Morality

[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?

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).

No; the point I was making was not about why people disagree about what is right or wrong, (epistemology)
It was not about what makes something right or wrong (ontology)
It was about why I believe what we call right or wrong is subjective; not objective. Do you see the difference in all of that?

Ken

[Kenny]

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.

Nihilism will not work in a society of people.

[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).

No; the point I was making was not about why people disagree about what is right or wrong, (epistemology)
It was not about what makes something right or wrong (ontology)
It was about why I believe what we call right or wrong is subjective; not objective. Do you see the difference in all of that?

Ken

Kenny,

That's the same as arguing epistemology, when you really need to address how anything can even be considered right or wrong, which is ontology. Without acknowledging an objective source for morality(multiple human minds are not an objective source) there is no basis for anything to be right or wrong. That is the crucial point that you cannot or will not grasp.

[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.

Nihilism will not work in a society of people.

How is this nihilism? And why should I, as a psychopath (or not), care about what will/won't work in a society of people? Pfft. I'd much rather be a wolf than a lamb in flock of a sheep.

[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?

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).

No; the point I was making was not about why people disagree about what is right or wrong, (epistemology)
It was not about what makes something right or wrong (ontology)
It was about why I believe what we call right or wrong is subjective; not objective. Do you see the difference in all of that?

Ken

Kenny,
That's the same as arguing epistemology, when you really need to address how anything can even be considered right or wrong, which is ontology.

Right and wrong are just judgment calls we attach to our experiences. They're just labels; thats it. Labels that vary from person to person

Without acknowledging an objective source for morality(multiple human minds are not an objective source) there is no basis for anything to be right or wrong. That is the crucial point that you cannot or will not grasp.

Rickd my friend; you're still not getting it. You keep acting as if right and wrong has an actual existence; they don’t. Right and wrong no more exist than funny, silly, beautiful or any of the countless other labels people attach to what we see or experience; they only exist in the context of human thought; not by themselves. They're all just labels. Labels only exist in your head. They don’t exist in the real world.

Ken

[Kenny]

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.

Nihilism will not work in a society of people.

How is this nihilism? And why should I, as a psychopath (or not), care about what will/won't work in a society of people? Pfft. I'd much rather be a wolf than a lamb in flock of a sheep.

The reason you should care about what will/won't work in a society of people is because if you break the laws of society, they will come down on you in a way that you probably will not like. Society not only has rules, they ENFORCE them.

[Kurieuo]

Kenny,
That's the same as arguing epistemology, when you really need to address how anything can even be considered right or wrong, which is ontology.

Right and wrong are just judgment calls we attach to our experiences. They're just labels; thats it. Labels that vary from person to person

Without acknowledging an objective source for morality(multiple human minds are not an objective source) there is no basis for anything to be right or wrong. That is the crucial point that you cannot or will not grasp.

Rickd my friend; you're still not getting it. You keep acting as if right and wrong has an actual existence; they don’t. Right and wrong no more exist than funny, silly, beautiful or any of the countless other labels people attach to what we see or experience; they only exist in the context of human thought; not by themselves. They're all just labels. Labels only exist in your head. They don’t exist in the real world.

Spot on Kenny! RickD haven't you been reading my last couple of posts here?!?

[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.

Nihilism will not work in a society of people.

How is this nihilism? And why should I, as a psychopath (or not), care about what will/won't work in a society of people? Pfft. I'd much rather be a wolf than a lamb in flock of a sheep.

The reason you should care about what will/won't work in a society of people is because if you break the laws of society, they will come down on you in a way that you probably will not like. Society not only has rules, they ENFORCE them.

So what is legal is what is right? If I believed I'd get caught, then I just need to be smart. Not everyone in society plays by the rules, and those who don't are often elites who are in positions of power. Many get away with murder, it's just a matter of how much money and power you have.

Nonetheless, if I find myself in a weaker position amongst the flock of sheep, then what is legal still offers a lot of flexibility. One just needs to ensure they step on others to get ahead while remaining within the law. Or, if they are going to bend the rules or break a rule, they sure as heck better ensure noone will find out! In such cases, one just needs to ensure there is little to no risk breaking a rule and that the rewards will be high. I should ultimately strive to be up amongst the elite, so that I can set the rules in favour of myself, become a true Übermensch.

In any case, to get around much of the rules in a society, one can accumulate a lot of wealth. Wealth leads to power, and then one is generally free to do as they please. So then, perhaps the only "morality" that counts is that which makes us more wealthy and powerful, and towards this end keeping other people and the masses down is in my best interest.

[Kenny]

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.

Nihilism will not work in a society of people.

How is this nihilism? And why should I, as a psychopath (or not), care about what will/won't work in a society of people? Pfft. I'd much rather be a wolf than a lamb in flock of a sheep.

The reason you should care about what will/won't work in a society of people is because if you break the laws of society, they will come down on you in a way that you probably will not like. Society not only has rules, they ENFORCE them.

So what is legal is what is right?

No; big difference. legal is an objective set of rules society has agreed to enforce. Right is a subjective judgment someone attaches to human behavior they deem good.

If I believed I'd get caught, then I just need to be smart. Not everyone in society plays by the rules, and those who don't are often elites who are in positions of power. Many get away with murder, it's just a matter of how much money and power you have.

Nonetheless, if I find myself in a weaker position amongst the flock of sheep, then what is legal still offers a lot of flexibility. One just needs to ensure they step on others to get ahead while remaining within the law. Or, if they are going to bend the rules or break a rule, they sure as heck better ensure noone will find out! In such cases, one just needs to ensure there is little to no risk breaking a rule and that the rewards will be high. I should ultimately strive to be up amongst the elite, so that I can set the rules in favour of myself, become a true Übermensch.

In any case, to get around much of the rules in a society, one can accumulate a lot of wealth. Wealth leads to power, and then one is generally free to do as they please. So then, perhaps the only "morality" that counts is that which makes us more wealthy and powerful, and towards this end keeping other people and the masses down is in my best interest.

Unfortunately, there are many who succeed at this.

[Kurieuo]

Why do you call it "unfortunate"? I don't see it as unfortunate, you just need to step up your game perhaps to ensure you're one of these many. You live in the US which provides many social opportunities that can be taken advantage of. I have such in my own country too. So then, if we decide to remain one of flock rather than rising up to become say a shepherd, then it's our own fault.

Our situation, if it be a poor one in life, isn't "unfortunate" at all. Rather, it is likely due to our own stupidity and not stepping up, and even on other people, to get to the top. There is so much freedom to be had, even playing legally, when you no longer need to subscribe to these apparent social norms but use them to your advantage.

[Kenny]

Why do you call it "unfortunate"? I don't see it as unfortunate, you just need to step up your game perhaps to ensure you're one of these many. You live in the US which provides many social opportunities that can be taken advantage of. I have such in my own country too. So then, if we decide to remain one of flock rather than rising up to become say a shepherd, then it's our own fault.

Our situation, if it be a poor one in life, isn't "unfortunate" at all. Rather, it is likely due to our own stupidity and not stepping up, and even on other people, to get to the top. There is so much freedom to be had, even playing legally, when you no longer need to subscribe to these apparent social norms but use them to your advantage.

I call it unfortunate because it goes against my values.

K

[Kurieuo]

So what is legal is what is right?

No; big difference. legal is an objective set of rules society has agreed to enforce. Right is a subjective judgment someone attaches to human behavior they deem good.

Do you notice the circularity in "Right is a subjective judgement someone attaches to human behavior they deem good"? That is, isn't "right" and "good" simply synonymous here? You're not saying anything meaningful really.

Let me help you see the circularity by rephrasing: "Right is a subjective judgement someone attaches to human behavior they deem right" or "Good is a subjective judgement someone attached to human behavior they deem good"

NONETHELESS, let's assume they're different. Doing what we see as "right" may not always be what is legal, correct? Where there is conflict, for example, maybe doing what we see as right could land us in trouble with the law, should we do that which we see as right or that which is legal?

I'd say what I think is right doesn't really matter, I just want the best outcome for myself. If that means euthanising someone whose life is no longer valued by society, then I'll be the first to poison them rather than risk being hauled through court or losing my job for not doing my duty. If that means forcing a woman in China to have an abortion because she's met her 1 or 2 child quota, then so be it. If that means under a Nazi regime reporting Jews, then it'd be stupid of me to not report where I see them.

What I "feel" is right, since it's all subjective anyway, can take a back seat for the right that is in my best interest. You know, if I like chocolate icecream, but eating strawberry will get me further, then I'll learn to like strawberry. Give me strawberry for my own goodness sake.

[Kurieuo]

Why do you call it "unfortunate"? I don't see it as unfortunate, you just need to step up your game perhaps to ensure you're one of these many. You live in the US which provides many social opportunities that can be taken advantage of. I have such in my own country too. So then, if we decide to remain one of flock rather than rising up to become say a shepherd, then it's our own fault.

Our situation, if it be a poor one in life, isn't "unfortunate" at all. Rather, it is likely due to our own stupidity and not stepping up, and even on other people, to get to the top. There is so much freedom to be had, even playing legally, when you no longer need to subscribe to these apparent social norms but use them to your advantage.

I call it unfortunate because it goes against my values.

Whose values? No, not really your values. Values that happened to somehow evolve within us, or which are more likely vestiges of religion and belief in God/gods that have seeped down from one generation to the next which allows those in positions of authority to control the masses. You just think they're "your values", however you've just been indoctrinated by society. Such keeps you inline and behaving like a good little lamb rather than acting in your own best interests.

[PaulSacramento]

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

No according to all recorded world history and common rational reasoning.
Never once has any culture ever viewed stealing ( taking what belongs to another) as right.
It may be condoned but never viewed as right.

[Kenny]

So what is legal is what is right?

No; big difference. legal is an objective set of rules society has agreed to enforce. Right is a subjective judgment someone attaches to human behavior they deem good.

Do you notice the circularity in "Right is a subjective judgement someone attaches to human behavior they deem good"? That is, isn't "right" and "good" simply synonymous here? You're not saying anything meaningful really.

Let me help you see the circularity by rephrasing: "Right is a subjective judgement someone attaches to human behavior they deem right" or "Good is a subjective judgement someone attached to human behavior they deem good"

NONETHELESS, let's assume they're different. Doing what we see as "right" may not always be what is legal, correct?

Hence the saying; “Just because its legal, doesn’t mean its right"

Where there is conflict, for example, maybe doing what we see as right could land us in trouble with the law, should we do that which we see as right or that which is legal?

That’s a decision each of us are going to have to make, each situation is different. Rosa Parks did what she thought was right even though it was illegal, and through suffering the consequences of her illegal actions, eventually the laws changed so now she and others can do what she felt was right, legally.

I'd say what I think is right doesn't really matter, I just want the best outcome for myself. If that means euthanising someone whose life is no longer valued by society, then I'll be the first to poison them rather than risk being hauled through court or losing my job for not doing my duty. If that means forcing a woman in China to have an abortion because she's met her 1 or 2 child quota, then so be it. If that means under a Nazi regime reporting Jews, then it'd be stupid of me to not report where I see them.

What I "feel" is right, since it's all subjective anyway, can take a back seat for the right that is in my best interest.

What does subjective have to do with anything? If you were convinced that morality were subjective, are you saying you would behave differently?