Is there an absolute morality?

[childeye 2]

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?

I'd be thankful for any correction, but you have to show me my mistake so that it's sincere.

I'm arguing from a point of view, that our bodies are fashioned, by the energy that formed us. Subsequently, we were made to weep at seeing the suffering of others and the loss of loved ones. We were made to experience that. Therefore, morality is intrinsic in its value. This is the fact of the matter that I see. You've said nothing that disputes that.

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

Compassion means "to suffer together". It's a response to suffering that is a motivation to act in relief of that suffering. If one walks away, they are not suffering together. The fact is that some people when seeing the suffering of others will look away because compassion is a discomfort.

 

[Astrid]

I'd be thankful for any correction, but you have to show me my mistake so that it's sincere.

I'm arguing from a point of view, that our bodies are fashioned, by the energy that formed us. Subsequently, we were made to weep at seeing the suffering of others and the loss of loved ones. We were made to experience that. Therefore, morality is intrinsic in its value. This is the fact of the matter that I see. You've said nothing that disputes that.


Compassion means "to suffer together". It's a response to suffering that is a motivation to act in relief of that suffering. If one walks away, they are not suffering together. The fact is that some people when seeing the suffering of others will look away because compassion is a discomfort.

Your own post 1235, the first two lines are you saying what you
thought, after i said you thought wrong about my post.

My response #1236 i mentioned that, gave you to mote ways you
got things wrong. Easy for me, they were things you just invented, made up
about me.
Now you say there are no such.

I wont even go into your fanciful definitions for light and energy.

But neither the dictionary nor the bible affirm your definition for
compassion. It does not mean what you think it means.
Such reckless misuse of words make communication too hard to fiurther bothervwith.
So I will end with this

One of Lewis Carroll's characters was pleased to announce that
he won debates, because words mean precisely what he said
they mean, nothing more nor less.

Wont work with me even ifvEnglish is my second language

If you wish to hold that I should, to be moral, suffer along
with the man who raped me- assuming he ever gets caught-
then I guess you will.

Seeing your above performance, maling things up and denial
of all error, i expect you wont see any prob with your " compassion
Is objective morality" either.

 

[childeye 2]

Your own post 1235, the first two lines are you saying what you
thought, after i said you thought wrong about my post.

My response #1236 i mentioned that, gave you to mote ways you
got things wrong. Easy for me, they were things you just invented, made up
about me.
Now you say there are no such.

Honestly, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from.
To me, subjective morality just means people don't always agree on what's objectively moral. That's what I mean by politics. (What policy is the greater moral good).

I wont even go into your fanciful definitions for light and energy.

Hmmm.

But neither the dictionary nor the bible affirm your definition for
compassion. It does not mean what you think it means.

Here is how I defined compassion: Compassion means "to suffer together". It's a response to suffering that is a motivation to act in relief of that suffering.

This is Meriam/Webster:
Essential Meaning of compassion

: a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc.He felt compassion for the lost child.She shows compassion to the sick.She had the compassion to offer help when it was needed most.
Full Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

Etymology: The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with.

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

Scriptural references:
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

Such reckless misuse of words make communication too hard to fiurther bothervwith.
So I will end with this

That's okay. I think we do have trouble communicating. For what it's worth, I've never felt nor thought that you are not moral or that you don't know compassion. Peace.

 

[stevevw]

(Staff Edit 1/20/2022)

And that's all subjective.

How can it be subjective. How is our justified belief that the world operates the same as how we intuit it. We test our intuition of reality by actually living in that reality and see how it conforms to our intuition. That is not subjective. If it was then we could not say that any of our justified beliefs are real and therefore cannot be relied upon.

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

I'm pointing out your faulty thinking.

Then talk us through this methodology for morality.

I just did.

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

REALLY?

Taking a philosophical position on what is the moral thing to do is different to what we will actually do when the time comes. We can make all sorts of virtuious claims about how we will act morally as a philosophy for life but the real tests comes when we actually have to put that into practice.

Unsupported claim.

Then your also claiming that all the world organisations like the UN, WHO, most nations Constitutions and Declarations are unsupported. If thats the case then they are forcing unsupported claims on everyone.

All these different entities have rationally determined that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable. They even make Rights inalienable meaning they cannot be subject to people subjective views or opinions and not even entire governments can deny this. The reason they are made law and Rights is because they rest on a solid foundation that has been rationally determined independnet of subjective or relative moral views.

Our conscience is subjective.

What, how can our conscience be subjective when it works against our subjective thinking. What do you think a guilty conscience means. Someone has subjectively thought that what they were doing was OK but then their conscience condemns them. The guilt is written all over their face and actions. You cannot hide the truth.

Our opinion that life matters is a subjective one.

No its based on our experience of how "Life" has been subjectively viewed as not mattering through World Wars and other carnage destroying life that we make laws and Rights to protect the fact that it matters. If it didn't matter then "Life" as we know it would not exist or not exist in any respectful way because there would be no reason to respect life because it doesn't matter in any truthful way.

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.

We havn't even had the chance to debate each example properly because when I do refute your claims rather than address this you jump to another because you have no answer.

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.

I never said that its always good to preserve life so thats wrong. Just because we value life doesn't mean we have to preserve it no matter what and nor does that mean "Life"is not valuable. Part of why life is valuable is that it allows people the right to make their own decisions about life and if they are coherent then this must be acknowledged.

But heres another point. The fact that someone wants to end their life when they don't have a good life can only be an issue if 'Life" has value in the first place to compare that bad life with. Thats why some people want to end their life because they know their life is missing that value. Otherwise it just would'nt matter.

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.

So if people only based their actions on what they subjectively think is right then shoving pills down a persons throat against their wishes is ok as its just someones subjective view and we have no way of telling if thats a right or wrong way to behave. Do you see how this just doesn't make sense.

I thought you would understand the reasoning. On the one hand we have behaviour that goes against the patients wishes and forces the pills down their throat probably casuing a lot more harm if not choking them and hurting them by pinning them down.

On the other hand we have an alternative behaviour of trying to help the patient in what ever way they can. The reasoning will show that one action more harmful for the patient and agaiunst their rights then the other. Thats just common sense really and you don't need some degree to know this.

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?

Because each and every moral situation deserves a rational and logical determination to find the truth. Like with killing. If we did not take the circumstances of self-defence killing into consideration then we would just think the person was a horrible murderer.

But because we take the circumstances into consideration we see that the person had no intention of killing anyone but was forced into a situation of defending themselves or their family. Completely different to the cold blooded and premeditated killing of a murderer.

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.

Thats why its important to be rational and consider the circumstances so we avoid peoples subjective views which could end up making a murderer out of an innocent and a murderer into some poor bloke just down on his luck.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never said that its always good to preserve life so thats wrong. Just because we value life doesn't mean we have to preserve it no matter what and nor does that mean "Life"is not valuable. Part of why life is valuable is that it allows people the right to make their own decisions about life and if they are coherent then this must be acknowledged.

But heres another point. The fact that someone wants to end their life when they don't have a good life can only be an issue if 'Life" has value in the first place to compare that bad life with. Thats why some people want to end their life because they know their life is missing that value. Otherwise it just would'nt matter.

You've said a bunch of times now that "life is intrinsically valuable". Now, I just assumed you meant that "more life is better than less life". More of something valuable is better than less of something valuable. But that can't be what you mean.

Now you say it's okay to just end a life. How is it that "life is intrinsically valuable" but it's okay to cause there to be less life? What does "life is intrinsically valuable" even mean?

 

[stevevw]

You've said a bunch of times now that "life is intrinsically valuable". Now, I just assumed you meant that "more life is better than less life". More of something valuable is better than less of something valuable. But that can't be what you mean.

Now you say it's okay to just end a life. How is it that "life is intrinsically valuable" but it's okay to cause there to be less life? What does "life is intrinsically valuable" even mean?

"Life"being intrinsically valuable is just that. Its valuable in itself without using anything else to make it valuable. That is why its an inalieable right.

But from this basis we can derive certain qualities that Life should have. That includes having a quality of life I would imagine rather than a horrible life. It also includes the right to life and it can be argued with that the right to ends ones life for a justified reason. Because forcing someone to live a horrible life goes against a quality of life worth living.

That is why we place importance on someone being able to make that decision with a sound mind. That itself does not deminish "Life" being an intrinsic value as far as I understand.

 

[Astrid]

Honestly, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from.
To me, subjective morality just means people don't always agree on what's objectively moral. That's what I mean by politics. (What policy is the greater moral good).
Hmmm.


Here is how I defined compassion: Compassion means "to suffer together". It's a response to suffering that is a motivation to act in relief of that suffering.

This is Meriam/Webster:
Essential Meaning of compassion

: a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc.He felt compassion for the lost child.She shows compassion to the sick.She had the compassion to offer help when it was needed most.
Full Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

Etymology: The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with.

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

Scriptural references:
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

That's okay. I think we do have trouble communicating. For what it's worth, I've never felt nor thought that you are not moral or that you don't know compassion. Peace.

Exactly as I said. Neither the bible nor the dictionary
supports your eccentric "definition" for compassion.
Same with " politics".
We are taught to accept our errors, no not try to shift the blame,
and not just make things up.

 

[childeye 2]

Honestly, we see here a failure to simply accept
the responsibility of accepting any error.

As for " compassion" I'm not the one who didnt know what
it actually means. The definitions copy pasted illustrate that.

The communication prob has to do with making up
assertions about me, and of course eccentric definitions.
So, sure, peace. This is hopeless.

Respectfully, you're mistaken. I know what I meant, and it's even qualified. I never made up anything about you. When a person says they figured somebody was either saying this or that, it means they're unsure, not they're making things up about the other person.

The definition I gave for compassion is the exact same as Merriam Webster, and scripture, and the etymology is also supported. I've posted that so I have no idea how you could claim otherwise.

 

[Astrid]

Respectfully, you're mistaken. I know what I meant, and it's even qualified. I never made up anything about you. When a person says they figured somebody was either saying this or that, it means they're unsure, not they're making things up about the other person.

The definition I gave for compassion is the exact same as Merriam Webster, and scripture, and the etymology is also supported. I've posted that so I have no idea how you could claim otherwise.

" suffer together "?

 

[Moral Orel]

"Life"being intrinsically valuable is just that. Its valuable in itself without using anything else to make it valuable. That is why its an inalieable right.

Please cite a dictionary definition of "valuable" for me. But just the one entry that matches how you're using the word "valuable".

 

[Tinker Grey]

That is why its an inalieable right.

Inalienable, huh? Tell that to death row inmates and enemy soldiers.

 

[Kylie]

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

I don't see how that can be called a prejudice of any kind.

 

[Kylie]

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?

This person is beautiful, therefore they are good.

I know lots of very beautiful people who are really horrible.

 

[Kylie]

So how does this equate to rape not causing harm at all.

I have never said that rape doesn't cause harm, and the last time you claimed I did say such a thing I said I'd report it if you did it again (see post 1215).

So consider this reported.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't see how that can be called a prejudice of any kind.

For example, in scripture wickedness is wanting to believe bad about others, and Grace is wanting to believe good about others. In Christianity, pure of heart people project their purity onto others, and those with a defiled conscience project their corruption onto others.

Definition of Prejudice
(noun) A favorable or unfavorable preconceived feeling or opinion formed without knowledge, reason, or thought that prevents objective consideration of an idea, individual, group, or thing (object).

 

[childeye 2]

" suffer together "?

From post 1243,

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

 

[stevevw]

Please cite a dictionary definition of "valuable" for me. But just the one entry that matches how you're using the word "valuable".

Then that would be this

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

 

[stevevw]

I have never said that rape doesn't cause harm, and the last time you claimed I did say such a thing I said I'd report it if you did it again (see post 1215).

So consider this reported.

OK well I am sorry if that the case as I did not mean for it to say that you said it did not cause harm. I am wondering why you referring to levels of harm and how that is relevant to how rape cannot be determined as being wrong.

I guess I am asking how subjective harm cannot be classified as harm to show rape is objectively wrong. Subjective harm only means people handle the objective fact of rape harming differently.

Subjective views about rape would only question rape as being objectively wrong only if people subjectively disagree about what rape is in itself and not the harm from rape.

But subjective views about the harm rape causes don't change rape being objectively wrong because unless we can say the harm from rape is completely in peoples heads and unreal which it is not then it doesn't matter if harm varies subjectively.

PS I am not saying you think rape does not cause harm with the above.

 

[stevevw]

Inalienable, huh? Tell that to death row inmates and enemy soldiers.

Yes as far as inalienable rights to life are concerned killing prisoners of war is a breach of Human Rights. Technically so is killing people on death row. But the execution debate is ongoing between what is the best way to deal with wrong doing between retributive justice as opposed to rehabilitative justice.

 

[Kylie]

For example, in scripture wickedness is wanting to believe bad about others, and Grace is wanting to believe good about others. In Christianity, pure of heart people project their purity onto others, and those with a defiled conscience project their corruption onto others.

Definition of Prejudice
(noun) A favorable or unfavorable preconceived feeling or opinion formed without knowledge, reason, or thought that prevents objective consideration of an idea, individual, group, or thing (object).

Prejudice in that sense is something like assuming that a person is better because they are white.

Deciding that you can't conclude that a person is guilty until there is sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion is not, I think, prejudice.