It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[chipwitch]

You are coming at this upside down. You know what is good because you are created in the image of God.

That's ass backwards. God was created in man's image. There were many many many gods for thousands of years, before monotheism was ever even a concept. One day, someone got the bright idea to consolidate multiple gods into one all-powerful, omniscient character.

It's too bad you can't see the true wonder. Looking at the human conscience as the product of life and evolution, it is far more remarkable an accomplishment than saying "a magic man did it."

One doesn't have to look too far (read the old testament) to see that that god was a horrendous creature. Jealousy, given to anger, killing, encouraging killing, vengeful, inconsistent (the first law was so screwed up it had to be completely overhauled by Jesus?), condoning rape and incest... etc. Then, this "god" requires US, mere human mortals to rise above that which he himself cannot?!! HA! I am NOT like the god of the bible. The god of the bible represents the WORST of mankind, not the best.

 

[realibrad]

Here's what you're missing. "utility maximizing long term gain," is still subjective. The world has gained in population. The world has gained in technology. The world has gained in monetary earning. The world has gained in human comfort and increased leisure time. BUT, it has LOST SO MUCH! Entire species are now extinct as a direct result of human gain. Climate has changed. Morality, by many, is seen to have steeply declined. Society is fracturing. What one person calls "gain," another will find to be a detriment. THAT is the subjectivity to which I'm referring. What YOU insist on labeling as good, someone else will feel just as strongly that it is bad. It's a matter of opinion. By definition, that makes it NOT objective.

You seem to think that utility is only for goods/services like cars. Utility can and does include happiness. If the loss of a species makes you unhappy, then there is a loss of utility. Economics is very complex, and it might be hard to fully measure the total system, but, it does not detract from the fact that morality could be established as utility maximizing. You are making the argument most do, but its simply a misunderstanding of what utility is and is not. A loss of happiness can be a loss of utility depending.

I know. I wasn't attributing it to you. I was trying to show that there are MANY arguments about what is most valued. Most of them disagree with yours.

Okay.

It's not that I disagree. I don't know why most people believe murder is wrong. I also don't know how you can presume to with such certainty. It seems to me that you are trying to support your notion of objective morality.

Evolution! An organism does not have to understand why it has a trait for that trait to be a benefit. Because people are social, certain temperaments are going to be better than others. A murdering temperament will be less productive than a non-murdering temperament. It can get passed on more likely than the less productive. Humans are complex, and they may try to rationalize their internal feelings, but they could be wrong.

I would bet that most people who try to explain why God can murder wont make a very solid argument in your opinion.

Really? Better off by what standard? Sure, Fidel Castro is better off. He went from a little man in a medium sized army to a King. Of course, he robbed from his people, threw his enemies in prison, if he didn't kill them, and ensured his people had only enough to eat and no more.

What I meant is that if everyone in a society individually are better off, then society is better off. Sorry if that was not clear.

And this is where I'm arguing it isn't an absolute. If your purpose is to proclaim your opinion. Okay. Fine. But, recognize that it is just an opinion and not the basis for some kind of "objective morality".

Again, look at the definition of the noun form of the word good. If good means "benefit or advantage to someone or something" then its not just an opinion. You can fully establish good and its use here.

Subjective? EXACTLY! Unknowable? No. I can know that murder is a bad thing... for me. I can't know that it is a bad thing for you too unless you tell me. Even so, I wouldn't know why you feel it's bad. It could be for an entirely different reason than mine. There are people who would disagree and say that murder is not bad. This is the nature of ALL things subjective.

Just because there can be different reasons for why murder is bad, does not make it subjective. Give me a situation where murder is morally neutral and cannot be explained as good or bad.

No, you are not. "Objective" means "without" bias. You have a bias. YOU are biased towards people and/or society (it's a little vague exactly which). You have many other biases too. I don't presume to know what they are or how strongly you feel about them. The one about society/people should be enough to prove your morality (what you are calling "good" or "bad" based on "utility") CANNOT be

People can use tools. While the user might be biased, the tool is not. If I use an ax to cut a tree, the tool does not carry any of my bias. If I use logic, I may not use it correctly, but then I have not used the tool. I have attempted to use the tool and failed.

This goes back to my earlier point. Sometimes, situations can be so complex that our limited human minds cannot perceive the moral action. That does not mean there isint one, it just means we are not able to fully use the tool of logic to figure it out. A moral choice or option might still be there, even if we cant get to it.

To be clear, I'm not telling you're wrong for believing that murder is bad. I'm also not telling you're wrong for how you came to that conclusion. I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Yes you could. You could use a logical argument to explain why a stance I have is wrong. I have made a positive claim, and you can thus use logic or evidence to disprove it. You may be limited in your ability sure, but its still possible.

What I CAN say is that you ARE wrong for calling it objective morality. Call it what it is. You've in essence created an algorithm by which you conduct your life. I might even go so far as to call it a philosophy. But it is NOT what everyone else bases their conduct on regardless of how similar everyone's conduct may appear.

It does not matter what people base their actions on. If I tell you to breath, you did not breath because I told you to. You breath because its automatic and part of living. People can try to say morality is based on god, but again, that first requires evidence for god.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here's what you're missing. "utility maximizing long term gain," is still subjective. The world has gained in population. The world has gained in technology. The world has gained in monetary earning. The world has gained in human comfort and increased leisure time. BUT, it has LOST SO MUCH! Entire species are now extinct as a direct result of human gain. Climate has changed. Morality, by many, is seen to have steeply declined. Society is fracturing. What one person calls "gain," another will find to be a detriment. THAT is the subjectivity to which I'm referring. What YOU insist on labeling as good, someone else will feel just as strongly that it is bad. It's a matter of opinion. By definition, that makes it NOT objective.


I know. I wasn't attributing it to you. I was trying to show that there are MANY arguments about what is most valued. Most of them disagree with yours.


It's not that I disagree. I don't know why most people believe murder is wrong. I also don't know how you can presume to with such certainty. It seems to me that you are trying to support your notion of objective morality.


Really? Better off by what standard? Sure, Fidel Castro is better off. He went from a little man in a medium sized army to a King. Of course, he robbed from his people, threw his enemies in prison, if he didn't kill them, and ensured his people had only enough to eat and no more.

And this is where I'm arguing it isn't an absolute. If your purpose is to proclaim your opinion. Okay. Fine. But, recognize that it is just an opinion and not the basis for some kind of "objective morality".

Subjective? EXACTLY! Unknowable? No. I can know that murder is a bad thing... for me. I can't know that it is a bad thing for you too unless you tell me. Even so, I wouldn't know why you feel it's bad. It could be for an entirely different reason than mine. There are people who would disagree and say that murder is not bad. This is the nature of ALL things subjective.

No, you are not. "Objective" means "without" bias. You have a bias. YOU are biased towards people and/or society (it's a little vague exactly which). You have many other biases too. I don't presume to know what they are or how strongly you feel about them. The one about society/people should be enough to prove your morality (what you are calling "good" or "bad" based on "utility") CANNOT be

To be clear, I'm not telling you're wrong for believing that murder is bad. I'm also not telling you're wrong for how you came to that conclusion. I couldn't even if I wanted to.

What I CAN say is that you ARE wrong for calling it objective morality. Call it what it is. You've in essence created an algorithm by which you conduct your life. I might even go so far as to call it a philosophy. But it is NOT what everyone else bases their conduct on regardless of how similar everyone's conduct may appear.

Look at you go......! My, my, I think this is very nicely written and a more accurate case for the nature of morality than suggested by realibrad. You did, however leave out an important point that I, at least, feel needs to be addressed, namely, that when you tell a moral objectivist that morality can be anything at all, like our friend buckshot might refer to as the creative endeavor of a meat machine, you can leave a person in a condition I will here just refer to as moral despair. This is why I told him, realibrad, that is, that all of his moral longings have all been assured because the universe is perfect and contains no dualities like good and evil. Those, we bring to the table via thinking made possible through the invention of language. Read bshole's posts for a sense of that kind of despair. Not a very good place to be.

 

[Moonbeam]

chipwitch: That's ass backwards. God was created in man's image. There were many many many gods for thousands of years, before monotheism was ever even a concept. One day, someone got the bright idea to consolidate multiple gods into one all-powerful, omniscient character.

First off, I'm glad we are not still arguing either the incoherence or irrationality of my claim that the purpose of religion is to cure mental illness flounders on the rocks of inconsistency of prescription.

Now, when I said that the proper way to understand the reality of moral sensibility was to see it as a reflection of man's creation in God's image, that that's the direction, when you mount that horse you see his head and not his tail, let me assure you again that I am right and you are the one who has it ass backward. Your claim is that man created God, but where did man come from. Either God created man, as some believe, or man evolved in the universe that exists all around us, and evolved exactly in accordance to the changes in operation that universe provides. In short, we were created either by God or the universe or the God-Universe, if they are the same thing. So the possibilities of our nature are inherent in the facts of our being. I hope that you now can see that you did in fact mount this horse quite backward and are looking at the horses ass.

c: It's too bad you can't see the true wonder. Looking at the human conscience as the product of life and evolution, it is far more remarkable an accomplishment than saying "a magic man did it."

M: Wondrous enough that you can say I said something I didn't.

c: One doesn't have to look too far (read the old testament) to see that that god was a horrendous creature. Jealousy, given to anger, killing, encouraging killing, vengeful, inconsistent (the first law was so screwed up it had to be completely overhauled by Jesus?), condoning rape and incest... etc. Then, this "god" requires US, mere human mortals to rise above that which he himself cannot?!! HA! I am NOT like the god of the bible. The god of the bible represents the WORST of mankind, not the best.

Oh boy, let's sling the religious bigotry, shall we! What have I already told you, that religion is a treatment for the disease of the human condition Moses brought the law, a code of conduct that if people followed would improve everybody, or everybody in that society's lives. What happened when the light of understanding Moses had went out? The Jews developed the unconscious biased assumption that they could achieve the Kingdom of Heaven by obeying the law. But that's not how the Kingdom of Heaven works. The Kingdom opens to the mind that is like the mind of a child, fully present in being. So Dr. Jesus taught the need for forgiveness and grace, that the soul is not stained permanently by transgression, that we are loved even though we feel worthless. were made to feel worthless because of out sins.

Now, of course, for the modern Christian, all he thinks he needs to do to be saved is claim he or she has been reborn, a bias he or she can use to justify just about anything. The mechanical programmed bigoted self loathing average human being has evolved and improved over time thanks to the tireless efforts of those who have awakened to the God of Love within us.

 

[chipwitch]

First off, I'm glad we are not still arguing either the incoherence or irrationality of my claim that the purpose of religion is to cure mental illness flounders on the rocks of inconsistency of prescription.

I didn't consider it an argument at all. One can usually find a sentence they comprehend in every book. Don't take that to mean I agree with your claim of religion's purpose.

I think you either find it humorous to speak with ambiguity to baffle people and confuse them with gibberish OR speaking in some kind of pseudo-intellect so they can't mount an argument against your ideals because they can't exactly figure out what you mean.

If you truly want people to understand you, try posting just one time without a bunch of senseless metaphors to make what you're saying sound "deep." I've picked out enough sentences in your post to know that you have your own concept of objective morality or universal "truth".

 

[bshole]

I didn't consider it an argument at all. One can usually find a sentence they comprehend in every book. Don't take that to mean I agree with your claim of religion's purpose.

I think you either find it humorous to speak with ambiguity to baffle people and confuse them with gibberish OR speaking in some kind of pseudo-intellect so they can't mount an argument against your ideals because they can't exactly figure out what you mean.

If you truly want people to understand you, try posting just one time without a bunch of senseless metaphors to make what you're saying sound "deep." I've picked out enough sentences in your post to know that you have your own concept of objective morality or universal "truth".

What is Moon's concept of objective morality or universal truth? I have never been able to suss it out. I would appreciate if you explain it to me.

 

[chipwitch]

What is Moon's concept of objective morality or universal truth? I have never been able to suss it out. I would appreciate if you explain it to me.

Being able to identify elements indicative of moral objectivity is far from "sussing it out." Make you a deal... if you figure it out before me, share. I'll do the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didn't consider it an argument at all. One can usually find a sentence they comprehend in every book. Don't take that to mean I agree with your claim of religion's purpose.

I think you either find it humorous to speak with ambiguity to baffle people and confuse them with gibberish OR speaking in some kind of pseudo-intellect so they can't mount an argument against your ideals because they can't exactly figure out what you mean.

If you truly want people to understand you, try posting just one time without a bunch of senseless metaphors to make what you're saying sound "deep." I've picked out enough sentences in your post to know that you have your own concept of objective morality or universal "truth".

Please learn to read. I simply told you what the real purpose of religion is. Told you, get it. I made no argument that my point was a factual case. I can't prove something like that to an ignorant person like you. No, what I did was point out to you, after you implied that my argument can't be right because of the inconsistencies between religious views, that my statement about the purpose of religion does not fail on that basis. I proved nothing about my case other than that your counter-argument was specious.

Listen again. If the real purpose of religions, the reason they were originally promulgated by people awake in their own time and place and people, conferring on them a capacity to see the unconscious bias of their time and apply means to correct it, then the possibility for your consideration that that may be true, and my certain knowledge that it is, are not defeated by the notion of inconsistency as you tried to suggest. I don't expect you to know that what I am saying is right because you are wondering around in the dark, blinded by your unconscious assumptions, ones I might add that you cherish.

And along the way you may want to drop that ridiculous projection that I have some need to seem deep. I am already deeper than you can possibly imagine and have been for many, many years. I'll let you in on a little secret as to why that is. Way back when I was a young man I encountered such suffering that my ego was extinguished by it. I am a complete and total nobody who knows but one thing and that one thing is that I know nothing at all. You want deep, dive into that well. Ever see the NeverEnding Story where the Rock Monster laments how he used to have such big strong hands?

 

[chipwitch]

Please learn to read. I simply told you what the real purpose of religion is. Told you, get it. I made no argument that my point was a factual case. I can't prove something like that to an ignorant person like you. No, what I did was point out to you, after you implied that my argument can't be right because of the inconsistencies between religious views, that my statement about the purpose of religion does not fail on that basis. I proved nothing about my case other than that your counter-argument was specious.

Listen again. If the real purpose of religions, the reason they were originally promulgated by people awake in their own time and place and people, conferring on them a capacity to see the unconscious bias of their time and apply means to correct it, then the possibility for your consideration that that may be true, and my certain knowledge that it is, are not defeated by the notion of inconsistency as you tried to suggest. I don't expect you to know that what I am saying is right because you are wondering around in the dark, blinded by your unconscious assumptions, ones I might add that you cherish.

And along the way you may want to drop that ridiculous projection that I have some need to seem deep. I am already deeper than you can possibly imagine and have been for many, many years. I'll let you in on a little secret as to why that is. Way back when I was a young man I encountered such suffering that my ego was extinguished by it. I am a complete and total nobody who knows but one thing and that one thing is that I know nothing at all. You want deep, dive into that well. Ever see the NeverEnding Story where the Rock Monster laments how he used to have such big strong hands?

It is very clear how smart you are. I don't know why I didn't see it at first. It's my own inadequacy that makes me lash out at my superiors. I hope someday I might achieve half the level of enlightenment and humility that you have. I will try to stop trying.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is very clear how smart you are. I don't know why I didn't see it at first. It's my own inadequacy that makes me lash out at my superiors. I hope someday I might achieve half the level of enlightenment and humility that you have. I will try to stop trying.

Like all of your post, the you that tries to have humility will be your own arrogance in disguise, the exercise of your ego. The ego is the trickster who will convince you that he will manage his own death. You are blind to the trap you are in which is why you need outside help.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is Moon's concept of objective morality or universal truth? I have never been able to suss it out. I would appreciate if you explain it to me.

Any questions you have I will be happy to try to help. But please be aware that what I have offered you isn't a philosophical system or anything that can be offered with words alone. I have tried to focus your attention on things that have an intuitive connection, opposites that resolve at a higher level of perception, an end to duality thinking, an integration that brings peace.

You were born into a world that gave you a monster for a god, a god you kill because of the vile injustice he represented for you. Your love of god turned to hate, self pity and bitterness, and guilt for the murder you committed. I did all these things just like you did.

You used to love and love disappeared. Where can love disappear to? It's buried under all your sins, sins for which you have always been forgiven. You hated the monster god because you have always known but forgotten that Gods love for you was always your love for Him. You are self condemned and the door to freedom is forgiveness. You have been forgiven, all you need to do is forgive him. Your love, the kingdom of heaven, is within you as it has always been.

 

[chipwitch]

The ego is the trickster who will convince you that he will manage his own death. You are blind to the trap you are in which is why you need outside help.

I defer to the master on the topic. You've obviously more experience than I.

 

[Moonbeam]

I defer to the master on the topic. You've obviously more experience than I.

Have you thought about what you hope to achieve. Just imagine for a moment that I really don't have your kind of ego, that I am neither affected by praise or blame, that I am absent from ego competition, that your deference or criticism are empty of significance, that all that has happened is that your conversation with me has caused you to confront a self you didn't see, that you believe this to be some kind of competition. Hehe. I like you a lot better than you do. The goat you wish to get from me got sacrificed long ago. He went away and all I can offer you is the ashes of the Phoenix?

 

[chipwitch]

Have you thought about what you hope to achieve. Just imagine for a moment that I really don't have your kind of ego, that I am neither affected by praise or blame, that I am absent from ego competition, that your deference or criticism are empty of significance, that all that has happened is that your conversation with me has caused you to confront a self you didn't see, that you believe this to be some kind of competition. Hehe. I like you a lot better than you do. The goat you wish to get from me got sacrificed long ago. He went away and all I can offer you is the ashes of the Phoenix?

The thing is, I have no interest in getting your goat, despite what you think. You personally perceive many things. And, I have no doubt you've made perfect sense of them in your mind. Your certainty that you are right is evidence of ego. You don't recognize that you might not be perceiving things accurately. For example, you say the universe is "perfect." Who are you to make such a determination and then profess to have the answers, if not for an ego?

I am sincerely honest when I say I don't understand most of what you say... This post (quoted above) is probably 90% comprehensible. You can't even see that often, your words, that you take such great care to write, are incoherent to probably every one on this site. So, you write and write to only have 10% of your words understood, what's the point in writing in riddles? Is communication not for exchanging knowledge? If so, then improving on clarity (when there is much room for clarity) only serves your original purpose. IF your intent is to communicate for the purpose of sharing knowledge.

The thing is, what little of what I've understood of your writing, I sense there is a good chance you and I are very closely aligned in our perceptions of the universe (though, I recognize we could be polar opposites). What we do with those perceptions is very different though.

The universe is the universe. It is neither good, nor bad, perfect nor imperfect. It just is. It's a subtle distinction, but distinct nonetheless. Being unable to understand the majority of what you say leaves me with many doubts about who or what you are, but if my perception is accurate, you believe all morality, good and evil is non-existent. Perhaps, at most you allow for good and evil within the sphere of the individual. "Broccoli is evil" for example, might be one persons perception. It's their perception that makes it evil... for them. One who shares no such perception of such evil, would eat as much broccoli as they like with no remorse. By looking to the universe and saying it's "perfect." You're doing the same thing. The universe is your "broccoli." Claiming it's perfect in absolute terms is no different than anyone else saying republicans are evil or democrats are evil.

You're trying to assess and understand me? There it is. I doubt most people would understand what I just wrote. You? Maybe. Does it matter? Only in as much as I might have just expended some energy for nothing. If there are no ears to hear, and one speaks, there's no harm done, but nothing gained. It's neither good nor bad. But I do have more useful things to do with my time.

To that end, I leave it to you.

<edit> Saw some clarity errors of my own after posting. Fixed within about five minutes of the original posting. I apologize. I should have previewed