You recently tried to teach me what I've been trying to teach others for the longest time! Understand the relative!
As for morality. A deep question that leads to many questions. First we see, there is good and bad. What is good to me is not good to another. Therefore, it becomes subjective in this sense. We can say, good and bad pertain to a self. You must then determine what constitutes the self. After recognising the nature of self, one can acknowledge that the self is an illusion... And so is morality! Thought for the day: an action is what an action is. Call it this or that, but an action is what an action is. Objectively, there is no good or bad, no labels we can adhere too. A thing and an understanding of a thing results entirely from it's relativity. Defeat the duality and in that state... There is neither this, nor that!
You open yourself to scrutiny by drawing lines in the sand. If you say torturing an infant is wrong, you imply that the torture of adult human beings is condonable- a comment most would describe as "wrong", even though it stems from a place of "moral integrity". If humans are the gatekeepers of a word's meaning, "morality" would have to be subjective, as all humans think differently, and as a result the interpretations of such constructs are so wide and loose that you'd think they did porn for about a decade.
No. He didn't make any implication whatsoever. Except that torturing an infant is wrong. He might think torturing anything is wrong, he might not. He hasn't implied a thing but what he said, do not fall so easily into assumptions!
Oh dear, what sophistry! There is neither this, nor that. "Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned." - Avicenna Will you, Pickled, be a man of his solemn word, supposedly "solemn", and subject yourself to such a crucible in order that you may prove the veracity of your profound insights - this is not this (to be beaten is not to be beaten) and that is not that (to be burned is not to be burned)? After recognising the nature of self, one can acknowledge that the self is an illusion... And so is morality! Yes, when African rebels ramsack villages and mutilate the inhabitants... the act is an illusion, or the selves enduring the act are, and so is the moral value of such actions! I'm pretty sure that's what the rebels convince themselves. But, honestly, Pickled, how Eastern philosophy deludes the ethically placid; denial, on such a scale, and intellectually, is just another form of pride and ego - never forget that. I know not who I am, therefore I am naught; knowing I am naught is not what I know, but will contend, and will be content, to be.
There is still a being and that being has emotions. If there are two beings, morality is no longer subjective persay. Neither being would want thebother to kill it. Therefore from both perspective murder is amoral. Of being one wanted to be killed, he could say killing is moral, but he can't kill and not want to be killed because that amoral Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
In the most proper sense. The idea of morality is still a subjective label for a subjective experience that may of may not be shared. Objectively, what is, is. There can be thousands of labels applied to itand designated as good or bad. It all has to do with the ego, the subjective and relative. This is not to say one should behave in whatever manner they please. There is a very valid reason we create ideas of morality and good or bad. There is a reason why these are often shared across the world and would even apply to life forms, in some instances from the human perspective that is. One should rather look at where these ideas of morality stem from and originate to guide our actions. The truth we need to seek is at the root of everything and to reach it is to become realised, to become enlightened.
To many strange assumptions and the like to address dear boats. Either address me without derision or ego with the desire for truth and no judgement, or you will be left wanting.
You know what, you might be right in certain regards, but if all things are absolutely subjective, then there must at least be an ounce of objective. I had to take some time to think clearly, I often try not to bulldoze head-on on topics, it was a mistake I used to habitually do when I was AresKenux. And for that, I think on certain parts we can agree to disagree, but rather some parts are pretty conclusive...
Its not subjective. You know that person doesn't want to die. So killing him is obviously amoral. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Again, any label is derived from the subjective. It is what it is and has its particular consequences, but still a subjective label. No label can be objective.
No hard feelings pal, I got rather heated too, sorry for that. I do believe there is an objective but I don't think our human limitations allow us to know it or understand it. Not all the time anyway, there are those flashes of madness where it's all so clear.
Morality as a principle or reality of what is right and wrong is objective, in that one route of action will always better/more beneficial for another living organism than another, and in the sense that morality springs from human compassion/empathy, however the determination of what is right/beneficial and wrong/detrimental is subjective.. though clearly there a certain acts that any dignified, self-respecting and empathic person will agree are abhorrent.
So what you are saying, is objectively speaking, a serial killer could be moral by his own definition and it is therefore "OK". Obviously said killer will suffer "concequences" but he is not "bad" because "bad" is subjective. Isn't this all just your subjective opinion anyway? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I would argue objectively that morality is based on mutual benefits. Not subjective opinions. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Morality does not consist in subjective labels, pickled, it consists in what is objectively favourable, and what is objectively unfavourable, yuri's example quite clearly highlights this - following your own logic/words, we could say that the following sentence; ''atoms constitute the physical world'', has no objective truth to it, because it is merely a collection of labels.
I think I might got it. If all things have knowledge and is subjective, then what is life? If life is true, then everything else is an illusion. It's not about good or bad, morality is an illusion. It's about truth and deception.
Favourable and unfavourable for what? What state is permanent? The universe doesn't care about good and bad. Time passes and things change. Nothing is permanent. All things are in flux.
Mutual benefits. For temporary and limited beings. What of the lion? It has to eat and so it hunts the gazelle. Do we say that is good that it lives and the gazelle dies, or it is bad? Benefits themselves are subjectice and relative.