Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Do you have a specific issue with the system...or?

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.

The articles of your faith have little value in a rational discussion.  Do you want to talk about ghosts or 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.

So, might makes right sort of stuff?  I don't personally subscribe to that.  Might makes you mighty, not right.  Do you want to talk about might or morality?  

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.

Disagreement probably is due to subjectivity, but..again, moral disagreement would exist regardless of whether morality were objective or subjective, so it's not a demonstrative comment.  

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.

There you go again, talking about kids, and imagining freedoms that some or both parties have.  If you have problems with -those- things..okay..but at some point you'll have to tell me what it is about contractless sex..itself, that you think is a moral issue.  Married people do all of the above...so...?  

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.

....lol, the red night...... couldn't you wait a week?  

Did somebody lock you inside a dingus before?

..........................?

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

Having other opinions about other things has something to say about subjective morality?  I;m just suggesting that, if you want to talk about the morality of contractless sex..you do so.  If you don't..it's pointless to bring it up or pretend that you are doing so by talking about a laundry list of other things.  

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.

Subjectively dangerous or objectively dangerous?

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.

People are mammals too, that doesn't make morality a mammal.  

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.

Arithmetic comes from a subjective brain as well...somehow the notion that 1+1=2 escapes criticism as..just like, my opinion, man.  Here we go again with your belief in ghosts and their opinions.  Irrelevant.

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.

So your previous comments were, as I suspected, meaningless..and you were ready to abandon them before they'd even left your mouth?  

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

The path you've chosen is elaborate, convoluted, internally contradictory, and wholly irrational.  As a first attempt to dive in, not bad..honestly.  I wasn't any good when I first picked up a gun, either.  It takes practice.

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.

Maybe your life, not mine.  Again, what's the moral significance...because at present the only way to parse these remarks is that there is no significance...it;s just that if you don;t submit..god will kill you........that's probably not the takeaway you're after.  Plenty of people would probably kill me, or at least want to...because I won't do what they tell me to..but so what? A guy tries to mug me, threatens my life..is refusing to give him my wallet somehow immoral?

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.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a righteous rebellion?  Don;t you think that;s what you're doing with your non sunni/shia islam?  Somebody told you to do x, you refused, because you're a good person.  I do the samew..except I'm refusing your silly god stories....because I'm just not a shitty enough person to submit to magic book and it's horrible contents, further, the consequences of people submitting to magic book are...let's be kind..ugly as hell.

Many serial killers disagree with you.

Most don't actually....rapists are widely reviled by criminals..and even serial killers (how we got there from rapists who knows) have a tendency to recognize that what they are doing is wrong.  They simply have a compulsion.  

Can you answer a single question posed of you, or is that harem?  Can you change your mind about rape?  Is it just an opinion..in your opinion..that rape is bad? Being a moral consequentalist, as you'e expressed yourself to be...it's difficult to see the appeal of subjective morality to you. If morality is an issue of consequence..at least the -consequences- have to be objectively bad...somehow....otherwise it can;t be an issue of consequence. If morality is subjective, the consequences themselves are irrelevant, what matters is an agents opinion of those consequences. Can you understand my confusion?