You have me confused with someone else. I used to be Christian but that was eons ago, and well before even the Internet.
My comment was referring to a statement about subjective morality. It is not subjective. It is universal and immutable. Virtues are individual and subjective and can change.
That said, my veritology, the study of the nature of Truth, posits that there is objective Truth (natural law, deductible through science), and subjective Truth (beauty and art), with justice and love blending the two in between. Morality is ONLY the rules governing our interactions with each other and need to be objective so we can all know what is expected, and what is evil, even though it’s obvious to most. There’s only one moral code, the Golden Rule, to wit: Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of all to their life, liberty and property to be free from violation through force or fraud. It’s a simple deduction from the assumption that life is of value and human/sentient life is of ultimate value. You can throw out the assumption, but then the only remaining possibility is the chaos of anarchy and tyranny. All but anarchists and tyrants choose to pursue good order. What say you?
I’m not quite sure how to answer you. I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with your conclusions. First, I see no objective “truth”. Truth is a human construct, not some universal absolute. Second, what is morality is also just a construct. Consensus creates morality, but what is moral is dependent on enculturation and the socio/political climate at any given time. The golden rule has appeared in almost every culture. In that, there is a loose consensus. But it does not follow that the ideal resides anywhere outside a human sentiment/construct. I think we have to be careful because it is quite easy to say that there are univeral laws governing “right” behavior and that is the province of those who wish to dabble in metaphysics
If that were true, the universe would be our creation. We’d have to have imagined it even as we came to be–unless you’re saying, well, something else.
Yes, as I pointed out in the last paragraph of my last post, which I don’t think you read.
Yes, slavery, genocide, whatever is still determined to be moral by consensus, even into the 21st Century. Morality by consensus is often more immoral than outright anarchy.
You’re still a victim of the “morality” of revealed religion. Their morality is a self-serving lie because it keeps you from overcoming your childhood indoctrination. If every society in the world believed, and everyone voted 6 billion to zero that it was immoral to masturbate, that would not make it so.
No it wouldn’t. The universe is. What we create is a construct to make sense of it all. The universe has no interest in human constructs of “truth and morality”. Actually the universe has no interest in human anything.
I read it. I didn’t think it would hurt to emphasize it, but more importantly, connect it to the same argument as the truth statement.
What a dark and gloomy assessment. Moral consensus also allows social integration and cooperation. Morality is a powerful social force. That it is illusory doesn’t negate it’s power for both good and evil.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. I’m not a “victim” of anything but my own deliberations. What the hell is “revealed religion”? What is my personal morality may be shared by others of all sorts of religious and secular groupings, but it does not follow that I haven’t carefully thought through my personal convictions. You might be assuming a little too much. And the issue of masturbation or any other “moral” issue is illusory. On that we can agree. Still, the world is powerfully influenced by those illusions.
But you said you “see no objective truth”, yet you say the universe is. Which is it?
I read it. I didn’t think it would hurt to emphasize it, but more importantly, connect it to the same argument as the truth statement.
[/quote]
I connected it with the assumption I mentioned
What a dark and gloomy assessment. Moral consensus also allows social integration and cooperation. Morality is a powerful social force. That it is illusory doesn’t negate it’s power for both good and evil.
[/quote]
So morality is both good and evil, and thus neither. Thus you believe morality is determined by power, not reason. Wouldn’t using reason make more sense–or the only sense at all?
I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. I’m not a “victim” of anything but my own deliberations. What the hell is “revealed religion”? What is my personal morality may be shared by others of all sorts of religious and secular groupings, but it does not follow that I haven’t carefully thought through my personal convictions. You might be assuming a little too much. And the issue of masturbation or any other “moral” issue is illusory. On that we can agree. Still, the world is powerfully influenced by those illusions.
[/quote]
And your answer is to live by those illusions no matter how heinous or evil, while I, once again, advocate holding up a reasoned morality as a beacon that all can live by–without the evil.
One more time… Truth and morality are human constructs. The universe just is. No truth or morality exists outside human conventions. You can project truth onto the universe if you wish, but it it is simply another illusion.
Morality defines that which is good and that which is evil . How a culture (or an individual) creates their definitions may be power, reason, emotion, traditional enculturation, or more usually, a combination of all these things. Reason is only part of any such construct.
OK. Good luck with that. Just don’t climb up on that cross. It’s been done before and would be anticlimactic.
Aww c’mon… You’re projection is illusory. What is the universe doesn’t care what you think. It doesn’t care about humanity. It just is.
And now you’re being obtuse.
PT, as long as you persist in posing is-isn’t questions and demanding black and white answers, there really isn’t going to be any discussion possible. If all you want is confirmation of your ideas look elsewhere.
But I care what people think, and both they and I are part of the universe. And this universe seems to be changing all the time too. Or at least the things “within” the universe seem to be changing - at least from a limited point of view. Is there an “it” that transcends all this change? Is there an absolute above and beyond all this? Is “the universe” different from its contents? Is the universe a container of sorts for things that are not the universe?
Bubble buster here: Not that we know of. There are a few places our sentience can’t take us. The mystery remains. What comes spontaneously from the flow returns to the flow and is beyond all of our limited constructs. One can become enmeshed in conjecture about the ultimate, but at the end of the journey, you find yourself back at the beginning. You don’t know. Perhaps it is best to focus on what little we can know and do what we can to make THIS life meaningful - both for ourselves and others. Or maybe not. Pondering the ultimate can be a pleasant pastime if you have the need.
Bubble buster here: Not that we know of. There are a few places our sentience can’t take us. The mystery remains. What comes spontaneously from the flow returns to the flow and is beyond all of our limited constructs. One can become enmeshed in conjecture about the ultimate, but at the end of the journey, you find yourself back at the beginning. You don’t know. Perhaps it is best to focus on what little we can know and do what we can to make THIS life meaningful - both for ourselves and others. Or maybe not. Pondering the ultimate can be a pleasant pastime if you have the need.
[/quote]
Bubble buster part II… Yes. Even my explanation is merely a construct to “make sense of”. Awareness of “something” isn’t the same as knowing anything. Metaphysics may be intriguing, but is illusion based on well-wishing. Reason and logic are marvelous tools to help us navigate the world we live in, but both are only useful to the extent that there is supporting evidence. Contemplation of what we do not know doesn’t get a pass on this. All knowing must have supporting evidence to be considered knowing. If you have a method of inquiry that explains the mystery and satisfies the need for collaborative evidence, don’t tell me. I’m quite content to let the field and focus remain exactly as they are. To say I don’t know isn’t a convenient cop-out, it is a realization. Perhaps it is the only realization that makes a difference, because I’m now stuck with myself and I have to make do with what little capacity I have. Damn the luck.
I never said different. That’s a whole 'nuther subject.
You’re the one that said everything is subjective–and I’m being obtuse???
Yes, I insist on reason, and you persist in avoiding it. But you’re right about one thing, discussion isn’t possible. That begs the question, what could discussion boards possibly offer you anyway? If everything is subjective, we’re all floating in our own little bubbles, and all communication is with figments of our imagination. Sound like insanity to me, but then how could it be otherwise?
can we move on to the next verse. the one about those who work on the sabbath get put to death. this is saying if you quit watching Sunday football and drinking beer you get put to death. this rule clearly supports euthanasia. .thou shalt not kill. but if you want to kill yourself that’s alright. best way to do it is carry your cross and get crucified like Jesus. something like that.
the lord works in mysteries ways.
i tell you the bible is full of wisdom. master piece. just master piece.
Are we talking about different things? I’m saying we’re both part of the universe. Do you really doubt that? You seem to talk about “it” - “the universe” - as if it is an entity that you are completely separate from.
Why is this so complex? Of course I’m part of this universe. I’m here aren’t I? Consider: Does the tip of a hair on my head understand the complexity of the whole body? It’s part of my corporeal existence isn’t it? And that is my, your, and all living things relationship with the universe. Being part of the universe doesn’t mean I “know” anything about it beyond that which is observed. There are “facts” - thoroughly tested and observed interactions that come as close to an absolute as is possible. Then there is functional “knowing” - observations and testing that appears to hold “true” but may not depending on circumstances and context. Beyond that there is conjecture, those ideas that we have no way to test (yet). There is nothing complex about this. It may be disappointing to accept that we know nothing but what is in front of us, but it beats the hell out of the guessing games of metaphysics.
I’m not sure why this is so complex. It just seems to me that you talk about the universe as if you and I are not part of it. To my ears, it makes everything sound very distant and unknowable, as if we are fundamentally alienated from some sort of “reality” that is separate from us. Perhaps where you are thinking “metaphysics” I’m getting “knowledge”. Ironically, a separate reality that we can’t know sounds distinctly metaphysical. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
At the risk of further confusing the issue, it seems to me that TPT and anon are saying that subjectivity is a subset of the objective world and tentative is saying that objectivity is a subset of our subjective world. I lean toward the latter view. While I don’t deny that there is a real objective world out there, my every perception of it is part of my subjectivity. The world as it is in itself independent of my perception remains unknowable.
Anon, just what reality are you talking about? The collection of constructs that we create to make sense of? Ot to put it another way, other than what is apparent, how would you know that you have any understanding of reality? All of our knowledge resides WITHIN our constructs. Whether they are a true reflection of reality isn’t knowable.
