Morality

[WinterHold]

But how do I know that it's a misuse? misuse according to whom?

You can tell, because the point of philosophy is to provide clear answers to well formed questions.  When it provides no answer to confused questions...thats a misuse, just like trying to eat lentil soup with a hammer.

By a philosophy created -again- by whom?
http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html
So you're answering me in a context set by Plato to define what logic is; most theories and ideas and opinions in philosophy are pronounced from that exact same context.

But note that Greek wisdom is rational, and so maybe the following could serve as a definition of the specifically Greek project in thought: Philosophy is the rational investigation of logic, ethics, and metaphysics.

In other words, Philosophy is philosophizing -- seeking to understand our experience of the world, namely our life (Ethics), thought (Logic), and all of reality (Metaphysics), as best we can, by the light of natural reason alone.

It's the "Greek" way; that's the context as far as I have read. that's what I meant by "whom".
So the answer is "the ancient Greek school of thought". But your interpretation of the "natural reasons" is subjective until a judge can judge between us. I believe that judge exists, and he is God, and the day of judgement is coming.

Sure, our concepts of morality and even what fall under the moral purview have changed.  Were you going somewhere with this? Personally, I;d focus more on what has remained consistent over time, you might even say fundamental..between all disparate versions of morality.

We're going towards the subjectivity of everything. Eventually, what has the greater power will prevail. That's why governments ensure their survival by developing weapons periodically, and that's why we study to gain power over odds like hunger and poverty, and that's defiantly why things exist or cease to exist around us; for anything to exist it must be more powerful than the odds.

That's what I'm going towards.

Power defines what should be constant or shouldn't.

Referring to moral disagreement doesn't establish that morality is subjective.  There would be moral disagreement regardless of whether or not morality was objective or subjective.  It simply demonstrates that people have subjective opinions with regards to morality...which we already knew, yes? 

It's a disagreement if the moral code is not a matter of debate from the first place. Morals are subject to personal  judgement, and tyranny is when somebody forces their opinion as an objective fact, no matter what the subjective opinion of the foe is.

Disagreement is due to subjectivity. Everybody thinks their opinion is an objective absolute.

You're not commenting on "contractless sex", above.  You're commenting on absentee fathers. 

No; I'm speaking about "sex without a contract", that gives both parties the freedom to do nasty shit like running away with the kid, or throw the kid in the garbage, or leave single women to suffer alone.

Men do not run because like feminists say; it is in us. Many men run because they didn't think wisely about the red night; and the woman didn't either.

Then wrap it up, dingus.  You don't need o marry a girl to wear a rubber.

Did somebody lock you inside a dingus before?

Th trouble is that it's not even a subjective opinion on the subject you proposed, which was contractless sex, not absentee fathers. 

I can adapt other opinions; I'm so free to do so. That defines subjective to me.

Is the harm you feel done by absentee fathers just a matter of opinion?  Or do you feel that this harm is palpable, demonstrable, and beyond any one persons subjective appraisal?  In short, do you think that absentee fathers are objectively harmful? 

Personally; I think it's a very dangerous consequence that raise the crime rates to high levels. With every newborn without parents; psychological truamas increase, and that's a factory for criminals. There must be parents that provide a degree of discipline to the kids, or nothing is guaranteed.

Sure, people are neccessarrily subjective creatures, but we already knew that.  I thought we were wondering whether or not morality was objective or subjective? 

I thought it was obvious that morality means nothing but to humans. So where are you going with that bit?
people are subjective; so as the morals they adapt. Morality comes from the human brain.

If morality is coming from a subjective brain; then they are subjective by nature; too.
And here's where my religion comes in: I believe that the subjective opinion of God is the absolute truth. That way, he literally does what he wants; shape everything like he wants too.

When's the last time allah showed up with a cup of coffee and a donut, to ask you how your morning was?  This is a statement of the articles of your faith..not an explanation for a divine requirement to morality.

If he came to me like that; I will defy him from day 1.
God is bigger than any of us. We pray to him and thank him for the donut and the coffee, then tell him what we want; and what we want to be forgiven from our bad deeds; and try our best to earn our ranks in heaven.

Another statement of the articles of your faith..and still not an explanation for any divine requirement to morality.  A simple answer to the simple question I asked would have shed more light on your status as a moral creature....see what I mean about misuse? 

The simplest path is mostly the correct one. So I choose it. This is the first philosophy thing I do; so....

What's the moral significance of submission or rebellion?  I worry, that this..and your response to Sa above...is indicative of an arbitrary morality, not so much a subjective one. If morality is as you seem to think it is, what's the significance of pursuing my own morality as opposed to some purportedly divine one? Is it all going to be reduced to a "Do what I say or burn" equation...because, if so, we're not discussing morality. We'd be discussing fealty to arbitrarity and punishment for non-conformity.

Submission is life. Our bodies are ordered to breath, eat..etc, any disturbance to that natural submission to the creator means the ceasing of life. Try to hold your breath; you'll breath compulsively. Don't eat and you'll die.

Submission guarantees that only the good will go to heaven. While the bad go to hell.
To rebel; to commit what Satan did. It means that you will corrupt heaven; just like you corrupted earth. Or remain silent to the corruption of others.

I don't think that people choose their moral codes, at least not in any meaningful sense.  We're compelled by them, and compelled to them..for a variety of reasons/non-reasons.  I can't choose, for example..to regard rape as anything other than wrong.  How about you? 

Many serial killers disagree with you.