Tell me what you believe.

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 353
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I will add on my way out that one look in a dictionary can confirm what I'm telling you. 
Later I took note of how much the word 'moral' and 'spiritual' irrespective of what I found with brief look into dictionary. Are the not  similar, synonyms, intimately related in definition. Yes-No?

Immoral,  as I define it, is  as follows in sequence.

1} actions that place self { * i * } above others { common standard } ---and common standard  is inclusive of self-- , when detriment to self, is not,

...1a} imminently greater than, detriment to those closet to self ----genetically and/or spatially--- i.e. the localized set of other, and,

...2a}  all others { the commons } that, are  less directly related to the immediate set of the individuals localized set ofconcerns.

Priorities need to be considered within context of the degree of moral judgement, when feasible.  Ex ,most often genetics --fight or flight--- activate the emergency responses, that, override { prioritize } all that may come into consideration over time.

Con = join together, coming together

Sider { sideral } = reference to stars { stellar }

Consideration is a coming together of events with  a sometimes resultant, integral wholistic concept, that is useful to the animal that considers what information is available to them. 

Consideration is limited by a time factor of incoming information.

A spiritual soul = biologic irrespective of bilateral or not.

Some spiritual souls have access to access metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts of morals, principles laws etc
--> @mustardness
well as you've pointed out, spiritual has a bunch of definitions.  So maybe.  but moral is always referring to group well being.  No matter how you slice it.  Only false morals like that which come from holy books ever show non well being related morals.

Taking into account that I don't always understand you properly.  I think we agree on this one.  I judge morals by the state of affairs they happen in.  So Situation X always applies moral X. after considering all analytical factors. 


 


--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
my opinions are not the same as my morals.  
And this is the part that I do not understand. How do they differ exactly? Do you disagreed with your own opinion about morals? 

--> @secularmerlin
See, this is the problem.  it's like you've glued the words "opinion" and "moral" together.  You have to know that opinions aren't morals right?  Otherwise my opinion that red is my favorite color would be a moral.  

I'll try to show the difference, but really, you just need to look up those three words to understand. 





Murder is wrong!! (Opinion)


*Feeling you get from seeing a murder* (Objective)  (Your opinion doesn't matter here, which is the definition of objective.)


*everybody's opinion that the earth is flat" (Universal and subjective) (There is no exception to the behavior, so it's universal)


My opinion that 2 + 2 = 4  (subjective and objective) 
(It's my opinion so it's subjective, but it's also objectively true even if this wasn't my opinion, therefore it's both.)


Everybody's opinion that murder is wrong (Subjective and Universal)  (Looks a lot like flat earth right?  That's why people agreeing universally on morals doesn't make them objective, this is my key critique right here.)



Everybody's opinion that 2 + 2 = 4  (Universal, subjective, and objective)  Everybody agrees so it's universal, it's their opinion, so it's subjective, and it's also true regardless of their opinion so it's also objective. 





--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Otherwise my opinion that red is my favorite color would be a moral.  
I understand that all opinions are not morals I just think all morals are opinions but we may be getting to the real root of the issue.
Murder is wrong!! (Opinion)
A moral opinion 
*Feeling you get from seeing a murder* (Objective)  (Your opinion doesn't matter here, which is the definition of objective.)
I'm not sure feelings are morals I think maybe feelings are just one standard that we could base our morals on. 

Let's take red is my favourite color since it was an example you offered. Now if red is your favorite color it may be an objective fact that red is your favorite color but it is still just your opinion and it is based on your feeling thay red is the best. I am just struggling with the idea that morality works any differently.
Everybody's opinion that murder is wrong (Subjective and Universal)  (Looks a lot like flat earth right?  That's why people agreeing universally on morals doesn't make them objective, this is my key critique right here.)
I agree that an opinion being universal does not make it objective. I'm just wondering in that case what exactly does makes morality objective.
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't know the specific comment you're rebutting, but I assume it's the one right before you.  I don't think morality is an opinion.  Even if I believed that murder was moral, when I see somebody get murdered, my evolutionary cue will send me a negative response (that sick feeling in your gut)  My opinion has no control over that sick feeling so that feeling is objective automatically.  That can't be denied.  You can only deny the objectivity of our application of that feeling but society seems to follow it with near accuracy.  Don't confuse objective wit
In the case of abortion what is the objective morality?

--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I judge morals by the state of affairs they happen in.  So Situation X always applies moral X. after considering all analytical factors.
If i watched someone like Jeffrey Dahmer get shot in the head in front of me... i wouldn't feel anything. I would think that murder was right. 

If i watch a little girl's cat (innocent human) get shot... i'd be pissed. That would be wrong. 

Is that what you're saying? Does that make me a moral particularist too? 
Morals are a survival calculus and not based in any sort of mysticism.
--> @Outplayz
While we are talking about cats.
As horrible as it sound,
I BELIEVE, 
You could start by snapping kittens legs. Like You go through 100 cute little kitties. The next thing you know you're popppjng the legs of with very little " emotion " what so ever. 

What am i trying to say?
Actually I'm going leave it here.

$3730.00 for a two days a week 20 week course on ummmmmmmmmmmmm becoming ruthless.








--> @Outplayz
If i watched someone like Jeffrey Dahmer get shot in the head in front of me... i wouldn't feel anything. I would think that murder was right. 

If i watch a little girl's cat (innocent human) get shot... i'd be pissed. That would be wrong. 

Is that what you're saying? Does that make me a moral particularist too? 




More or less.  The feeling itself doesn't necessarily matter.  It's more about harnessing what we tend to feel and why (harm or benefit response)  and then we acknowledge that our cue can only take us so far and we have to devise some kind or protocol for which morals get prioritized and why. 

Also, while you might not feel bad for JD getting shot.  You'd still get some kind of cue.  It might feel less like outrage and more like adrenaline. The cue itself isn't emotional but becomes as such once you reflect on it subjectively 
--> @Greyparrot
Morals are a survival calculus and not based in any sort of mysticism.

I could jump on that.  Do you think moral decisions for survival are objective?  and do you mean personal survival or group survival? (obviously we exercise both at some time or another)





--> @disgusted
n the case of abortion what is the objective morality?

Depends on the situation.  I'm a moral particularlist.  So I don't say X thing is immoral.  I say X situation is immoral. 


In general, it tends to be immoral. 


There are very few exceptions.  Rape(maybe)  non viable babies.  Suffering babies with lifetime illnesses(maybe)  and anytime the mother's safety or life is in danger then it's mostly likely moral.

I'm pro life btw 
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
You do realise that most humans don't have your "objective" view regarding abortion. Your morality is as you have stated very subjective. You are anti woman btw.
--> @secularmerlin
okay this is what I mean by you gluing the words together

You say "A moral opinion "

How's that differen from "a game opinoin"

or a "color opinion"

Just because you have an opinion about morals doesn't mean they morals are opinions. 


Let's take red is my favourite color since it was an example you offered. Now if red is your favorite color it may be an objective fact that red is your favorite color but it is still just your opinion and it is based on your feeling thay red is the best. I am just struggling with the idea that morality works any differently.
omg, listen.  you need to make a better effort to understand this because you're not even trying.  my opinion that my favorite color is red is not the same as a feeling that automatically hits me when I see someone die.  It's a non sequitur.  You simply don't understand words is what it is. 


I agree that an opinion being universal does not make it objective. I'm just wondering in that case what exactly does makes morality objective.
Really?  Because that's not what you said earlier.  you said "it's not objective because everybody doesn't believe it."  so you're just proving my point that the problem is your lack of understanding the words.   Objective = true apart from opinion.   That's it!!  You've fallen into the same trap that theists have fell into by thinking that objective morals have to be grounded in something that's not humans.   You're thinking like a theist right now. 


Furthermore, you seem to have trouble with the word "opinion"  You think every feeling a person has is an opinion it seems.  Is hunger an opinion?  Is thirst an opinion?  No.  They're biological cues that are objectively true.  So if you think morality is subjective, then you also think eating and drinking are subjective. 
--> @disgusted
You do realise that most humans don't have your "objective" view regarding abortion. Your morality is as you have stated very subjective. You are anti woman btw.

Yeah, which is why theirs is subjective.  Duh.  I swear nobody in this forum knows how to use words properly 
--> @disgusted
My vies are always subjective btw.  If my subjective view matches something that's objectively true.  Then it's both subjective and objective at the same time.  
--> @secularmerlin
I think I might have realized one of our confusions here. 


I think when you say morality.  You're talking about moral judgements we make correct?  


When I say morality, I'm talking about a biological disposition we have towards beneficial group behaviors.


If you're talking about the first thing.  I acknowledge those as being subjective. 


So the statement "if we follow statement 2, then X is moral" is objectively true based off what we agreed about earlier about have an objective standard off of something else.  

Note that in this case.  Us calling it "morality" could be considered a subjective decision. 

My argument is that while that may be a subjective decision.  We can tell that these dispositions come out of biology and that when we look at group behaviors in humans an animals apart from their subjective assessments, that they do indeed seem to follow these cues for the most part. 


So I think the issue here is that you think I'm trying to say that the assessments have to be objective no matter what.  That's not it at all.  I'm trying to pin down the source of what it is that we're really talking about when people say "morality"  If we don't try to use science to understand this, then it's just a word game and whoever defines morality the right way wins. You see what I'm getting at? 

I know I got impatient earlier.  It's because I can tell that you kind of understand this but there's something causing us to miscommunicate. 



--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
people will find a moral imperative to protect the herd only when they feel it will increase their own odds of survival.

it's interesting to note that as people perceive their chances of survival threatened by overpopulation, their morals shift on the merits of abortion for practical reasons. In a critically underpopulated society, you would predictably see abortion completely outlawed and morally shunned.

Overpopulated societies also don't value family and children as much either, leading to a rise in single parent families and castaway daycare child rearing.

--> @Greyparrot
It doesn't matter why I'm favoring the group, I'm still favoring the group. 



Fighting overpopulation is still a group behavior.  If it was left unchecked, it would increase our chances of wholesale extinction.  Cutting back on the population is a small price to pay and is a group behavior in the long run. 



That last statement is a bold assertion that you have no evidence for.  You're simply taking to separate trends and conflating them. 

correlation is not causation. 
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Yeah, which is why theirs is subjective.  Duh.  I swear nobody in this forum knows how to use words properly 
So is yours look.

Depends on the situation
If my subjective view matches something that's objectively true.
That it matches an objective truth is your subjective opinion. You haven't  provided any objective truth.
--> @disgusted
I never said I had an objective view regarding abortion, I said that if we look at a specific case of abortion, we can draw objectively from it using the facts of the situation. 

Everything people say is technically an opinion.  Opinions can match things that are truth and that's why we call them objective.  If you're point is that every statement is subjective then you're just being vacuous. 


--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
but moral is always referring to group well being...
A group is two or more and one of those two includes self in the equation, situation, set of circumstances.

Ex self and the ecological environment that sustains self.

Some spiritual souls have access to access metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts of morals principles/laws, physics principles/laws etc

However, to be clear, there exist inviolate physics principles/laws, and there does not exist inviolate moral principles/laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Immoral = anti-spiritual?........and  is defined as follows

1} actions that place self { * i * } above others { common standard } ---and common standard  is inclusive of self-- , when detriment to self, is not,

...1a} imminently greater than, detriment to those closet to self ----genetically and/or spatially--- i.e. the localized set of other, and,

...2a}  all others { the commons } that, a less directly related to the immediate set of the individuals, localized set of concerns.

Priorities need to be considered within context of the degree of moral judgement, when feasible.  Ex ,most often genetics --fight or flight--- activate the emergency responses, that, override { prioritize } all that may come into consideration over time.
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I think when you say morality.  You're talking about moral judgements we make correct?  
Yes absolutely 100%

--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
When I say morality, I'm talking about a biological disposition we have towards beneficial group behaviors.
Ants have a similar biological disposition but I do not consider them moral agents. Do you consider ants moral agents?

--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Thank you for engaging me in the Socratic method. If nothing else it helps me to understand my own beliefs.
I know I got impatient earlier
Think nothing of it. We all get frustrated sometimes.