality. What if morality is simply a creative act an act of aggression towards one limitations.

What if all the things that happen in life have no reason or any substance. That the substance we infuse in it is all, but illusion we cling to.

What if life is about being consistent and simply acting out your nature. The nature that you are born with and the basis for that nature is simply how you either act or refuse to act.

What are the constituents and elements of morality?
How to we compute or measure the goodness of act or badness of act.
How can we be sure that we are moral when we cant really know everything.
If you live life long enough you have probably learned that you cant know all the important facts and information about many things you are going to decide on.

 

[Cognisant]

Question is whether our true self the true morality of human is revealed when there are many constraints or few.

People are machines, behavioral optimization engines to be precise and as with any machine there's no inherently moral or immoral nature merely inputs and a resulting output. Perhaps in a truly enlightened society laws exist not to punish immorality but rather as means by which to identify malfunction so that the cause of that malfunction may be ascertained and fixed.

"Citizen 5204-E you have been identified performing an act of civil disobedience, please report to a rehabilitation center at your earliest convenience"
Sigh "Okay"

 

[ZenRaiden]

Question is whether our true self the true morality of human is revealed when there are many constraints or few.

People are machines, behavioral optimization engines to be precise and as with any machine there's no inherently moral or immoral nature merely inputs and a resulting output. Perhaps in a truly enlightened society laws exist not to punish immorality but rather as means by which to identify malfunction so that the cause of that malfunction may be ascertained and fixed.

"Citizen 5204-E you have been identified performing an act of civil disobedience, please report to a rehabilitation center at your earliest convenience"
Sigh "Okay"

Yes I think that will be the future of enlightened societies.
You need 3 things for this rehabilitations to work.
Resources, will power and knowledge.
Now some societies may have resources and will power, but they all lack knowledge how to do it.
I mean cutting edge psychiatry nowdays, is still struggling to cure addicts, help people even with mild depression, people with anxiety commit suicides and so on.
How are going to help deal with people with more serious afflictions?
Even people who get treatement and are helped usually suck resources up. They need attention. They need time to heal, and they also need pills and other treatements.
I mean I had schizophrenia, and the amount of resources that went to just my treatment is not negligable, and it was sort of treatment that I would call industrial apporach with minimalistic effort. If you really want to rehabilitate someone who murders, rapes, steals, and so on, you need lot of knowledge and resources combined only to hope that they will maybe change. Thats a tough thing to sell to public.

 

[Cognisant]

Drugs really aren't as scientific as people generally think they are, I mean certianly a lot of science goes into developing them but there's a degree of inherent uncertainty that would be unacceptable in other fields. The contents of any given pill are very strictly controlled but how much of the active agent is absorbed and how quickly can vary by all manner of factors, then there's varying body mass, metabolisms and tolerance.

Compared to computer science and engineering popping pills is like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

I like to think in the future gene sequencing will be commonplace and everyone's GP will be able to tailor treatments to their individual biochemistry. Then there's the benefits BCI technologies could have for treating mental illness, like that Futurama episode where Bender gets an update to make him compatible with the new robot.

 

[Revelations]

I was born with strong ethics. My family always wondered where it came from, I don't know either. I just do what's right in my mind, have even incited a revolution or two when things were becoming too immoral/negative.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Drugs really aren't as scientific as people generally think they are, I mean certianly a lot of science goes into developing them but there's a degree of inherent uncertainty that would be unacceptable in other fields. The contents of any given pill are very strictly controlled but how much of the active agent is absorbed and how quickly can vary by all manner of factors, then there's varying body mass, metabolisms and tolerance.

Compared to computer science and engineering popping pills is like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

I like to think in the future gene sequencing will be commonplace and everyone's GP will be able to tailor treatments to their individual biochemistry. Then there's the benefits BCI technologies could have for treating mental illness, like that Futurama episode where Bender gets an update to make him compatible with the new robot.

Well they arent scientific sure. They might not even be the best solution. However they are practical and convenient and thus used. Lot of alternative treatements are very unscientific too. You have to make trials and see if they work and of course as science dictates replicate and write it down. Now if you have cray cray person you have two options. Pill them up hope it works and many times it does. Or throw them into some experimental process and pray.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Compared to computer science and engineering popping pills is like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

That's what some of us do with Machine Learning.

 

[ZenRaiden]

A lot of human behaviour is about how people are lazy about stuff. I mean is it wrong to throw trash on the ground? Well we know at least in the abstract sense that it is wrong and dumb to do so, because if all did it we would have to bulldoze our way to work going through heaps of trash.

But the issue of right and wrong is also contingent on what people really stick to. I mean if I stick to a certain kind of morality and preach that morality and no one else gives a damn all I am doing is making a complete ass of my self.

Whats more morality is sort of nebulous term. I know people who use completely different model of reality. I mean there are people who value their life, but at the same time if the world exploded after they are dead they would probably say something like... who cares? Well see the trouble is people value the same thing and yet in abstract sense they may contradict the very notion that they share.

Its like yolo type of attitude can competely yield diffferent kind of result even though its the same short hand for who gives a fuck.

 

[Minuend]

Don't we all do what feels right? Or avoid what feels wrong? Or what we feel like doing even though being lazy and indifferent? Even if you think your morals are based on cold, calculated logic, the motivation from following it is still in your feels. You adhere to it because the system means something to you emotionally. But in the instance you know the logical approach requires a huge sacrifice on your part, that's where the line is drawn. You wont do anything that would be logically superior unless the emotional reward was there. You wont make sacrifices in your life unless there's an emotion that makes it worthwhile.

What we come to think feel right might be influenced by logic and knowledge, but in the end, our emotions decide what we are willing to do or think, what we are willing to sacrifice or change. What we are willing to allow being our values.

The way I see it, people choose according to whatever their motivation and feelings are. Even if someone changes drastically because they see something new as logically superior, they are emotionally rewarded by being able to be flexible or so.

I take in information and am able to live accordingly to a certain degree, but I wouldn't give up all or half my money to another human if I found the logic of doing so superior (thinking the chance of success another poor individual have in life is as valuable as my own). I wouldn't sacrifice my life to save 5 others even if that's logical. I wouldn't kill myself to donate my organs to 5 intelligent, important people who were dying. I have my limits to what I'm willing to do that goes against my self interest

 

[moody]

Oh boy, that’s a loaded inquiry!

My ethics are centered around personal choice, and how it effects your environment and other people. I don’t think of any certain act as inherently “wrong,” because the situation always changes.

A few examples:
-If you are consciously making a choice that you know would hurt someone/thing else, it’s wrong. That is, if you can help it without undue stress on yourself.
-Avoiding new information that impacts your live-style (because you don’t want to change) is wrong. It’s not that hard to change—one small day at a time.
-“Going with the flow” because you never want to think is wrong. It’s your responsibility to know the consequences of your habits when and if you can.

How did I arrive at this?

I’ve always been OCD about ethics, to the point where I had no self-assurance of my own thoughts or abilities. I‘d come completely undone if I someone discounted my careful thoughts, or hard work. After opening up about it to various friends, I figured out that most people weren’t as conscious as me, and weren’t carefully listening when I thought they were. And as pompous as it sounds (and felt to me,) realizing that allowed me to separate my self-identity vs. others perceptions of me.

After that, I stopped seeking validation for my thoughts and trusted myself, so I’m better at processing incoming information and acting morally on it. (I still ask for second opinions, but now I’m better at assessing what other’s say).

Letting other people arrive at the answers for you is laziness. Just people someone else assures you something is right, you have a responsibility to listen to that nagging voice in the back of your head and investigate the situation properly.

With that, you are also a person that deserves ethical consideration. If you can’t afford yourself that, you won’t be able to act ethically in any given situation.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Oh boy, that’s a loaded inquiry!

My ethics are centered around personal choice, and how it effects your environment and other people. I don’t think of any certain act as inherently “wrong,” because the situation always changes.

A few examples:
-If you are consciously making a choice that you know would hurt someone/thing else, it’s wrong. That is, if you can help it without undue stress on yourself.
-Avoiding new information that impacts your live-style (because you don’t want to change) is wrong. It’s not that hard to change—one small day at a time.
-“Going with the flow” because you never want to think is wrong. It’s your responsibility to know the consequences of your habits when and if you can.

How did I arrive at this?

I’ve always been OCD about ethics, to the point where I had no self-assurance of my own thoughts or abilities. I‘d come completely undone if I someone discounted my careful thoughts, or hard work. After opening up about it to various friends, I figured out that most people weren’t as conscious as me, and weren’t carefully listening when I thought they were. And as pompous as it sounds (and felt to me,) realizing that allowed me to separate my self-identity vs. others perceptions of me.

After that, I stopped seeking validation for my thoughts and trusted myself, so I’m better at processing incoming information and acting morally on it. (I still ask for second opinions, but now I’m better at assessing what other’s say).

Letting other people arrive at the answers for you is laziness. Just people someone else assures you something is right, you have a responsibility to listen to that nagging voice in the back of your head and investigate the situation properly.

With that, you are also a person that deserves ethical consideration. If you can’t afford yourself that, you won’t be able to act ethically in any given situation.

Its always good to be ethical if you know what you are doing. Lot of people just bring hardship to themselves. But I kind of divide ethics along the lines of internal ethics and external ethics. The internal ones the struggle with self and how I want to conduct my self towards the world and I suppose a lot of people dont really think about that portion and external ethics where I try to position my self in group dynamics.

The group dynamics are the most important. Also in life the ethical things arent always feasible in the long run. Ethics cost a lot of attention and energy. Its simply easier not being ethical sometimes and sometimes its lot less drag on life. Reason number one why I think a lot of people dont really bother to be ethical in the first place even when it might seem a better solution. They just dont care to put in the extra few steps.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If we could quantify evil/goodness or morality of an individual, and were to model it, we would likely get a bell curve. Most people are assholes, but also most people are nice. There are only a handful of saints(empaths) and devils(psychopaths), and most people are morally ambiguous or living in some sort of moral mediocrity. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective too. Probably won't survive too long if you give all your resources away to other people, and being too much of a dick will get your ass kicked with lower mating chances. Better to be in an adaptive middle ground where you won't be "slowed down" by a conscious when you need to survive and can also function in a co-op society.

I'm of the mind that our mental states/thoughts don't actually influence our behavior too much and that it's really about how our brain sees reality in general. Everything else is just us rationalizing things we would do anyways. So personally I think I fall near the center leaning towards empathetic. I believe in ethics for the goodness of society and that humans should in general try to help each other. I have felt pain before and would prefer that others not experience it. There it is plain and simple.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Aren’t there some stats to help you make a decision?

 

[Niclmaki]

Whatever benefits me the most. In the short term or long term depending on my mood.

 

[Volstar]

By parachute

 

[QuickTwist]

Really it all boils down to life vs death. Live in a way that creates more life than death, that simple.

 

[QuickTwist]

Related:

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Really it all boils down to life vs death. Live in a way that creates more life than death, that simple.

Maybe we should define morality here. By those standards a serial rapist who impregnates many women is moral. Genghis Khan, a war lord is the most morally superior person there is. That just seems wrong to me.

 

[QuickTwist]

Really it all boils down to life vs death. Live in a way that creates more life than death, that simple.

Maybe we should define morality here. By those standards a serial rapist who impregnates many women is moral. Genghis Khan, a war lord is the most morally superior person there is. That just seems wrong to me.

Life and death is not just physical - it is also metaphysical.

 

[JansenDowel]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

 

[JansenDowel]

By trial and error...

Yup. This is the most common sense perspective! And I believe it is the correct one.

 

[QuickTwist]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

Wow, talk about bull shit. Morals are on a completely different plane of existence than knowledge. You can't get an ought from an is. I thought people knew this much, but I guess not.

 

[Black Rose]

morality
what is right, what is wrong

right is respecting others boundaries necessarily
wrong is violating others boundaries unnecessarily

right - keeping your integrity
wrong - exploiting weakness at the expense of others

 

[JansenDowel]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

Wow, talk about bull shit. Morals are on a completely different plane of existence than knowledge. You can't get an ought from an is. I thought people knew this much, but I guess not.

You're right. You cant derive an ought from an is. Lucky I never said that.

Also no, morals are not on 'another plane'.

 

[QuickTwist]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

Wow, talk about bull shit. Morals are on a completely different plane of existence than knowledge. You can't get an ought from an is. I thought people knew this much, but I guess not.

You're right. You cant derive an ought from an is. Lucky I never said that.

Also no, morals are not on 'another plane'.

I beg to differ.

 

[JansenDowel]

I beg to differ.

Oh god no. This just sounds like a self centered Fi dom talking his own morality up.

 

[QuickTwist]

I beg to differ.

Oh god no. This just sounds like a self centered Fi dom talking his own morality up.

That sounds like a Ti judgement to me.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

 

[JansenDowel]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work.

Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

 

[JansenDowel]

That sounds like a Ti judgement to me.

You're absolutely right. The guy in this video lays out his morality without any explanation why I should believe him.

 

[QuickTwist]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work.

Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

I think if people want to talk philosophically about morality as a form of conjecture and refutation it's just going to end up with one guy saying he likes polo shirts and another guy saying he likes T-shirts. Just being honest.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'm interested to see how you argue the objectivity of morality, especially seeing as we get lot of it from circumstance and physiology things that vary widely in humans. Don't know anything about Popper, but with something abstract like morality, you wouldn't drive much empiricism unless you were to set up principles or rules, something no one here has tried to do besides QuickTwist, and you shot those down. So what would they be?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work.

Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

ah ok, that's a great argument.

 

[Black Rose]

Some things seem obvious when it comes to morality, other things more ambiguous. But where do we ground morality? Three choices: God, Kings, Man. If you need an external source: God and Kings. If personal then Man which is yourself. Kings is just a replacement for self (Man). Kings are other men. God is confusing as we have trouble confirming what that is. What is right and wrong are not so just because of some authority figure sayings so.

It is easy to intuitively decide right and wrong but many issues bring conflict of peoples different intuitional grasp of them. What is really at stake is the attributes of good and bad. You should do good things and not do bad things. God can be said to represent all good and Satan all bad. These attributes are said to be intrinsic to both of them.

How do you convince others to agree with what you believe is good and bad? Because of God, because of your king/leader, because you said so. You really can't convince people who will not agree with you. Look at the Star Wars Last Jedi debates. It's really hard to have a reasonable dialogue on the matter.

Right and wrong derive from good and bad. Should and Should not. Prescription, not description. All that is left to talk about is the decision we all personally make. Individualism. Even in collectivism, everything is up to your personal choice. No one can decide for me. Kierkegaard calls it the leap of faith. We all make a leap even if unaware we do so.

Right and wrong is a personal choice. Morality is a personal choice. All choice s a leap and so arriving at morality is always intuitive. Individualism is behind all morality.

 

[JansenDowel]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work.

Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

I think if people want to talk philosophically about morality as a form of conjecture and refutation it's just going to end up with one guy saying he likes polo shirts and another guy saying he likes T-shirts. Just being honest.

Morality is about oughts, not preferences. You can be wrong about what you ought to do.

 

[JansenDowel]

ah ok, that's a great argument.

Its not an argument, its a fact. Conjectures and refutations are about more than just physical reality.

 

[Dolphin]

God gives us all free will. When we inevitably fail, we suffer. We learn that what we did causes suffering. We do not do that again. Morality.

 

[QuickTwist]

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

as QuickTwist already pointed out, that's a pretty dumb-ass statement. Popper thought of conjecture/refutation as a process which progressively moves you towards the real truth about physical reality. Considering that there is no real truth when it comes to morality, wtf are you even gonna make conjectures about?

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work.

Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

I think if people want to talk philosophically about morality as a form of conjecture and refutation it's just going to end up with one guy saying he likes polo shirts and another guy saying he likes T-shirts. Just being honest.

Morality is about oughts, not preferences. You can be wrong about what you ought to do.

That's exactly the reason why that is what the conversation would devolve into.

 

[Black Rose]

prescription: should and should not
that is what morality involves
no more no less

either you are told what to do or you decide for yourself, sometimes both.

How did I arrive at my morality?
Lots and lots of soul searching.

And developing wisdom.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

ah ok, that's a great argument.

Its not an argument, its a fact. Conjectures and refutations are about more than just physical reality.

You keep repeating this “physical reality”. Unless ethics is the only subject outside the realm of physical science and Popper happened to write about falsificationism as applied to ethics, I don’t know what to do with your statement other than perhaps printing it out and use it as toilet paper.

 

[JansenDowel]

ah ok, that's a great argument.

Its not an argument, its a fact. Conjectures and refutations are about more than just physical reality.

You keep repeating this “physical reality”. Unless ethics is the only subject outside the realm of physical science and Popper happened to write about falsificationism as applied to ethics, I don’t know what to do with your statement other than perhaps printing it out and use it as toilet paper.

Yes he did write about ethics. Why are you pretending you know anything about him? You clearly don't. All you know is what you've read online.

 

[JansenDowel]

You keep repeating this “physical reality”. Unless ethics is the only subject outside the realm of physical science and Popper happened to write about falsificationism as applied to ethics, I don’t know what to do with your statement other than perhaps printing it out and use it as toilet paper.

In fact, The Open Society and its Enemies is a book entirely about ethics and morality. With the scant knowledge you have of his work, you should at least know that much.