But.
But.
Its only illegal if you get caught right.
If morality is subjective, then morality is still objective
Posts
Total:
129
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's only illegal if you get caught.
With your trousers down.
In the Sheep pen.
-->
@zedvictor4
What about a bunch of blind people being immoral.
And keeping it objective.
Hang the fuck on a sec.
BPM
Blind peoples morals.
Actually, Blind people do have them moraly things that we got also hey Zed ?
Imagine being Morally blind.
Or
Or
Maybe just Pashily moraly blind.
Moraly Moraly Moraly
Life is but a dream.
Oh its merrily actually hey.
Merrily moral.
Moraly gifted
No Thats just getting silly now .
No Silly would be thinking about a moral moray eel.
I do however feel extremely moral today.
Yeah.
Like. Real fucking moral like.
Soooooooo, just for the next 12 hours.
Im a change me name to,
Moral.
Yeah , thats it. Just .
Moral.
Good day Zed.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Yep that's right Mr. Moral
Partially morally sighted.
I could have sworn that she looked older than 15 your honour.
But I didn't have my spectacles in my shoulder bag.
Only my test-tickles in my ball bag.
For the next 12 hours.
Just call me Roger Frombehind.
-->
@zedvictor4
Blind police officers.
You could be moral to immoral just by opening and closing ones eyes.
This is not the case in a cort of law hey.
No but imagine the cort case with the blind man ummmm , mistakenly sleeping with a 15 year old.
Oh . Bringing me to the saying.
Turning a blind eye.
Can literally Cloesing ones eyes be deemed as immoral ?
Of course It can be hey Roger ?
But.
But.
Yeah but.
No but.
But like No,
Yeah maybe.
It is.
Sooooo somtimes when you cloes your eyes , its immoral. Or can be friggen deemed as.
But just sometimes.
Only sometimes.
Im begining to suspect that these moraly things they speak of aint like even real.
Like not really real.
Then theres the peoples that seen buttttt didn't see that you had ya eyes shut.
I think im just gonna pass on this one.
PASS.......
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Feel the butt on the in stroke.
It's how GOD intended.
What could be more moral than that Deb?
Two times moral.
So Thats ( 2 x moral ) or ( moral × 2 )
Its double.
2 x moral is more moral then then just the one moral.
Thats a regular moral.
A regular moral plus another reg moral.
So We work out what actions are considered moral.
And we do em together.
Maybe even 3 morals at the same time.
They call that a trip mo. triple moral.
Hang on a sec,
1, 2, 3 .
Yeah its a Triple moral.
Three morals.
Crazy right .
Do that and you'll start to accent, im sure off it.
So the answer to .
What could be more moral is, i think.
( A ) Two morals.
2 morals being more then 1 moral.
No stop.
1, 2, and ,3 thats.
Yeah . 2 morals.
Jeez Don't put me on the spot like that man.
Thats 2 god intents.
No not fucken gods in tents you fool.
For fuck sake.
I new youd start that. Ya hear the words tents tense then bloody intense.
Next thing your picturing a couple of gods in tents.
Then you end up ( in tent city ) and ya all like, picturing a bunch gods in tents and shit.
I give up.
Just tell me if two morals is / are more moral the one moral.
And Stop making me look foolish.
Thanks Boss.
Fizzer bizzer mizzer
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey Deb.
Have you heard the expression, two wrongs don't make a right.
Well, similarly.
Two morals don't make you moraller.
Just like.
Two Koala's don't make a Dingo.
G'day Bruce.
Moraller.
What about two immorals.
That would maketh one more immoraller er.
Hang on.
2 immorals and 1 moral = 1 immoral
Or.
Or Zed.
3 morals and 1 immoral.
Ok so i was on the wrong path with that.
Again Zee stick with me, ill work out these moraly things yet.
Ok i got it.
Its alllllll about , Getting people to see me do "Moral" deeds.
Maybe thats what it is hey ?
Operation # 492 r
Putting my life in danger to save another.
For this ill need.
1 actor.
Set up scenario.
Take actor out to specific placed places, with the people you want ummmm, convinced of you being moral.
Performance.
Ackolades.
Doing the above could be close to immoral hey Zed?
Butttttttttt.
If done correctly, it is oh so moral.
I mean.
It can be seen, as oh so moral.
Mmmmm, can be "seen"
Bringing in the (Trolly cart problem )
And With a persons sight slightly obscured.
Someone can see you flick a lever thus making a cart crash into and kill 1 person.
Thats sooooooo immoral.
I don't know where i was going with this now.
Things can " look " immoral 1 meter to ya left.
I suppose.
Morals, shmorals , florals.
21 days later
-->
@Double_R
“Morality is, by definition, a system by which people judge actions as right or wrong.”
But that definition isn’t helpful because it only begs the question what’s the definition of right and/or wrong? And you can try to define it but eventually it would just lead to infinite regress which I don’t think you have the time and patience for, so let me do you a favor by providing my definition of morality. Morality is means to an end, that end being heaven. Now what those means are is a more complicated question to answer but I don’t think the answer to that question is necessary for the definition of morality.
-->
@Tarik
No, it just defines the question and any answer as moral questions and theories.“Morality is, by definition, a system by which people judge actions as right or wrong.”But that definition isn’t helpful because it only begs the question what’s the definition of right and/or wrong?
And you can try to define it but eventually it would just lead to infinite regress
Only if you make a mistake. All concepts are rooted in abstract perception so eventually you'll be forced into demonstrating through shared physical reality, but that is not infinite regress.
Morality is means to an end, that end being heaven.
Do you presume that going to heaven is right and good?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it just defines the question and any answer as moral questions and theories.
Do you want to test that theory out?
Do you presume that going to heaven is right and good?
Well considering that heaven represents eternal bliss/happiness, I would say yes.
-->
@Tarik
Why is that good?eternal bliss/happiness
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why is that good?
I’m sorry but that sounds like a counterintuitive question to me, do you not think happiness is a good thing?
-->
@Tarik
Why is that good?I’m sorry but that sounds like a counterintuitive question to me, do you not think happiness is a good thing?
I think if you say happiness is the definition of good then you're making a moral assertion. If I keep asking "why" you'll have nothing left to do than to say "I define good this way" (minus attempts at evasion).
Your assertion of root good and evil will be your moral theory and it will compete with all other moral theories on the grounds of coherency, universality, predictive accuracy, and practicality.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your assertion of root good and evil will be your moral theory and it will compete with all other moral theories on the grounds of coherency, universality, predictive accuracy, and practicality.
And I accept that challenge, but you still didn’t answer my question, do you not think happiness is a good thing?
-->
@Tarik
do you not think happiness is a good thing?
That question is an evasion.
What does it matter what I think? If I say "yes" would that absolve you of proving it is a good thing? Or more importantly, the root good?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That question is an evasion.
Evasion of what? I’m willing to concede that I don’t have an answer for you if you just get to your point.
-->
@Tarik
you can try to define it but eventually it would just lead to infinite regress
Infinite regress is inevitable in any subjective evaluation, which is what morality is. Here, I'll demonstrate:
Morality is means to an end, that end being heaven.
Why is that the definition?
-->
@Tarik
Then I've made my point.I’m willing to concede that I don’t have an answer for you if you just get to your point.
-->
@Double_R
Why is that the definition?
Point taken, but that’s not the only issue. The issue is often times words like moral, right, and good are used interchangeably so they can easily be defined by one another making the definition circular.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then I've made my point.
No you haven’t, a question is not a point. What’s the point of all the questions?
-->
@Tarik
The issue is often times words like moral, right, and good are used interchangeably so they can easily be defined by one another making the definition circular.
If someone defines "right" as "that which is good", and then defines "good" as "that which is right" then they are engaging in circular logic. That's certainly not what I or any of the prominent figures i'm aware of arguing that morality is subjective are doing.
My morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair to all. Anything that comports with this principal is good, anything that contradicts it is bad.
Now if you ask me why are these principals good my answer is not "because they are", it's "because I say so". In other words, that's where it begins. If you agree with me that these are solid principals to build a moral foundation upon then we have enough ground to agree on a moral system and coexist within it. If you don't then we may not be able to. It's that simple.
-->
@Double_R
That's certainly not what I or any of the prominent figures i'm aware of arguing that morality is subjective are doing.
No instead you evaded the question completely
what’s the definition of right and/or wrong?
-->
@Tarik
No instead you evaded the question completelywhat’s the definition of right and/or wrong?
Now I remember just how pointless it is to try and have a dialog with you.
Had to go way back, all the way to post 53 to remind you of my definition...
My morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair to all. Anything that comports with this principal is good, anything that contradicts it is bad.
People who think morality is subjective all find themselves mired in their hypocritical paradox.
-->
@Double_R
Had to go way back, all the way to post 53 to remind you of my definition...
Yes, because two posts back is so far lol
My morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair to all. Anything that comports with this principal is good, anything that contradicts it is bad.
Reading comprehension Double_R, I said define right and/or wrong not good and/or bad. Unless you’re conceding to my original point that those are interchangeable terms. Lastly the operative word in your definition is “all” which makes your definition impractical because we “all” don’t agree on what constitutes as harm and we “all” don’t agree on what is fair.
-->
@sadolite
Actually it's people who say (or write) that morality is subjective that find themselves mired in their hypocrisy. If it was there would be no point saying it.People who think morality is subjective all find themselves mired in their hypocritical paradox.
-->
@Tarik
Yes, because two posts back is so far lol
My point exactly
Unless you’re conceding to my original point that those are interchangeable terms.
Yes, within the context of this conversation, they mean the same thing. I don't know why you're calling that concession, I've never argued against that. What I did argue against was your assertion that most who share my general worldview on this subject are engaging in circular logic. That would be the case of there was no starting point, and yet there is which I already explained.
Lastly the operative word in your definition is “all” which makes your definition impractical because we “all” don’t agree on what constitutes as harm and we “all” don’t agree on what is fair.
My usage of the word "all" had nothing whatsoever to do with everyone agreeing. I defined what is right partly as what is "fair to all".
That's not a controversial interpretation of fairness, in fact it's essentially baked into the definition. Anyone who is not treated with the same deference as everyone else is by definition being treated unfairly.
Reading comprehension Double_R,
Reading comprehension indeed.
-->
@Double_R
Anyone who is not treated with the same deference as everyone else is by definition being treated unfairly.
Objectivity is fair, would you agree?