Favourable and unfavourable for what? For conscious agents, clearly, what else does morality pertain to? 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. Dang, pickled, six sentences, and five of them are non-sequiturs, that's impressive.. even for you.
What is and what isn't a conscious agent? In the end, morality is still subjective. What is objective? Do you know what objective means? There's no objective anything without the subjective to define it.
What is and what isn't a conscious agent? Really? In the end, morality is still subjective. No, the beneficial/favourable and detrimental/unfavourable quality/s of action/actions, are universal, in that all human beings can either be benefited or injured in some way depending upon the choice of action that another takes. The subjectivity lies in what individual human beings consider as beneficial/detrimental, or favourable/unfavourable to themselves. There's no objective anything without the subjective to define it. So, according to you there was no gravity before Newton discovered and defined it. ^_^
I'm pretty sure he mean's the essence of gravity, not necessarily the knowledge of it... But gravity is still not defined thoroughly..
He means/implies the exact opposite actually, that is to say that his own words imply that gravity was not there until there was a knowledge of it.
How is this relevent? No. Morality requires intention. Lions act on instinct not "choice". A lion cannot put itself in the gazelles position and say "I wouldn't want to be eaten" No. Benefits are not subjective. Preferences are. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
It's our instinct to follow where the mind leads. What benefits what? Instinct is to follow where the mind leads. If the mind wants this or that, it pursues this or that. It can justify this or that as being moral or immoral. Ideas of good and greater good often come into play. Should we kill humans in order to save other humans? To save what we believe is worth saving? There is no authority on what is right and wrong. That is why we humans still have problems. If it was so cut and dry, we would see good and bad and the reason for good over bad and we would do good. There are countless situations we can think of that are morally confusing. The idea is, morality always pertains to a subject. Whether it is the well being of a certain way of life or some other such thing. To the universe there is no morality. To us, there is.
No. That last thing you said is a statement. An entirely incorrect and ridiculous statement. I'm actually sad at how stupid you have to be to think that was anywhere near the point. In fact. That is the most assinine thing about you. These clear cut assumptions that you regard and portray absolutely. This ia what makes you an absolute idiot my freind. What is favourable to a universe that never dies? It sprouts strange growths that eventually dissipate like us humans, but is it moral to maintain or destroy them. Should their desires and wellbeing be administered too and fulfilled? In the end, it doesn't change the reality. There is no objective good and bad.
From this thread it is apparent that the objectivity of morality is subjective. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
So, nothing to say upon the first two parts of my post then, ah well; No. That last thing you said is a statement. An excellent observation. An entirely incorrect and ridiculous statement. I'm actually sad at how stupid you have to be to think that was anywhere near the point. In fact. That is the most assinine thing about you. These clear cut assumptions that you regard and portray absolutely. This ia what makes you an absolute idiot my freind. Well, first of all, it won't do to call a statement ''incorrect and ridiculous'' without showing how it is so, and secondly, for somebody to raise a question on what is and what isn't a conscious agent, and then in the next post to dedicate the larger part of a paragraph to insult somebody of being an idiot, (whilst spelling three words incorrectly in the process, one of them being a two letter word, lul) is quite stunning, and is another example of why you, my dearest ''freind'', are a spoilt, deluded, and empty-headed brat. ^_^ What is favourable to a universe that never dies? Why isn't there a face palm emoticon? - we are not talking of the universe, furthermore, a concept (morality) can be objective despite it not bearing any direct relation to physical laws, nor being a physical property of the universe, duh. There is no objective good and bad. If morality is the concept/principle/practise of increasing/decreasing benefits or increasing/decreasing suffering, then yes, there is an objective morality, as I have explained in the post above. EDIT; Shall we agree to refrain from petty slurs, pickledpie, and try instead to have a reasonable discussion? (I know it's difficult for you, but if you want to learn, your going to at least have to try).
Lol you can't encourage a reasonable discussion without pettiness when the next few lines are the epitome of pettiness. You aren't able too. Everything you say drips of ego and you are derisive to an extreme. I point out your flaws when I get fed up, but I should have learned it's pointless. It's my hope that it's not that makes me still talk to you. I have no ill feelings towards you, but you have some of the most venomous words towards others I have ever seen, and it's disturbing. It makes you close minded. If you really, really want to talk about things while setting the ego and derision aside, I'd be happy too.
Well, okay, considering how my point of contention was that you were claiming morality to be a subjective notion, it would be best if you could address the following; As a clearer extrapolation to the above; For morality, as a principle, to be subjective, it would have to be said that ''benefits/favourable-things'' or ''injuries/unfavourable-things'' were in themselves entirely subjective, and that it is not in fact the entirety of the human race who shares the common trait of having the capacity to benefit/suffer from an action/s. However, a moral choice is subjective, insofar as the chooser chooses their choice from what they subjectively consider to be most beneficial/favourable to the situation. Not at all, a concept can be objective in itself, yet utilized in subjective way/s.
^^^ Exactly making the objectivity of the matter subjective Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The thing is, this would!d make sense if we could even make one reference to something objectively moral or immoral. The objective is what exists beyond our description of it. What's immoral and moral only emerges when "conscious entities" are involved. If there are no conscious entities then is there objective morality? Even the idea of a conscious being is one rooted in the subjective. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of other consciously experiencing beings. This was something Descartes spoke of. This is where the idea of solipsism comes from. To get past it, we make assumptions. In truth, we cannot prove it. So for something to be objectively moral, it must be beneficial or favourable for all conscious beings. Yet even time is a factor. Maybe something may seem beneficial and favourable now, but it may turn out to have caused something unfavourable and not beneficial in the future. We use energy to help feed and clothe people and produce good living standards, but at the same time we deplete resources. Not only that, but if there is an objective morality, it can be applied to all situations. If there is an objective morality, are we as humNs able to grasp it? To comprehend it? What does objective morality look like in the bigger picture?
no. What I'm saying is this. Weather or not morality is subjective, is subjective. See post what the fuck ever. Effy arrogant as usual Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app