Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

I've answered this as clearly as I can.

This was an example of how something can have a component that has one particular characteristic, but it doesn't follow that the outcome has that characteristic.
Again, I was very clear about this.

As far as I understand there is only one component and that is "rape is either right or wrong" regardless of how much harm as its also a violation of human rights. Plus regardless of any components the fact that it causes harm and is a violation will become the dominant component which becomes an important part of determining is rape is wrong.

Oh rubbish. A person's lived experience takes place WITHIN a society!

Its more that just their society. People are also influenced by how our physical world affects us. They have worldviews about reality and they make assumptions and form beliefs about how the physical world affects them.

Our intuition of the world is based on our experience of it and we form the belief that what we see and experience about the world is how we experience it and its not some alternative reality like some simulation.

Its the same for morality. We are born with moral knowledge and we develop that through experience. How we see those morality work in real life intuitions. We then form the belief that what we experience about morality is a true representation of how it works in reality.

Irrelevant. Treating harm as a binary results in the conclusion that stealing candy is as bad as murder.

You cannot disregard the circumstances of each moral situation. If we had a scale of wrongness (severity) of an act. Stealing a candy bar ($2) is a minor offence sometimes getting only a warning. But defrauding a company of thousands of dollars or armed robbery is much more severe and the penalties reflect that.

Murder is more severe than manslaughter and the penalties reflects that. So based on this logic shoplifting is not as severely wrong armed robbery and murder and the penalties reflect this. They are all wrong acts but that doesn't make them equal in wrongness (severity). The onlt binary as you call it is that all these acts are either right or wrong.

Because truth requires an answer in order for that answer to be true. If there is no possible answer, what is it that is true? Any truth statement MUST be an answer. If answers are impossible, then there can be no truth statement possible.

We are not talking about individual acts but the system or methodology of how it works. So in science though they haven't found all the facts about an observation scientists believe there are facts to find about that situation.

The same with morality. Though we cannot know the facts/truth about a complicated moral issue the belief is there is a moral truth to find. In both cases the belief is justified based on experience and how we see reality and morality work.

Utterly irrelevant. People speculate about what the future might hold all the time. It's called "Planning ahead." I know I do it, do you not plan ahead?

But what is planning for life got to do with how you will act in your scenario ie "whether to save the person or not".

Yes, you've made it clear that your "objective morality" idea can't withstand any actual examples.

Look basically we know that life is valuable and special. Thats why your scenario matters so much morally. We know we can't just do nothing and watch someone die. Our conscience will condemn us or defend us.

We can reason that there are better/best ways to act than other ways to act. For example we can be justified in saying that "throwing petrol on the burning car" is not as good way to act compared to trying to help in whatever way we can. The fact that "Life" matters to us and we want to do something to save the person and not just walk away shows we know there is a right and wrong way to act.

And what if it involves a patient who is refusing treatment?

This is what I am talking about. You bring up scenarios for which I say is irrelevant but I go along and try to answer them anyway and when I do rather than argue the current one you jump to another and another. How many moral scenarios will it take until you see its all irrelevant.

Nevertheless I still go along. So we can reason that some actions are better/best than others. That in itself tells you there are some right and wrong ways to act morally. We can say trying to help the patient is a better way to behave than shoving medication down her throat.

Thats why reasoning is important as we need to take the circumstances into consideration. For example it may depend if the patient is able to make proper decisions. But if they are coherent then people have the Right to determine their "Life" even if we think its a wrong decision.

 

[childeye 2]

Positive prejudice is called being gracious. Negative prejudice is called cynicism. Grace is not hypocritical in judgment; cynicism is hypocritical in judgment. Positive prejudice is moral. Negative prejudice is immoral.

The basis of fact that makes morality objective, is that morality is the positive and immorality is the negative in this dichotomy, morality/immorality. This is the same basis of factual reality for why in any sound reasoning, a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, rather than being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

It's the same basis of fact for any full cycle of energy. If you reverse polarity, then in thought, you're reasoning on a left/right dichotomy where objective morality is at the center between two opposing subjective points of view. In a left/right dichotomy, immorality, the negative, is moving away from the center in two opposite directions.

 

[Kylie]

As far as I understand there is only one component and that is "rape is either right or wrong" regardless of how much harm as its also a violation of human rights. Plus regardless of any components the fact that it causes harm and is a violation will become the dominant component which becomes an important part of determining is rape is wrong.

And as I've said many times now, how much harm is done is subjective, since it depends on the person.

Its more that just their society. People are also influenced by how our physical world affects us. They have worldviews about reality and they make assumptions and form beliefs about how the physical world affects them.

Our intuition of the world is based on our experience of it and we form the belief that what we see and experience about the world is how we experience it and its not some alternative reality like some simulation.

Its the same for morality. We are born with moral knowledge and we develop that through experience. How we see those morality work in real life intuitions. We then form the belief that what we experience about morality is a true representation of how it works in reality.

And that's all subjective.

You cannot disregard the circumstances of each moral situation. If we had a scale of wrongness (severity) of an act. Stealing a candy bar ($2) is a minor offence sometimes getting only a warning. But defrauding a company of thousands of dollars or armed robbery is much more severe and the penalties reflect that.

Murder is more severe than manslaughter and the penalties reflects that. So based on this logic shoplifting is not as severely wrong armed robbery and murder and the penalties reflect this. They are all wrong acts but that doesn't make them equal in wrongness (severity). The onlt binary as you call it is that all these acts are either right or wrong.

You are the one claiming it's "right or wrong, no shades of grey." Don't try and pin that on me.

We are not talking about individual acts but the system or methodology of how it works. So in science though they haven't found all the facts about an observation scientists believe there are facts to find about that situation.

The same with morality. Though we cannot know the facts/truth about a complicated moral issue the belief is there is a moral truth to find. In both cases the belief is justified based on experience and how we see reality and morality work.

Then talk us through this methodology for morality.

But what is planning for life got to do with how you will act in your scenario ie "whether to save the person or not".

Are you honestly saying that you don't consider the possible outcomes when you make decisions about what you will do?

REALLY?

Look basically we know that life is valuable and special.

Unsupported claim.

Thats why your scenario matters so much morally. We know we can't just do nothing and watch someone die. Our conscience will condemn us or defend us.

Our conscience is subjective.

We can reason that there are better/best ways to act than other ways to act. For example we can be justified in saying that "throwing petrol on the burning car" is not as good way to act compared to trying to help in whatever way we can. The fact that "Life" matters to us and we want to do something to save the person and not just walk away shows we know there is a right and wrong way to act.

Our opinion that life matters is a subjective one.

This is what I am talking about. You bring up scenarios for which I say is irrelevant but I go along and try to answer them anyway and when I do rather than argue the current one you jump to another and another. How many moral scenarios will it take until you see its all irrelevant.

I'm trying to show you that what people agree on in one case can't be applied to all cases because it's subjective.

You have said that morality is objective in all cases. You have said that it is always morally good to preserve life. Therefore it is morally good to ignore the "do not resuscitate" wishes of someone.

Nevertheless I still go along. So we can reason that some actions are better/best than others. That in itself tells you there are some right and wrong ways to act morally. We can say trying to help the patient is a better way to behave than shoving medication down her throat.

Woah, hold on there.

You made the claim that we can reason that some actions are better than others, but you gave absolutely no support for that claim. Once again, we have someone acting as though their subjective opinion is objective fact. I've mentioned this countless times now, so I don't see why you would keep doing it.

Thats why reasoning is important as we need to take the circumstances into consideration. For example it may depend if the patient is able to make proper decisions. But if they are coherent then people have the Right to determine their "Life" even if we think its a wrong decision.

If we need to take the circumstances into consideration, and the circumstances are always different, then how can you possibly say that it's objective?

And you are still ignoring the fact that two different people might have completely different opinions about the same exact situation. If you want me to buy your objective morality ideas, you MUST explain that.

 

[Kylie]

Positive prejudice is called being gracious.

What on earth is "positive prejudice"?

 

[Moral Orel]

What on earth is "positive prejudice"?

Maybe it's like when you're racist, but your racist thoughts are nice. Like "All Asian people are good at math and are Kung-Fu masters".

 

[stevevw]

Okay then. Yes, people can act hypocritically. Have you ever met people? Why do you expect they will always act in a way that is consistent with what they claim about how they would act?

I'm not expecting anyone to act consistently because we have free will and can go against our conscience of what is the right thing to do.

My point is morality matters to us more than anything like opinions or preferences. We know right and wrong through our conscience. So we are expressing truths about the world. That’s why I think moral realism is the most reasonable position to take because it’s about how we actually live out morality.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that empathy is objective! HA!

Empathy is, by definition, using our own SUBJECTIVE feelings as a way to ASSUME how another person FEELS about a particular situation.

What part of that comes across as objective to you?

Using empathy as opposed to non-empathy makes it an objective. Empathy is certain quality as oppose to other qualities.

If it was subjective then non-empathy would be on the same par as empathy as a subjective state of being and there would be no way to tell the difference as there would be no independent measure of whether empathy or non-empathy was moral or immoral. It’s not a good basis for measuring how we treat others because it has no rational but rather a state of the person which says nothing about how we should act as opposed to other ways to act.

And who defines what is BEST for a particular society?

It is rationally determined. Therefore it is determined by what is independently the best way to behave according to what is best for society based on protecting and respecting humans as opposed to other ways to behave that may be less good. Because its rationally determined it is not subjective as its measured against some basis by reasoning.

Please, show me an objective measurement of this increase in quality. On what scale is the quality of CGI measured in? Please tell me. You seem to have ignored all the other times I've asked you to answer questions like this.

Obviously there are certain aspects we can use to measure increases in quality like how realistic it is. As CGI is attempting to replicate what is naturally real then what is natural will be the basis for whether CGI is good quality or not.

What are CGI characteristics?
* In good cases, composite imagery and video that tricks the eye into believing in the illusion presented.
* In bad cases, obviously fake figures, renderings, objects, and environments that look artificial and/or stand out with regards to everything else.
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-cgi-meaning-definition/

And the context is always subjective, isn't it?

No it’s not. The context is based on facts about what the situation is or is not. For example killing in self-defence killing has a different context to 1st degree murder. So the context in which rape happens is sex without consent as opposed to consensual sex. So these are facts which make a difference to how we determine if a moral wrong has been done or the level of severity.

And how do you objectively measure the intention?

By assessing the facts and peoples actions and roles in the moral situation. The same as they do in court. So evidence will show that a person killing a robber or terrorist to defend their family or community as opposed to someone who kills in cold blood and has motive and different intention for killing.

Oh, for crying out loud...

I've already talked about how people are welcome to their subjective morality, but I'm going to have an issue with it if they start forcing other people to go along with it if they don't want to.

Ok if morality is only relative/subjective then individuals, organisations and society as a whole are continually forcing people to conform to their subjective moral views.

There are many cases of workers and polititians being sacked for expressing their personal views. There is a shame culture on social media where people are attacked and condemned to the point of being traumatized and losing reputation and affected financially for merely expressing a personal view let along actually acting on it.

There are many examples of organisations sacking people for acting wrong. Look at all the sports players who have been stood down. Look at the "No Platforming" in Universities. Look at PC and freedom of speech and how certain narratives are banned as being wrong, racist and intolerant by those who claim that its hate speech. This is all about forcing personal morals onto others.

Your arguments seem to include this reuse of points refuted multiple times quite a bit. Do you forget what I have said, or do you just skim my posts without actually reading them properly?

From what I remember you have not provided any evidence to refute this point. You have said that “you would state your view that rape is wrong”. I explained that this does not work as it’s just an opinion. It has no truth value beyond you so anyone who has the opposite view is just as valid as theres no measure of right and wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

You have to explain how your personal opinion has any weight beyone yourself. Otherwise it means nothing as far as what is truely right and wrong. You may as well be speaking about preferences for TV shows and no ones preference for a TV show is normatively wrong.

Morality is about what is right and wrong. Social etiquette is about what is right and wrong.

But its not noramtive.
Lying and cheating are moral issues rather than simply an issue of manners. All these moral choices are intentional actions. The unethical person chooses to act in a way contrary to a moral code; he is aware that the action is an improper one, but he chooses to do it anyway.

Manners, on the other hand, don’t have a moral component to them. Instead, manners are guideposts that help us to interact more successfully with those around us. There may be a correct or an incorrect way to handle a given situation, but there is no moral decision involved. In essence, manners tell us what to do and what to expect others to do as we interact.
Etiquette, Manners, and Ethics

Eveneso if its about right and wrong behaviour then the same logic can apply.

No it's not. How you greet someone is social etiquette!

You just likened it to morality. Regardless the same logic will apply. So how we greet someone can be different under cultural etiquette where a kiss may be offensive to some and not others. But all cultures agree that greeting someone respectfully is a truth.

If all morality is objective, why do you have to rely on only the extreme examples? Surely, if all morality is objective, you can rely on ANY example and it will prove your point just as well.

First I don’t just rely on the extreme examples. I have used less extreme examples like keeping promises, racism, sexual harassment, even the candy bar example.

Second if extreme examples show objective morality is true then the job done, end of story. If moral truths exist for extreme examples then they exist for less extreme examples. The same as if Math facts exist for extreme obvious examples like 2+2=4 then they will exist for complicated Math even if we cannot work it out the equation at the time.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not expecting anyone to act consistently because we have free will and can go against our conscience of what is the right thing to do.

My point is morality matters to us more than anything like opinions or preferences. We know right and wrong through our conscience. So we are expressing truths about the world. That’s why I think moral realism is the most reasonable position to take because it’s about how we actually live out morality.

Let's say there is a person who believes that if he is ever faced with a crisis, he will take action to save people. But one day he is actually in a crisis and freezes with fear. His LIVED EXPERIENCE shows that his morals are poor, since what he actually does is not the heroic deed he always believed he would do. His morality and conscience are at odds with his lived experience. And you are the one who said that it is our INTENTIONS that were important, yet in this case, his intentions and his lived experience are at odds!

Your position has lead to a contradictory situation, and thus can't work.

Using empathy as opposed to non-empathy makes it an objective. Empathy is certain quality as oppose to other qualities.
If it was subjective then non-empathy would be on the same par as empathy as a subjective state of being and there would be no way to tell the difference as there would be no independent measure of whether empathy or non-empathy was moral or immoral. It’s not a good basis for measuring how we treat others because it has no rational but rather a state of the person which says nothing about how we should act as opposed to other ways to act.

I'm sorry, have you been getting your ideas about empathy from Star Trek?

It is rationally determined. Therefore it is determined by what is independently the best way to behave according to what is best for society based on protecting and respecting humans as opposed to other ways to behave that may be less good. Because its rationally determined it is not subjective as its measured against some basis by reasoning.

Except you can't actually show us this process of determining it, can you? You just say it happens.

Obviously there are certain aspects we can use to measure increases in quality like how realistic it is. As CGI is attempting to replicate what is naturally real then what is natural will be the basis for whether CGI is good quality or not.

What are CGI characteristics?
* In good cases, composite imagery and video that tricks the eye into believing in the illusion presented.
* In bad cases, obviously fake figures, renderings, objects, and environments that look artificial and/or stand out with regards to everything else.
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-cgi-meaning-definition/

I see nothing there which answers my question. On what scale is CGI quality measured?

If you can't answer the question, admit it, by don't waste everyone's time by posting things that aren't actually relevant.

No it’s not. The context is based on facts about what the situation is or is not. For example killing in self-defence killing has a different context to 1st degree murder. So the context in which rape happens is sex without consent as opposed to consensual sex. So these are facts which make a difference to how we determine if a moral wrong has been done or the level of severity.

So there's always a clear difference between self defence and intentional murder, is there?

By assessing the facts and peoples actions and roles in the moral situation. The same as they do in court. So evidence will show that a person killing a robber or terrorist to defend their family or community as opposed to someone who kills in cold blood and has motive and different intention for killing.

However, since your assessment is not necessarily going to be the same as someone else's assessment, it's not actually objective, is it?

Ok if morality is only relative/subjective then individuals, organisations and society as a whole are continually forcing people to conform to their subjective moral views.

No, because the people who are raised within that society are raised to share those same morals. You speak as though people with wildly different moral views (cutting off a hand is acceptable punishment for a thief, etc) are being forced to change. That is very rarely the case, and where it happens there is often a lot of conflict. I remember a little while ago here in Sydney there were a lot of people upset about a Muslim school that was being planned. They thought it would teach moral values that were different to the norm.

There are many cases of workers and polititians being sacked for expressing their personal views. There is a shame culture on social media where people are attacked and condemned to the point of being traumatized and losing reputation and affected financially for merely expressing a personal view let along actually acting on it.

And plenty of cases where politicians have not been sacked or punished for expressing their views, depending on whether their fan base agrees with those views or not.

There are many examples of organisations sacking people for acting wrong. Look at all the sports players who have been stood down. Look at the "No Platforming" in Universities. Look at PC and freedom of speech and how certain narratives are banned as being wrong, racist and intolerant by those who claim that its hate speech. This is all about forcing personal morals onto others.

No.

No one is forcing people to change their views. The y are simply saying, "If you choose to present these views, we will choose to not give you a platform from which to present them.

From what I remember you have not provided any evidence to refute this point. You have said that “you would state your view that rape is wrong”. I explained that this does not work as it’s just an opinion. It has no truth value beyond you so anyone who has the opposite view is just as valid as theres no measure of right and wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

You have to explain how your personal opinion has any weight beyone yourself. Otherwise it means nothing as far as what is truely right and wrong. You may as well be speaking about preferences for TV shows and no ones preference for a TV show is normatively wrong.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

My morality IS my opinion, and it doesn't have any weight beyond myself. However, we live in a society and culture where most people hold pretty much the same morals code as me. That agreement doesn't make it objective!

I've said this so many times!

But its not noramtive.
Lying and cheating are moral issues rather than simply an issue of manners. All these moral choices are intentional actions. The unethical person chooses to act in a way contrary to a moral code; he is aware that the action is an improper one, but he chooses to do it anyway.

Manners, on the other hand, don’t have a moral component to them. Instead, manners are guideposts that help us to interact more successfully with those around us. There may be a correct or an incorrect way to handle a given situation, but there is no moral decision involved. In essence, manners tell us what to do and what to expect others to do as we interact.
Etiquette, Manners, and Ethics

Rubbish. Is the mother whose child was killed in a school shooting required to greet with respect the person who claims that is was a false flag and that her child never really existed and it's all a story cooked up to steal people's guns?

Eveneso if its about right and wrong behaviour then the same logic can apply.
You just likened it to morality. Regardless the same logic will apply. So how we greet someone can be different under cultural etiquette where a kiss may be offensive to some and not others. But all cultures agree that greeting someone respectfully is a truth.

No, YOU likened it to morality. I was just pointing out how your line of reasoning is a double standard.

First I don’t just rely on the extreme examples. I have used less extreme examples like keeping promises, racism, sexual harassment, even the candy bar example.

Then I challenge you to use the candy bar example or other similarly mild examples and nothing more. If all of morality is objective as you claim, you should have no problem proving your point without needing to resort to extreme examples.

Second if extreme examples show objective morality is true then the job done, end of story. If moral truths exist for extreme examples then they exist for less extreme examples. The same as if Math facts exist for extreme obvious examples like 2+2=4 then they will exist for complicated Math even if we cannot work it out the equation at the time.

As I have pointed out countless times, using extreme examples is dishonest because it's an attempt to get people to think that the widespread agreement about them means they are objective.

As I have pointed out on all of these occasions, a widely held opinion is still just an opinion, not a fact.

Nearly everyone agrees that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, yet that doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion.

 

[childeye 2]

What on earth is "positive prejudice"?

A person being presumed innocent until proven guilty is a good example.

 

[stevevw]

Oh come on. Are you suggesting that an exoplanet might not have gravity just because no one has gone out there to measure it?

I am saying we can speculate the gravity on other planets but its not until we experience that gravity and how it affects our lives that we can really know what its like.

For example the gravity on each planet in our own solar system varies. So we will experience gravity differently on each planet and this will determine how we can live and function.

No.
The instant anyone says, "Starship Troopers is better than Battlefield Earth, but not as good as The Abyss," they are referencing different shades of grey. By your argument, there must be some objective measure to determine these shades of grey, and therefore movie preference is objective fact, not subjective opinion.

I don't like the description of "shades of grey" because it can mean not quite fact when objectivity is fact, its either fact or not fact. Its more about each degree has some independent fact/truth measured against some basis that supports that degree of change.

So where do we draw the distinction between what constitutes a different category of moral fact? One could easily argue that there are as many different categories of moral acts as there are different moral acts themselves. And if we do that, then it becomes a lot harder to argue that there is an objective morality.

Not really. Look at most ethical codes and moral laws like the 10 commandments and there is only a small list of acts. Basically its about how we treat others. So lying, stealing, killing, harming innocent people are about it. But from these all other immoral acts flow.

And even apart from this, if we take just one single moral act and get two different opinions on it, those opinions are almost certainly going to be different. Two different people can easily give two different levels of severity to the same act. This should not be possible in an objective moral system.

The degree of severity has nothing to do with whether a moral act is right or wrong. Two people disagreement about the severity of a moral act both agree that its a wrong act. They just disagree on the severity which is more to do with penalties.

Because the harm that was done is not the only part of the act of rape.

So what are the other parts of rape to consider.

Why do you so consistently build strawmen of my arguments?

I think its the other way around. Why are you arguing about the levels of harm associated with rape. What has that got to do with whether rape is either right or wrong.

No, I am comparing a moral act to another moral act.

OK then you need to take all the circumstances into consideration to compare them proeprly. When you do that rationally and logically we see that murder is different to shoplifting. Taking a life is more severe than shoplifting and the penalties reflect that.

No, you've said there's no relevance to degrees of wrongness. "Thats what morality is, its either right or wrong." "It doesn't matter as harm is harm. To say that someone only got slightly harmed and therefore it doesn't matter is silly."

You've gone from saying it's either right or wrong, and the shades of grey don't matter to now saying we should look at degrees of wrongness.

I think you are getting confused and using shades of grey is a wrong analogy as it implies something is not quite wrong. I have always maintained there are degrees of severity but each degree of severity is still either right or wrong. What your doing is thinking degrees of severity equal not quite wrong in the first place.

There is an objective age given by the law, but that doesn't mean that it's objective in the same way that the speed of light is objective. There are some people who are emotionally mature enough to have sex at 14. And other people who are NOT emotionally mature enough at 30.

So as you acknowledge there is an objective age given by law. They didn't just pull an age out of a hat. They went to science and the science states that there is a bit of variation in the age rather than subjective opinion but according to objective reaosns.

So we can say the age of consent is around 16 years rather than 10 years. But the law is about consent so it also covers those who may be mentally impaired, emotionally immature. So if anyone is brought before the law they can be individualy assessed if they able to give consent.

I disagree that a 14 year old is emotionally mature as the pre-frontal cortex which is associated with rational thinking (understanding the consequences for actions) is not developed in 14 year olds.

And we have different countries with different ages. And even within a country, different states have different ages. So don't try to tell me that it's objective. You used ten years old as an extreme example (as you so often do), but you have missed the fact that what you have said is wrong IS PRECISELY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN REALITY.

First each nation and state didn't just set their age by pulling a number our of a hat. They used the science. It may vary but it doesn't vary a lot. Its still an objective on a scale because it is set around 16 and not 10 or 12.

But because a country may set a very young age doesn't mean they are right. We can assess through science each and every person to see if they individually are able to give consent against some basis and can make an objective determination based on this.

Again with the strawman!

I NEVER said that.

I said that there is no objectively correct age of consent. Different countries and different states have come up with their own decisions on what the age of consent should be, and these often disagree. This is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no objectively correct answer.

You just said that you are not creating a logical fallacy and then confirm you are. You have once again more or less said that because people disagree we cannot find any objective. If not what is exactly your point because disagreement doesn't mean no objective.

I just showed you how we can determine facts about age of consent even down to individuals. We can even determine whether those who disagree and have different ages for consent are in line with what the science says. So those who disagree may be just plain wrong.

So now you equate the development of new fields to an improvement in the previous fields.

Its all associated with the development of Math and helps us understand the world better. The article is about the History and development of Math through the ages. We started with basic knowledge and developemnt a more comprehensive understand of how Math can be applied to the world.

Tell me, how did the development of calculus improve addition?

Calculus is only one aspect of Math. But notice as this article states Isaac Newton changed the world when he invented Calculus in 1665.
How Isaac Newton Changed the World with the Invention of Calculus

So calculus changed our world and thats what I am talking about in that Math like morlaity has a real application in the world and we can experience it by how it affects our reality.

It is our relationship to Math and how we can apply it to our world that is important rather than the equation written on some blackboard which means noting until we can see how it works in real regardes to reality.

 

[Astrid]

What on earth is "positive prejudice"?

A person being presumed innocent until proven guilty is a good example.

That is neutral, not positive.
How about if you see someone knowing zero about them
other than what you see.
What are examples of prejudice you would apply?

 

[childeye 2]

That is neutral, not positive.

You could be talking about "amoral", which implies unconcerned about what is moral or immoral. But I think you're probably talking about a left/right dichotomy as pertains to neutrality, which has a political context.

The context I am referring to is the straight up/down true dichotomy of Morality/immorality as pertains to distinguishing morality from immorality objectively. Morality is the positive in that it exists first and has a positive value that cannot be realized (seen as real), without it's negative.

How about if you see someone knowing zero about them
other than what you see.
What are examples of prejudice you would apply?

Well, this is the exact scenario I am referring to where prejudice is applicable (having no facts). I'm saying that presumption of innocence until proven guilty, in this scenario, is the reasonable course and therefore an objective morality. You can call it neutral if you wish, but that gives no meaning to morality which is a positive value, and which needs its negative to have its value realized.

 

[Astrid]

You could be talking about "amoral", which implies unconcerned about what is moral or immoral. But I think you're probably talking about a left/right dichotomy as pertains to neutrality, which has a political context.

The context I am referring to is the straight up/down true dichotomy of Morality/immorality as pertains to distinguishing morality from immorality objectively. Morality is the positive in that it exists first and has a positive value that cannot be realized (seen as real), without it's negative.




Well, this is the exact scenario I am referring to where prejudice is applicable (having no facts). I'm saying that presumption of innocence until proven guilty, in this scenario, is the reasonable course and therefore an objective morality. You can call it neutral if you wish, but that gives no meaning to morality which is a positive value, and which needs its negative to have its value realized.

There is no bright line distinction between moral and immoral,
no more than there is between night and day.
Illustrating with examples could go on indefinitely.
"Night", "day", "moral" " immoral" are useful words but false dichotomy.

Impossible to have " no facts", so your argument loses steam there too.

One of several resons that as you indicate, " therefore no
objective ( absolute) morality.


Do you distinguish between the two?

 

[childeye 2]

There is no bright line distinction between moral and immoral,
no more than there is between night and day.

Light is a good analogy. And Light exists objectively, as does morality.

Illustrating with examples could go on indefinitely.
"Night", "day", "moral" " immoral" are useful words but false dichotomy.

I still think you're talking about a left/right dichotomy or politics, and the futility of putting a point between two points forever.

But I'm talking about a true dichotomy. No one can see where the light ends and the darkness begins, because it doesn't work that way. It only matters from which direction the Light is shining.

Impossible to have " no facts", so your argument loses steam there too.

That's what prejudice implies.

One of several reasons that as you indicate, " therefore no
objective ( absolute) morality.

I don't know what you mean by this. If there are always facts, then there is always objectivity. Certainly moral virtue exists factually, just as night and day do.

Do you distinguish between the two?

Yes of course I reason right from wrong because I don't want to do harm or reason upon falsehood. But that's not what makes morality objective and not subjective. I see that people weep with sorrow at the suffering of others. The body and soul is designed to experience this, so this moral virtue of compassion/love, is not an opinion nor a product of reasoning.

 

[Astrid]

Light is a good analogy. And Light exists objectively, as does morality.


I still think you're talking about a left/right dichotomy or politics, and the futility of putting a point between two points forever.

But I'm talking about a true dichotomy. No one can see where the light ends and the darkness begins, because it doesn't work that way. It only matters from which direction the Light is shining
That's what prejudice implies.


I don't know what you mean by this. If there are always facts, then there is always objectivity. Certainly moral virtue exists factually, just as night and day do.


Yes of course I reason right from wrong because I don't want to do harm. But that's not what makes morality objective and not subjective. I see that people weep with sorrow at the suffering of others. The body and soul is designed to experience this, so this moral virtue is not an opinion nor a product of reasoning.

Come now. You cannot possibly think I was not
pointing out that night shades into day.
" bright line" is a legal term aboutvthete being no
shades of grey,
Your comment about light is irrelevant, your announcement
about morality is what we refer to as a " fact not in evidence,
Its just your opinion.

I know you are talking " true dichotomy" but you
offer none. The poesy about the direction of light
serves only to illuminate your inability to make a
" true dichotomy" of moral / immoral.

I will skip the rest of what you get wrong.

Theres no moral absolutes no objective morality, no dichotomy.
Only shades of grey, and subjective opinions.

Shall we demonstrate that?
Give me a general rule that is an objective /
absolute one, such that there are no exceptions
no other considerations ( for lo, there lie the grim
shoals of relativeism)

 

[childeye 2]

Come now. You cannot possibly think I was not
pointing out that night shades into day.

I figured you were either talking about a left/right dichotomy, or you were pointing out that shadows are caused by something blocking the Light.

" bright line" is a legal term aboutvthete being no
shades of grey,

Well of course there are degrees between two absolutes, if that's what you mean.

Your comment about light is irrelevant, your announcement
about morality is what we refer to as a " fact not in evidence,
Its just your opinion.

It was your analogy of daytime and nighttime, which requires Light. Compassion/love is a fact with evidence that I put forth when I said all people weep at the suffering of others and therefore this moral virtue is intrinsic and not a product of reasoning.

I know you are talking " true dichotomy" but you
offer none. The poesy about the direction of light
serves only to illuminate your inability to make a
" true dichotomy" of moral / immoral.

Immorality is the absence of morality in all its degrees, just as darkness is the absence of light.
I already pointed out that morality has no meaning/value without immorality to compare in contrast. That's why it's a valid dichotomy.

I will skip the rest of what you get wrong.

Respectfully, you haven't established anything wrong so far.

Theres no moral absolutes no objective morality, no dichotomy.
Only shades of grey, and subjective opinions.

This is the moral absolute I see, compassion/love.

Shall we demonstrate that?
Give me a general rule that is an objective /
absolute one, such that there are no exceptions
no other considerations ( for lo, there lie the grim
shoals of relativeism)

Well this is the problem. You're talking about politics, a left/right dichotomy, which is not a positive/negative dichotomy. You're simply saying people disagree on what's right and wrong objectively. No argument there. You need to show objectively that love/compassion is not a moral virtue to be valued.

 

[Astrid]

I figured you were either talking about a left/right dichotomy, or you were pointing out that shadows are caused by something blocking the Light.
Well of course there are degrees between two absolutes, if that's what you mean.

It was your analogy of daytime and nighttime, which requires Light. Compassion/love is a fact with evidence that I put forth when I said all people weep at the suffering of others and therefore this moral virtue is intrinsic and not a product of reasoning.

Immorality is the absence of morality in all its degrees, just as darkness is the absence of light.
I already pointed out that morality has no meaning/value without immorality to compare in contrast. That's why it's a valid dichotomy.


Respectfully, you haven't established anything wrong so far.


This is the moral absolute I see, compassion/love.

Well this is the problem. You're talking about politics, a left/right dichotomy, which is not a positive/negative dichotomy. You're simply saying people disagree on what's right and wrong objectively. No argument there. You need to show objectively that love/compassion is not a moral virtue to be valued.

You JUST GOT THROUGH admitting you figured wrong.

And I am not " simply saying...". Another miss

I AM NOT talking politics. Or odd metaphors about light.

Reading probs. Read more carefully

Something is only immoral if it lacks moraIty in all degrees?
Ooh, can i find issues with thst!
That does not leave much.


Anyway
Im hearing about how there are absolutes but no examples..


I figure you dont have any.

 

[childeye 2]

Im not talking politics or some odd metaphor about light.

Im hearing about how there are absolutes but no examples.

If you're saying people in their subjective views cannot agree on what is objectively true, then it's the vanity of my morality is better than yours (political leanings).

I gave you an example of the moral virtue of compassion as an objective morality at least four times. You now need to objectively show that compassion is not a moral virtue that is to be valued objectively.

 

[Astrid]

If you're saying people in their subjective views cannot agree on what is objectively true, then it's the vanity of my morality is better than yours (political leanings). I gave you an example of the moral virtue of compassion as an objective morality at least four times. You now need to show that compassion is not a moral virtue that is to be valued.

So you figure always, all circumstances compassion is morally right?
Ha.
How many examples of that not being so are needed?

You did not say if objective and absolute go together.
Plz clarify.

 

[childeye 2]

So you figure always, all circumstances compassion is morally right?

I would say its morally good (valued as such) in all circumstances. It's not a product of reasoning. Compassion reacts as a consequence of seeing others suffer, and its action is always to relieve the suffering of others. It therefore commiserates in every circumstance.

Ha.
How many examples of that not being so are needed?

As long as it's not a subjective point of view, then one would suffice.

You did not say if objective and absolute go together.
Plz clarify.

Objective means a fact of reality for everyone, whether they realize it or not. Moral means serving all people collectively. Absolute means compassion is never immoral in its intention or goal.

 

[Astrid]

I would say its morally good in all circumstances. It's not a product of reasoning. Compassion reacts as a consequence of seeing others suffer, and its action is always to relieve the suffering of others. It therefore commiserates in every circumstance.


As long as it's not a subjective point of view, then one would suffice.

Objective means a fact of reality for everyone, whether they realize it or not. Absolute means compassion is never immoral in its intention or goal.

I did notice you wont acknowledge anything you get wrong.
Why is that, after denying ( another error right there)
you got anything wrong? Any moral issues there?

As for compassion, its generally good.
Is it enough tovjudt feel bad, or are you called to
action?
Nothing wonderful about "compassion" if you
dont do anything.