Morality

[Edwardo Piet]

If you want to find 'true morality' I highly recommend the MP2500

The MP2500 was selected for Sentinel because it can process large volumes of rock as single machine. It saves costs as fewer crushers, related infrastructure and maintenance are needed for achieving the same or increased amount of production.

Because the MP2500 crusher has the largest feed opening ever made, it can crush bigger chunks of rock. Its ability to crush rock further than the traditional crushers decreases energy consumption in the later parts of the process.

I highly recommend you invest in one unless you want to forever remain nothing but a dirty sinner.

[Cyberman]

Emotions and their production are written in out DNA, meaning that "feeling bad" or feeling "guilty" about something is pretty much a given ability since birth. To me; that's more of a pointing to an intelligent designer behind our existence.

Which is interesting, because as someone once said the shortest simple path is always the correct one; so no need for mazes and complications of what is simple. Obfuscating the issue with an entity with zero explanatory capacity and even less justification is the exact opposite of that. You just cut the throat of your supposition with Occam's Razor.

[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.

[Cyberman]

If only we had some kind of system or incentive to stop rapists and killers, and punish them.

[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?