Every possible being does not agree morality in every possible example is objective because our minds are individual not identical
However some examples are objective but most examples will fall under the definition of subjective morality because of free will
Moral beings have the freedom to think differently to other moral beings and also change their own minds whenever they want to
Masochists definitely want their consent violated because that is what actually motivates them psychologically
The worst thing you can do to one is not violate their consent because they want disobedience not conformity
We cannot live forever in this physical body we have but what we are made from can exist forever in some altered state of existence
Nothing in Nature is ever truly wasted and at the most basic level we are energy and energy can only be transformed never destroyed
But consciousness which is what gives us our unique personalities ceases at the point of brain death so that part of us no longer exists
Yeah, I’ve heard these arguments a trillion times.
So here’s the deal. You cause no physical pain in a masochist and it will cause psychological pain (no release) that they cannot endure. But that’s just a small point. (That every possible being has a hell)
Nature is not perfect. You’re espousing a religion here that makes you comfortable.
The definition of religion is the belief that the highest possible state of consciousness sees everything as perfect and necessary. That’s what all religious people do.
I have heard your arguments a trillion times too and I am still waiting to be convinced and so too is everyone else
I never said that Nature was perfect - that is your word not mine - and I am a pragmatist and so I dont do religion
You are actually the religious one - always going on about hell - this imaginary place you claimed to have been to
Like I said, “be thankful you weren’t shown”. “And don’t be cocky about it”. But I must admit, it seems to be a law of existence that anyone not shown hell is cocky. Maybe I’m asking too much of you.
Like I said in my other thread. You’re scared of living forever. You made no investments on your infinite life in this life. You wasted your life here and now you’re scared. It’s understandable.
I cannot be scared of something that is physically impossible - that is the classic definition of irrational
You make this claim all of the time but never ever provide any actual evidence - because there is none
I would be scared of living forever if it was actually true but as it is not then no reason to be afraid
What a waste of mental energy my life would be if I had to worry about it so am glad I dont have to
Life doesn’t play by your rules. I learned that the hard way when I tried to destroy existence with the entire power of my spirit. We have eternal spirits whether you like it or not. It’s fine. Just ignore me. I’ll do the heavy lifting for you. Ultimately though, I can’t make your ultimate decisions for you.
As usual we are going round in circles with neither listening to the other so will leave it there as no point in carrying on
At least you are consistent but unfortunately that is the only good thing I can actually say about your ridiculous position
You really don’t get. 10’s of thousands of years people have been talking about the spiritually sighted and the spiritually blind. Explaining the spirit world to you is like explaining the color green (with definitions) to a blind person. You’re the incredulous blind person. Fine by me, you’re not ruining my life.
Were you to adapt a somewhat more credible style of communication then you might have a more captive audience
What lets you down is not merely what you say but the way that you say it so you could consider that if you want to
That’s the problem. Words don’t convey spiritual knowledge, just like they don’t convey what green is to a blind person. The way I form sentences are the best that I can do. Spiritual people look at my messages and go “duh”, non spiritual people see problems with language or concept.
Now don’t get me wrong! I’m always working on language !! Probably always will!
For example, I used to call all human sex rape, people got furious at me, so I learned recently to call the form of rape I was talking about “subtle rape”.
To understand why, take a look at the grammar being used - specifically the “voice” being used (i.e. active or passive voice).
In P1, “IS” being “conditioned by humans” uses the passive voice. The equivalent sentence using the active voice would be “Humans condition IS_ness”.
P2 uses the active voice and the equivalent sentence using the passive voice would be “OUGHT is conditioned by humans”.
If you were to match the voice for each premise, we’d either have both “IS” and “OUGHT” being conditioned by humans (passive), or humans conditioning both “IS” and “OUGHT”.
So if humans condition “IS” and they condition “OUGHT”, it does not follow that “OUGHT” is derived from “IS”, only that both are derived from humans and could in principle be completely unrelated to one another except in terms of their shared origin. The same goes for saying “IS” and “OUGHT” are conditioned by humans: they’re each derived by humans and could be otherwise unrelated.
The same goes for your second syllogism, which uses the same syntax but simply swaps out “IS” and “OUGHT” for “FACT” and “VALUE” respectively.
As such, neither are valid I’m afraid.
Apart from syntax, more partially cut off considerations need to be consider.
The fear of the fear of the ‘’ has been circumscribed by the shallow look back to a slippery slide unto fascism
Syntax is always definitive, and opinionated. It’s easy to cover the implications with the definitively ascertained , as if all meaning stems from one identifiable circumstance from another just like it.
But that is not how meaning is transmitted, only propaganda.
And this is where the crux of the dilemma lies, and it is similar to the total Nietzchean disqualification, and this sleight of hand purported non objective inference mixed with a faux referentiality, that put N away into the bedlam of undisputed finality.
Interpretation is constantly revised, but the problem with intuition is that it can descend to myth- good and/or bad.
Such transiting vision that can only occur sparsely, can be regressed toward a choice between good and bad, and only those to whom evil is merely an unintended occurance based on the thought processes of those to whom such understanding is undisclosed, clashes with those who are beyond good and evil.
After all , did nor the Christ say, “Forgive Them Father, for they do not know ?”
As stated, moral relativism is pseudo-morality, not morality-proper.
It is just like Science-proper versus pseudo-science.
Morality-proper with objective moral facts are the essence of morality while moral relativism are the forms of morality-proper.
Moral relativism are justified by anthropologists and social scientists who observed people from different cultures and traditions has different ‘moral’ values relative to their circumstances.
For example, the certain primitive tribes, Christians, Muslims, various group has different sets of moral values.
But the problem with moral relativists is they are too superficial and do not dig deeper to understand the underlying generic principles of human nature related to good and bad.
I am not against the forms of moral-relativism which is my views are the APPLIED aspects [Ethics] of universal moral principles of PURE morality.
I had stated, DNA wise, ALL humans has the inherent potential of a generic moral function. Unfortunately this moral function is not very active in the majority of humans at present. But fortunately this inherent potential is unfolding very slowly and the results of moral increment is evident since 100,000 years ago to the present.
Whilst the inherent moral function is not very active in the majority, there is a small percentile where the moral function neural algorithm is not connected properly at birth or later.
Note for example, DNA wise, the 5 senses are programmed to function according to their specific purpose, but then there is synaethesia where there wrong connections between the senses and their trigger. E.g. a person when tasting will see colors and other wrong combinations of the senses.
For psychopaths, the problem is their inherent moral function is damaged either during birth [nature] or during his nurturing period.
For others, as Boyd stated, they have a deficit-moral-cognitive-function in recognizing the existence of moral facts, i.e. the moral fact deniers.
As I had stated elsewhere, it is too late to do much improvement to the current generations in terms of improving their moral competence.
Humanity’s hope is to establish fool proof self-development programs to increase the moral competence of the average person for future generations [next 50, 75 > 100 years].
In addition, for outliers like psychopaths and other moral nihilists, humanity will have to find ways to prevent them at birth or to find ways to manage their psychopathy.
P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition and derive OUGHT_ness from IS
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS
P1 is prevailing, thus ‘being conditioned’ is grammatically correct [??].
P2 is active, i.e. humans are deriving ought from IS.
The above is a general model.
As specifically for moral ought and moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs], they are derived, conditioned and justified from a Moral Framework and System via empirical and philosophical means, just like how scientific facts are derived and conditioned from the Scientific Framework and System with its scientific method, peer review, etc.