Eh, since hardly anyone is responding to my thread (sheds tear), I thought I would post what I posted here:
I think we are using moral relativism and moral objectivity perhaps in a way that neither are true in reality. By we I mean how humanity is using the words currently.
First if we define moral relativism to be the view that morals differ person to person and that no one is right, then that makes morality unreal. For morality is all about telling you the right thing to do. It has to be at the very least the right thing for that person to do, but the definition as it's defined is more or less, there is no right thing, it's just a perspective.
And if we define morality as something that is right regardless of our opinions or anyone opinion, I'm sorry, but morality is all about perception. If we had no perception of it, it would be not be good of us to do anything or wrong of us to do anything.
The problem is that these are commonly or even philosophically defined in a way that makes both of them wrong automatically.
The way I understand morality is somewhat in between.
1. Do I know anything is moral in the sense it's truly right for me to do?
Yes. For example kindness to my parents who raised me is good to do. Exactly what consists of that kindness is a little more complicated. But this is not due it being independent of my opinion, it's actually, because it's part of my knowledge to do so.
2. Do I know ALL things that are moral for all humans to do?
No I don't.
3. Is important to know all things that are objectively moral? Not for me, it simply is important to know whatever I ought to do in my current state.
What I am required to do in the current moment, what I must improve myself in, and I feel most humans know enough to improve their current state.
If we act upon what we know, we will increase in knowledge. The more you act on what you know to be good, the more you increase in knowledge of what more can be to do more good or be more good.
This has been my experience in life. In fact seeking to know all of morality is fools errant for most humans except a few.
4. People often confuse for morality to be right, it has to apply universally. This from my perspective is very limited in view. That are barely any universal morals in the sense that there is something that applies universally.
Rather the reality is there is no hard code, but that there is things we know apply 90-99% of the time.
I don't like the words objective morality or relative morality for what I stated earlier but from what I understand, there is a morality that is absolute.
So I will use absolute morality vs non-absolute morality.
Absolute morality as far as knowledge of right or wrong goes, why is this important to believe in? And not simply non-absolute morality?
I gave an example before if I look at the moon, and I know there is a measurement to it, even though I don't know it's exact size, I will estimate it my head.
Non-absolute morality in somewhat similar to look at absolute morality (the sun) from a distance, that it's like a distant star. We don't know the size of the star with just looking at it from far, I know science has a way of measuring things now, but try to bear with the parable so as to understand.
If I don't believe there is a absolute vision of my good action or evil action, I will not have an estimate of it. The non-absolute view.
Some how I am trying to ascend in rank, get more good, be a better person. This takes belief that there is something I am heading towards, that there are ranks, that there is better or worse that states that I can be.
With relative morality, there is no better or worse. It's all just perception.
With belief in absolute morality, our non-absolute morality which is more of acting to light/knowledge from the absolute light, that is not absolute, we believe there is a basis, there is really better or worse states, there is ranks to ascend, etc.
That said, ultimately, I do believe we can gain vision of what we ought to do that is 100% correct, as opposed to what most people are in, in which some of what they know is 100% correct, some of it they don't know, and some it they know they are wrong inwardly but are holding to it never the less. But this vision to be 100% correct is only through divine help through a spiritual guide in the journey that appears to show inwardly the path.
If anyone was upon this guidance, they would not state to others they were upon this guidance. Anyone who is pure would not declare he is pure unless God manifests it through a revelation or the words of an appointed guide. We cannot declare ourselves pure without proof nor claim we are guided without proof from God to others.
That said, a lot of our non-absolute views are very much in line with absolute view, and we can know it.
The lowest heaven is adorned with shinning stars. These stars are arrows and missiles against the devils for us to make use of. We can fight back with them.
However, just because we can see them to a degree, doesn't mean our vision is absolute nor that we cannot fully see them as they truly are in their true state, that our view is baseless.
To be correct doesn't mean we see the action as it truly is.
The final question is where does God come in all this?
I think there is a world of difference in believing a living spiritual reality to goodness and morality, and that we are connected to something absolute and great, even though we don't fully grasp it, but to most of it, it's a very distant star, then believing our morality is just a program that we experience to biological reasons and evolution.
With it being a program from evolution, the question, of the euthyphro dilemma should be asked, is it good to do because evolution made it out to be that or did evolution make it out to be because it is good? If the latter, then good exists before evolution, and if evolution decides what is moral, then to me, this seems baseless for many reasons. Why should we pay attention to commands or instructions in us from evolution?
And the last thing I want to say, our perception of morality doesn't all come down to empathy and being empathetic. This is important, but morality we all believe in is more comprehensive then that. I don't want to make this post any longer...so I won't go into details of this but I believe this is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about the issue.
Lastly, the distant star is not meant to be a distant star forever, but we are meant to get closer to it, till our vision of our souls pierce the veils of light and reach the source of greatness while our souls get suspended by the glory of it's sanctity.
The last statement is the most important reason for believing the link between the light and the source in my view.
I think we are using moral relativism and moral objectivity perhaps in a way that neither are true in reality. By we I mean how humanity is using the words currently.
First if we define moral relativism to be the view that morals differ person to person and that no one is right, then that makes morality unreal. For morality is all about telling you the right thing to do. It has to be at the very least the right thing for that person to do, but the definition as it's defined is more or less, there is no right thing, it's just a perspective.
And if we define morality as something that is right regardless of our opinions or anyone opinion, I'm sorry, but morality is all about perception. If we had no perception of it, it would be not be good of us to do anything or wrong of us to do anything.
The problem is that these are commonly or even philosophically defined in a way that makes both of them wrong automatically.
The way I understand morality is somewhat in between.
1. Do I know anything is moral in the sense it's truly right for me to do?
Yes. For example kindness to my parents who raised me is good to do. Exactly what consists of that kindness is a little more complicated. But this is not due it being independent of my opinion, it's actually, because it's part of my knowledge to do so.
2. Do I know ALL things that are moral for all humans to do?
No I don't.
3. Is important to know all things that are objectively moral? Not for me, it simply is important to know whatever I ought to do in my current state.
What I am required to do in the current moment, what I must improve myself in, and I feel most humans know enough to improve their current state.
If we act upon what we know, we will increase in knowledge. The more you act on what you know to be good, the more you increase in knowledge of what more can be to do more good or be more good.
This has been my experience in life. In fact seeking to know all of morality is fools errant for most humans except a few.
4. People often confuse for morality to be right, it has to apply universally. This from my perspective is very limited in view. That are barely any universal morals in the sense that there is something that applies universally.
Rather the reality is there is no hard code, but that there is things we know apply 90-99% of the time.
I don't like the words objective morality or relative morality for what I stated earlier but from what I understand, there is a morality that is absolute.
So I will use absolute morality vs non-absolute morality.
Absolute morality as far as knowledge of right or wrong goes, why is this important to believe in? And not simply non-absolute morality?
I gave an example before if I look at the moon, and I know there is a measurement to it, even though I don't know it's exact size, I will estimate it my head.
Non-absolute morality in somewhat similar to look at absolute morality (the sun) from a distance, that it's like a distant star. We don't know the size of the star with just looking at it from far, I know science has a way of measuring things now, but try to bear with the parable so as to understand.
If I don't believe there is a absolute vision of my good action or evil action, I will not have an estimate of it. The non-absolute view.
Some how I am trying to ascend in rank, get more good, be a better person. This takes belief that there is something I am heading towards, that there are ranks, that there is better or worse that states that I can be.
With relative morality, there is no better or worse. It's all just perception.
With belief in absolute morality, our non-absolute morality which is more of acting to light/knowledge from the absolute light, that is not absolute, we believe there is a basis, there is really better or worse states, there is ranks to ascend, etc.
That said, ultimately, I do believe we can gain vision of what we ought to do that is 100% correct, as opposed to what most people are in, in which some of what they know is 100% correct, some of it they don't know, and some it they know they are wrong inwardly but are holding to it never the less. But this vision to be 100% correct is only through divine help through a spiritual guide in the journey that appears to show inwardly the path.
If anyone was upon this guidance, they would not state to others they were upon this guidance. Anyone who is pure would not declare he is pure unless God manifests it through a revelation or the words of an appointed guide. We cannot declare ourselves pure without proof nor claim we are guided without proof from God to others.
That said, a lot of our non-absolute views are very much in line with absolute view, and we can know it.
The lowest heaven is adorned with shinning stars. These stars are arrows and missiles against the devils for us to make use of. We can fight back with them.
However, just because we can see them to a degree, doesn't mean our vision is absolute nor that we cannot fully see them as they truly are in their true state, that our view is baseless.
To be correct doesn't mean we see the action as it truly is.
The final question is where does God come in all this?
I think there is a world of difference in believing a living spiritual reality to goodness and morality, and that we are connected to something absolute and great, even though we don't fully grasp it, but to most of it, it's a very distant star, then believing our morality is just a program that we experience to biological reasons and evolution.
With it being a program from evolution, the question, of the euthyphro dilemma should be asked, is it good to do because evolution made it out to be that or did evolution make it out to be because it is good? If the latter, then good exists before evolution, and if evolution decides what is moral, then to me, this seems baseless for many reasons. Why should we pay attention to commands or instructions in us from evolution?
And the last thing I want to say, our perception of morality doesn't all come down to empathy and being empathetic. This is important, but morality we all believe in is more comprehensive then that. I don't want to make this post any longer...so I won't go into details of this but I believe this is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about the issue.
Lastly, the distant star is not meant to be a distant star forever, but we are meant to get closer to it, till our vision of our souls pierce the veils of light and reach the source of greatness while our souls get suspended by the glory of it's sanctity.
The last statement is the most important reason for believing the link between the light and the source in my view.
