Morality

[Blessed]

Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.
That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

Did you mean no society or culture has agreed it's good? I can imagine some hardened criminals would think it's very good to rob someone else for their own purposes as long as they get away with it. It could be argued that the vast majority of people agree it's wrong because they wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen and also because it's illegal. Criminals wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen either but I don't know if they'd think it was wrong exactly; they'd probably just be angry without caring about the morality of it. It does seem all societies have agreed on the morality of stealing and some other actions.

And their hearts celebrate stealing, lying, killing, raping. They love it. They reveal in it. Stolen bread shared in secret etc. They take pleasure in this. I feel that is the difference. When a "good" person sins they do not take pleasure in sin. They do not love lying or stealing nor revel in it. They only sin selectively when forced to fill a need because circumstances dictate. Their back is against the wall etc.

[melanie]

Rarely is there black or white but a whole lot of grey.
I don’t think that supports subjective morality but rather actually supports objectivity.
As the same narrative surrounds basic principles.
Thou shall not kill... but where does self defence come into play? Does revenge or retribution shift to murder when it’s premeditated?
Thou shall not steal....when not for greed but for love and survival it blurs the lines of morality.
Thou shall not commit adultry... when a person is abused and their abuser won’t allow a separation due to control, did they ever live up to the definition of a betrothed?
Thou shall honour thy mother and father....there are kids who have been terribly abused and mistreated by parents. Honour is not demanded but earned and so many parents haven’t earned that respect.
A misuse of objectivity has placed very vulnerable people into an atmosphere of abuse and neglect.
It is seen across society so the hypocrisy is viewed as subjectivity. The idea that there are circumstances that changes pretext, ergo a whole lot of grey, therefore no objective morality.
There are all kinds of situations, very rarely is anything black or white
But I don’t think that takes away from the basic principles of morality..
The same principles are echoed through every society, past and present but our narrative and/or our understanding of these principles differ.
Free will is a gift.
We must be free to make choices, every life choice is an expression of our will.
The grey that exists within morality is our definition of self and free will. We won’t always be right but we have the right to be wrong.
That is freedom
Freedom of self and spirit
Which is why I think we are destined to pertually confuse objectivity and subjectivity and never really know where the line is drawn.

Only God knows where the line is drawn. What concerns me absolutism. No grey area. Black and white. ALL sins are the same under God. ALL sins are equal. Why? Becuase they are sins. This kind of reply feels intellectually lazy to me. However my concern is people who say this are right.

Your what if questions are too much to address but I constantly wonder similar things. When I've sinned it's not becuase I love sin. I don't "get off" when or if "forced" into lying or "stealing". It should all be relative. Not absolute. I don't "Loveth a lie" or enjoy "devisith wicked imaginations" or "revel in sin". I HATE sin. I hate iniquity. I hate it.

When I do these things it's a response or being "forced" to. I might lie to my Mom because I don't want her to worry about me. I might lie to a client because he is an irritating ignoramus constantly calling me and emailing me eating up my time. I already know the answer or how long a project will take but telling him the "truth" will result in him wasting my time x1000 more plus everyone else's. And since time is money, putting his file as roundabout loss on the books. So I lie, cash his check, then polity tell him I'm not interested in handing his account anymore.

Here is a "stealing" example. Long time ago, this lady overseas ripped me off $10,000. It was a planned deliberate premeditated intentional theft. So by way of thinking lying scheming manipulating etc I was able to "steal" back half the amount forcing her to reimburse her largest client (which I knew she would do or she would go out of business). Half was better than nothing. It was the best i could do. She stole 10k from me my money. I "stole" it back from her client knowing she would be forced to pay them or lose 100x as much. Just a quick example . This means I'm a thief manipular devisith wicked imaginations and going to burn in hell because I'm "gaming". Never mind the details who cares who did what to who. Thou shall not steal.

During another instance an employee of a company tried to cut me out to glorify himself. Now I'm faced with a most serious situation owe me 100k and rent is due. I'm looking losing my entire business which I've worked 80-100 hour weeks with blood sweat and tears ..... Why? Ha. Get this. So the corporate drone young hotshot gets a "golden star" on his shoulder, an "employee of the month" photo in the office .. and a "atta boy!" award (when you make your boss rich he slaps you on the back and says "atta boy!" But of course you never get a raise just a name only promotion)

I wasn't having it. So I played chess and got rid of him. In the end he got a new higher paying better job with a better company and I didn't lose a hundred thousand dollars. The downside? his filthy rich scumbag boss didn't richer. Meaning he couldn't buy 100k more in decadence, throw bigger parties, and his idiot stripper wife go on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills for the newest 10k purses. And I got paid what was rightfully and justly mine which sin tried to take away from me. The ends justified the means.

Most Christians would call me a sinner for this. When the situation calls for it - I'm a liar. Untrustworthy. A thief. A "manipulator" with "schemes" and "wicked imaginations". A sinner. What about the specific situation and all the parties involved etc? It's as if I'm made to feel God doesn't care about nor judge the details. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Black and white judgements make no sense to me.

I don't want those i love to worry, a con artist steal from me, and lose everything i worked for for some young guns vanity and pride. These are just extreme examples of course but I've seen too many good kind religious people "hide behind morality" while those with no moral compass would run them over. Take advantage etc. It's wrong. I fight fire (sin) with fire (sin) it is only fair.

So being judged in absolutist black and white terms scares me and I'm praying God takes the grey into each consideration and renders heavenly judgement accordingly. I am very concerned about going to hell lately after reading this book, watching all these you tube videos, and experiencing physical proof of existence after death.

Blessed there is a lot in your post to navigate through from personal to business matters.
Yes there is always grey but integrity is paramount. When hard decisions are made in business which is often cutthroat as is the nature of the game, especially in finance, ethics and morality are often blurred.
If it doesn’t sit right, if you have to go out of your way to justify anything to anyone but most importantly yourself then something isn’t sitting right.
I’m not suggesting you are wrong in your decisions, that feeling that drives you to question and analyse is a really great attribute but it’s also a trait that allows us to know when we’ve maybe stepped outside the realm of acceptability.

[Kenny]

Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.
That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

I think the problem with the claim that stealing is wrong, is the question then becomes; What constitutes stealing? When I commit action “X”, you might call it stealing, whereas I might call it taking what is rightfully mine. That is where the subjectivity comes in.

Ken

[Kenny]

Rarely is there black or white but a whole lot of grey.
I don’t think that supports subjective morality but rather actually supports objectivity.
As the same narrative surrounds basic principles.
Thou shall not kill... but where does self defence come into play? Does revenge or retribution shift to murder when it’s premeditated?
Thou shall not steal....when not for greed but for love and survival it blurs the lines of morality.
Thou shall not commit adultry... when a person is abused and their abuser won’t allow a separation due to control, did they ever live up to the definition of a betrothed?
Thou shall honour thy mother and father....there are kids who have been terribly abused and mistreated by parents. Honour is not demanded but earned and so many parents haven’t earned that respect.
A misuse of objectivity has placed very vulnerable people into an atmosphere of abuse and neglect.
It is seen across society so the hypocrisy is viewed as subjectivity. The idea that there are circumstances that changes pretext, ergo a whole lot of grey, therefore no objective morality.
There are all kinds of situations, very rarely is anything black or white
But I don’t think that takes away from the basic principles of morality..
The same principles are echoed through every society, past and present but our narrative and/or our understanding of these principles differ.
Free will is a gift.
We must be free to make choices, every life choice is an expression of our will.
The grey that exists within morality is our definition of self and free will. We won’t always be right but we have the right to be wrong.
That is freedom
Freedom of self and spirit
Which is why I think we are destined to pertually confuse objectivity and subjectivity and never really know where the line is drawn.

Melanie

I think you’ve made an excellent argument for subjective morality. Subjective is defined as influenced by opinions, personal feelings, and extenuating circumstances.
When you say thou shalt not kill, but then mention self defence,
When you say thou shalt not steal, but then mention for survival
When you say thou shalt honor father and mother, but then mention child abuse, and all the others; Doesn’t that sound like personal feelings and extenuating circumstances? As apposed to objective, which is the opposite meaning based on fact; independent of opinions, personal feelings, and extenuating circumstances.

Ken

[Kenny]

Rarely is there black or white but a whole lot of grey.
I don’t think that supports subjective morality but rather actually supports objectivity.
As the same narrative surrounds basic principles.
Thou shall not kill... but where does self defence come into play? Does revenge or retribution shift to murder when it’s premeditated?
Thou shall not steal....when not for greed but for love and survival it blurs the lines of morality.
Thou shall not commit adultry... when a person is abused and their abuser won’t allow a separation due to control, did they ever live up to the definition of a betrothed?
Thou shall honour thy mother and father....there are kids who have been terribly abused and mistreated by parents. Honour is not demanded but earned and so many parents haven’t earned that respect.
A misuse of objectivity has placed very vulnerable people into an atmosphere of abuse and neglect.
It is seen across society so the hypocrisy is viewed as subjectivity. The idea that there are circumstances that changes pretext, ergo a whole lot of grey, therefore no objective morality.
There are all kinds of situations, very rarely is anything black or white
But I don’t think that takes away from the basic principles of morality..
The same principles are echoed through every society, past and present but our narrative and/or our understanding of these principles differ.
Free will is a gift.
We must be free to make choices, every life choice is an expression of our will.
The grey that exists within morality is our definition of self and free will. We won’t always be right but we have the right to be wrong.
That is freedom
Freedom of self and spirit
Which is why I think we are destined to pertually confuse objectivity and subjectivity and never really know where the line is drawn.

Only God knows where the line is drawn. What concerns me absolutism. No grey area. Black and white. ALL sins are the same under God. ALL sins are equal. Why? Becuase they are sins. This kind of reply feels intellectually lazy to me. However my concern is people who say this are right.

Your what if questions are too much to address but I constantly wonder similar things. When I've sinned it's not becuase I love sin. I don't "get off" when or if "forced" into lying or "stealing". It should all be relative. Not absolute. I don't "Loveth a lie" or enjoy "devisith wicked imaginations" or "revel in sin". I HATE sin. I hate iniquity. I hate it.

When I do these things it's a response or being "forced" to. I might lie to my Mom because I don't want her to worry about me. I might lie to a client because he is an irritating ignoramus constantly calling me and emailing me eating up my time. I already know the answer or how long a project will take but telling him the "truth" will result in him wasting my time x1000 more plus everyone else's. And since time is money, putting his file as roundabout loss on the books. So I lie, cash his check, then polity tell him I'm not interested in handing his account anymore.

Here is a "stealing" example. Long time ago, this lady overseas ripped me off $10,000. It was a planned deliberate premeditated intentional theft. So by way of thinking lying scheming manipulating etc I was able to "steal" back half the amount forcing her to reimburse her largest client (which I knew she would do or she would go out of business). Half was better than nothing. It was the best i could do. She stole 10k from me my money. I "stole" it back from her client knowing she would be forced to pay them or lose 100x as much. Just a quick example . This means I'm a thief manipular devisith wicked imaginations and going to burn in hell because I'm "gaming". Never mind the details who cares who did what to who. Thou shall not steal.

During another instance an employee of a company tried to cut me out to glorify himself. Now I'm faced with a most serious situation owe me 100k and rent is due. I'm looking losing my entire business which I've worked 80-100 hour weeks with blood sweat and tears ..... Why? Ha. Get this. So the corporate drone young hotshot gets a "golden star" on his shoulder, an "employee of the month" photo in the office .. and a "atta boy!" award (when you make your boss rich he slaps you on the back and says "atta boy!" But of course you never get a raise just a name only promotion)

I wasn't having it. So I played chess and got rid of him. In the end he got a new higher paying better job with a better company and I didn't lose a hundred thousand dollars. The downside? his filthy rich scumbag boss didn't richer. Meaning he couldn't buy 100k more in decadence, throw bigger parties, and his idiot stripper wife go on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills for the newest 10k purses. And I got paid what was rightfully and justly mine which sin tried to take away from me. The ends justified the means.

Most Christians would call me a sinner for this. When the situation calls for it - I'm a liar. Untrustworthy. A thief. A "manipulator" with "schemes" and "wicked imaginations". A sinner. What about the specific situation and all the parties involved etc? It's as if I'm made to feel God doesn't care about nor judge the details. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Black and white judgements make no sense to me.

I don't want those i love to worry, a con artist steal from me, and lose everything i worked for for some young guns vanity and pride. These are just extreme examples of course but I've seen too many good kind religious people "hide behind morality" while those with no moral compass would run them over. Take advantage etc. It's wrong. I fight fire (sin) with fire (sin) it is only fair.

So being judged in absolutist black and white terms scares me and I'm praying God takes the grey into each consideration and renders heavenly judgement accordingly. I am very concerned about going to hell lately after reading this book, watching all these you tube videos, and experiencing physical proof of existence after death.

Imagine you lived in Nazi controlled Germany in 1942, and the Gestapo asked you if you knew of any Jews hiding, and you knew the family next door were hiding a jewish family in their basement, I would consider you a contributor to evil if you were to tell the Gestapo the truth. If you lied to them, do you believe God would judge that lie as equal to all other lies?

Ken

[Blessed]

Uhhhhh no. I think that's kind of obvious

[Kenny]

Uhhhhh no. I think that's kind of obvious

But if lying is objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong independent of personal opinions and extenuating circumstances; where as if it were subjectively wrong, you would be able to take extenuating circumstances into account before judging lying as wrong. Do you agree?

Ken

[Philip]

Imagine you lived in Nazi controlled Germany in 1942, and the Gestapo asked you if you knew of any Jews hiding, and you knew the family next door were hiding a jewish family in their basement, I would consider you a contributor to evil if you were to tell the Gestapo the truth. If you lied to them, do you believe God would judge that lie as equal to all other lies?

I believe this represents a principal of greater good - we owe evil people of obvious evil intent NOTHING. What would be the greater evil - lying to the evil Nazis, or helping them to find people they will murder? But ONLY in such a similar circumstance is lying acceptable.

[Blessed]

Uhhhhh no. I think that's kind of obvious

But if lying is objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong independent of personal opinions and extenuating circumstances; where as if it were subjectively wrong, you would be able to take extenuating circumstances into account before judging lying as wrong. Do you agree?

Ken

Yes. But I can't find anywhere in scripture that supports subjective lying even in extreme situations and it's always been taught to me as being objectively wrong.

[Kenny]

Uhhhhh no. I think that's kind of obvious

But if lying is objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong independent of personal opinions and extenuating circumstances; where as if it were subjectively wrong, you would be able to take extenuating circumstances into account before judging lying as wrong. Do you agree?

Ken

Yes. But I can't find anywhere in scripture that supports subjective lying even in extreme situations and it's always been taught to me as being objectively wrong.

I understand your point. I think in the context of what you have been taught and what you believe, what you say makes perfect sense.

Ken

[Kenny]

Imagine you lived in Nazi controlled Germany in 1942, and the Gestapo asked you if you knew of any Jews hiding, and you knew the family next door were hiding a jewish family in their basement, I would consider you a contributor to evil if you were to tell the Gestapo the truth. If you lied to them, do you believe God would judge that lie as equal to all other lies?

I believe this represents a principal of greater good - we owe evil people of obvious evil intent NOTHING. What would be the greater evil - lying to the evil Nazis, or helping them to find people they will murder? But ONLY in such a similar circumstance is lying acceptable.

But when the person is free to choose when an exception is made, isn’t that the beginning of a slippery slope? How about if instead of Nazis asking you, ICE (immigration and customs enforcement) is asking you; and instead of the neighbors hiding Jews in their basement, they are hiding illegal immigrants? Would that depend on whatever side of that particular political issue you stand on? Or perhaps the police is asking you and a criminal is being hidden, but you suspect the cop is crooked, and the criminal innocent? Where do you draw the line?
Thats why I have always insisted morality is subjective, not objective; because though I recognize some things are black, and some things are white, I also recognize there are lots of different shades of grey.

Ken

[Philip]

Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at something that helps evil - and particularly a life and death issue, where evil people will cause physical harm or even death, if you accommodate it. Or, is there a reasonable law that is being broken, and you are quizzed what you know of it? If so, that's another issue - in which I'd tell the truth. But are the people raising a question, evil, with evil intent, that by helping them, you are thus helping evil accomplish its intentions - that is an important distinction. Otherwise, lying is always wrong.

[Kenny]

I didnt mean where do YOU draw the line, I ment where is the line to be drawn. You see; if I asked you and 3 other “moral objectivist” where is the line to be drawn, and everybody gives a different answer, thats subjective! This would tell me your answers are based on personal opinion, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances; agree?

[RickD]

I didnt mean where do YOU draw the line, I ment where is the line to be drawn. You see; if I asked you and 3 other “moral objectivist” where is the line to be drawn, and everybody gives a different answer, thats subjective! This would tell me your answers are based on personal opinion, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances; agree?

And you've made your usual full circle, back to conflating ontology and epistemology.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theosophic ... ction/amp/

The issue is not about why people disagree about what is right or wrong(epistemology), but what makes something right or wrong(ontology).

[Kurieuo]

I don't know where the line is to be drawn, or more correctly what/why a line needs drawing? Is there anything wrong with psychopaths who don't have a conscience and see a person they killed being just as good as if they'd not killed? I'm thinking that such have perhaps risen our above evolved moral inclinations, and are thus better positioned (more evolved perhaps) to take advantage of many still stuck in some sort of morality.

If a mother has her baby ripped from her arms and dashed against rocks, isn't such a good thing just as much as bad? Or, if you didn't steal and yet are thrown in jail for stealing, whether or not such is fair seems irrelevant given one person's sense of unfairness is another's fairness. Really, there is no "up" or "down" it is rather we who look up and down against another looking down and up.

As such, any feeling of injustice is merely a state of mind, unfairness is also a state of mind, what is wrong or right is a state of mind. The sooner one realises these things then the sooner they can break free from silly beliefs, imposed upon us by some man-made deity or vestigal evolutionary development, to take up becoming the Übermensch. If such appeals to us, then just shake free from values influencing us to do this or that, especially where we have no benefit from such. It is our life, the only one's we will live, and such is ultimately sacred to noone more than ourself.