Great marriage advice.

[Longhorn]

That's a nice sentiment and all, but it's not entirely true. Sometimes you do have to put yourself first just so you can have something to give later.

This.

I hear this idea expressed often in regards to relationships in general. Maybe it sounds romantic, but it really is bad advice. You can't take care of anybody before you take care of yourself and putting that burden entirely on someone else is bound to result in disappointment.

Also, does it really sound healthy to be dependent like this on someone else? Even if they are dependent on you. I believe people who are self-sufficient emotionally can build much stronger, more stable relationships.

Sometimes you do of course have to put the other's person's needs above yours, in certain situations. But making that the status quo just isn't the best idea, imo.

[brewer]

[edit]

You want to put a ring on my finger?

[edit]

It's not a ring and definitely not your finger. Ya got the "want" part right.

[Crunchy]

Morality only evolves as we creatures do and have evolved, therefore morality is as subjective as evolution itself. (i.e. not at all)

No person chose to have empathy as a huge part of human nature. It doesn't matter at all that some individuals can be psychopathic and lack empathy just as it doesn't matter than some people are suicidal. Empathy is an evolved characteristic that benefits intelligent social creatures like us en masse. Until you can demonstrate that evolution is subjective, you won't be able to demonstrate that morality is subjective.

Empathy is not necessarily morality. So far all I see from you is a position that morality evolves. I say that morality or what is considered moral changes and not always for the better and not necessarily driven by evolution. 

You did hit on one piece that governs a part of the subjectivity of morality, society. The society, for the most part, will dictate what is considered moral. 

And it does matter on an individual level. 

Ever consider the concept of set and setting (minus the drug component) when it comes to morality?

Then I think we have different definitions of morality. 
If you mean principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior or a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, or culture that is meant to be good for humans (which is how I define it) then we have to determine in what context this applies. For example, it is not a moral question to ask if it's good or bad to be caught in a landslide. Falling rocks have no morality. So we can clearly determine that morality only applies to moral agents like humans.
  
IMO, the issue is not about morality existing outside of human beings, (making it universally objective) but whether the judgments we make are more than merely arbitrary.  Therefore, the facts concerning the physical nature of humans force us to gravitate to our basic needs as a means to any other end. You get nowhere without oxygen for instance.  I've pointed this out in other discussions around morality by highlighting Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. No one chooses what our basic needs are, therefore they are not subjective.

It is an objective fact that Maslow's basic rungs have value to us that allows us to survive long enough to pursue other goals. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality.



If, however, you define morality as anything you want it to be, then that definition has no boundaries and it is not possible to reach any conclusions about a definition that has no boundaries. Is this what you mean by morality?

[The Valkyrie]

[edit]

You want to put a ring on my finger?

[edit]

It's not a ring and definitely not your finger. Ya got the "want" part right.

But would you be "up" for it.

[brewer]

It's not a ring and definitely not your finger. Ya got the "want" part right.

But would you be "up" for it.

Ring a ding ding!

[The Valkyrie]

But would you be "up" for it.

Ring a ding ding!

Actually, looking back at your original reply, there is a correction you missed.  I'm assuming it shouldn't be "on" but "in"?

[brewer]

Empathy is not necessarily morality. So far all I see from you is a position that morality evolves. I say that morality or what is considered moral changes and not always for the better and not necessarily driven by evolution. 

You did hit on one piece that governs a part of the subjectivity of morality, society. The society, for the most part, will dictate what is considered moral. 

And it does matter on an individual level. 

Ever consider the concept of set and setting (minus the drug component) when it comes to morality?

Then I think we have different definitions of morality. 
If you mean principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior or a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, or culture that is meant to be good for humans (which is how I define it) then we have to determine in what context this applies. For example, it is not a moral question to ask if it's good or bad to be caught in a landslide. Falling rocks have no morality. So we can clearly determine that morality only applies to moral agents like humans.
  
IMO, the issue is not about morality existing outside of human beings, (making it universally objective) but whether the judgments we make are more than merely arbitrary.  Therefore, the facts concerning the physical nature of humans force us to gravitate to our basic needs as a means to any other end. You get nowhere without oxygen for instance.  I've pointed this out in other discussions around morality by highlighting Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. No one chooses what our basic needs are, therefore they are not subjective.

It is an objective fact that Maslow's basic rungs have value to us that allows us to survive long enough to pursue other goals. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality.

If, however, you define morality as anything you want it to be, then that definition has no boundaries and it is not possible to reach any conclusions about a definition that has no boundaries. Is this what you mean by morality?

Just did a quick look at Maslow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s...y_of_needs    I didn't see anything about objective morals, only needs (morals, not identified as objective, show up in self-actualization).  Don't confuse facts or basic needs with morals or values. BTW, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory. Also see critiques. 

What the hell are you talking about landslides and oxygen for. Or even arbitrary. I have no clue where you picked that up from. It's morals, as in human behavior.

I'll work from this definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

OK, tell me how morality is objective.

[Shell B]

Being married is fucking awesome. I don't know what you humbugs are on about.

Best advice I can give:

Be respectful of your spouse, even if they are nowhere near you. (In other words, don't talk shit about them when they're not around.)

Don't bring other people into your fights. A. It makes people feel really fucking awkward. B. It makes your spouse feel like they're being ganged up on, like you would seek back up to fight them. C. It invites other people into your relationship.

Make being honest a habit. You might be tempted to lie about stupid shit like whether you ate another slice of cake. That shit isn't important. That your spouse can trust you, and you never have that shitty feeling of having to keep up with the lie, is more important by a long shot. Hey, everyone has secrets. You don't necessarily have to tell your spouse if you occasionally watch weird porn or something, but if directly asked, don't say no. They'll remember that time you lied the next time they doubt you and that doubt will be stronger for it. I've found this to be the most important thing in my marriage.

Respect time outs. When people get really pissed, they don't solve anything. The best thing to do is take a time out. Everyone gets some space to let the mercury cool. However, you can't just storm out. You have to say where you're going and how long you'll be gone. It's a gesture that garners trust, and let's your partner know you'll be safe as well.

All of these tips are based on huge mistakes in my first marriage that are more or less solved in my second marriage. They make my life a lot easier. I feel safe and secure in my marriage and strive to make Tibs feel the same way. It's nice.

[Crunchy]

Then I think we have different definitions of morality. 
If you mean principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior or a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, or culture that is meant to be good for humans (which is how I define it) then we have to determine in what context this applies. For example, it is not a moral question to ask if it's good or bad to be caught in a landslide. Falling rocks have no morality. So we can clearly determine that morality only applies to moral agents like humans.
  
IMO, the issue is not about morality existing outside of human beings, (making it universally objective) but whether the judgments we make are more than merely arbitrary.  Therefore, the facts concerning the physical nature of humans force us to gravitate to our basic needs as a means to any other end. You get nowhere without oxygen for instance.  I've pointed this out in other discussions around morality by highlighting Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. No one chooses what our basic needs are, therefore they are not subjective.

It is an objective fact that Maslow's basic rungs have value to us that allows us to survive long enough to pursue other goals. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality.

If, however, you define morality as anything you want it to be, then that definition has no boundaries and it is not possible to reach any conclusions about a definition that has no boundaries. Is this what you mean by morality?

Just did a quick look at Maslow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s...y_of_needs    I didn't see anything about objective morals, only needs (morals, not identified as objective, show up in self-actualization).  Don't confuse facts or basic needs with morals or values. BTW, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory. Also see critiques. 

What the hell are you talking about landslides and oxygen for. Or even arbitrary. I have no clue where you picked that up from. It's morals, as in human behavior.

I'll work from this definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

OK, tell me how morality is objective.

Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical moral judgments
b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)

So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.

I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morals are subjective because they rely on the judgement of a subject.

They are also relative in the sense that they vary in relation to the circumstances at hand.

We can reason our way to some moral judgements, but that doesn't mean they are objective, because premises are almost always in themselves subjective.