-->
@MagicAintReal
Your "homeostatic principle" is interesting but it would seem to have the logical consequence of elevating pure repetition and "stasis" as the ultimate good and vilifying any type of change whatsoever.
Filling in gaps in knowledge is desirable because it makes you smarter.
Moral wrongs are always a disconformity to a certain will or disposition
Not if the will or dipsosition is immutable.
No, it is not moral to tell the truth if it gets an innocent person killed. You can remain honest without answering their demands
How is that preference fundamentally distinguishable from your favorite color?I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?I don't see it that way, homeostasis is naturally a regulatory effect; dealing with changes is its bread and butter.
Well, the whole point of the homeostatic principle is to work toward the maintenance of homeostasis.Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?Please explain.
So to manage with as little change as possible (necessary) under the circumstances....to regulate the external changes...
Yeah sort of.Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
--> @FallanezeBe compassionate, honest, responsible, humble, etc.All traits that are learned, not innate.
Fuller believed the natural state ---contentment-- of Universe/God was the speed-of-radiation, and that interfering frequencies gets in the way and retards the natural state of Universe.Here's to striving for contentment.
Subjective means based on opinion. Objective means based on fact. If the standard is immutable, it's based on fact.I didn't say it was always moral to tell the truth.I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
So, no god (book of holy laws) needed?We can rationally identify moral behavior...
"Punishing an innocent person is morally good" is more irrational than saying "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla."
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. Having good intentions or a compassionate disposition can coherently be considered morally good
what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty.
I'm sure there are situations that are technically legal but still immoral. For the most part, laws are a way of defining and enforcing morality.Then we are actually discussing what is legal not what is moral... unless they always coincide without exception.