-->
@b9_ntt
Because I want to live.
Live for what though? Where’s the motivation?
Morality is Objective.
Posts
Total:
133
-->
@Tarik
I live for many things. I enjoy life. Besides, as a living being, trying to stay alive is built in. It's natural.
-->
@b9_ntt
Besides, as a living being, trying to stay alive is built in. It's natural.
Says who? The many people who’ve already committed suicide?
-->
@Tarik
Says everyone. All life forms automatically try to stay alive. We breathe without even thinking about it.
The small number who suicide are defective in some way.
-->
@b9_ntt
The small number who suicide are defective in some way.
What about suicide is defective? All they’re doing is speeding up the inevitable.
-->
@Tarik
Like I said: Living beings automatically try to stay alive. You know this, so where are you going with this?
-->
@b9_ntt
so where are you going with this?
The ultimate motivation to live is the belief in a higher power.
-->
@Tarik
I thought that might be where you were going.
I don't buy it.
-->
@b9_ntt
I don't buy it.
You say that yet you still haven’t mentioned your motivation.
-->
@Tarik
I did. I enjoy life. I want to live because I enjoy it. Also because my natural drives are aligned that way.
-->
@b9_ntt
I want to live because I enjoy it.
You’re begging the question, what about life is enjoyable?
-->
@Tarik
what about life is enjoyable?
Eating, sleeping, sex, beholding the stars & the ocean & the mountains, art, learning, loving. So many things.
-->
@Best.Korea
“Morality is objective for only humans" and "morality is objective" are two different claims, with the first one true NOT guaranteeing the second one true.
-->
@b9_ntt
Eating, sleeping, sex, beholding the stars & the ocean & the mountains, art, learning, loving. So many things.
But none of those things can be enjoyed forever (at least from your perspective) does believing that make you sad? Does that sadness overwhelm the joy?
-->
@Intelligence_06
“Morality is objective for only humans" and "morality is objective" are two different claims, with the first one true NOT guaranteeing the second one true.
I believe I never claimed the first one. I said humans could have different objective laws of morality from other species.
However, laws of morality of all species would still be objective and would exist irrelevant of opinion, just they would be different laws for different species.
-->
@Tarik
But none of those things can be enjoyed forever (at least from your perspective) does believing that make you sad? Does that sadness overwhelm the joy?
No and no. Forever is not part of my world. If it's part of yours, you have been duped.
-->
@b9_ntt
Forever is not part of my world.
I acknowledged that already, happiness not lasting forever is sad.
-->
@Tarik
happiness not lasting forever is sad.
It's sad only if you think it's possible for happiness to last forever.
I know there is nothing more. Of course you won't be disappointed because you will be dead. In the meantime, people who believe in the next life will not appreciate this life as much (I believe). I have seen the smug faces of xian believers who think that they are going to heaven and I'm not. If that's what it takes for you to get through this life, then so be it. I don't have a problem with knowing that this life is all there is. I have come to terms with my mortality. Good luck to you.
-->
@b9_ntt
Of course you won't be disappointed because you will be dead.
That’s not the point, you can be disappointed while you’re still alive. Regardless of whether or not you believe there’s a heaven, wouldn’t you like for there to one?
@Tarik
Heaven is currently rhubarb crumble and custard.
This is a personally objective fact derived from personally subjective reasoning.
The same principles of reasoning apply to how one arrives at a moral judgement.
And happiness is a brief moment of electro-chemical profundity.
Contentment is what we should aim to achieve.
And if that necessitates a belief in an afterlife.....That's absolutely fine.
-->
@Tarik
wouldn’t you like for there to one?
What I would like is to not die.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Firstly, you’re conflating morality with ethics. Morality is the distinction between good and bad while ethics is essentially the definition you proposed.
Secondly, what side do you sit on most, consequentialism, or deontologicalism? And why?
I would argue that consequentialism is multifaceted while deontologicalism is not.
Thirdly, people who claim that they have objective morals don’t contribute anything to the conversation on their high horse. And often times do more harm than good when in power.
-->
@b9_ntt
What I would like is to not die.
That doesn’t sound like someone that’s come to terms with there mortality.
-->
@Tarik
That doesn’t sound like someone that’s come to terms with there mortality.
I think I have. I know that I will die and that will be the end of me. I must accept that because it's reality to me. I wish it were otherwise, but I know it's not, and I accept that. It's just the way life works. I don't gripe about it, I don't follow the science of aging, etc. I see people around me dying all the time (I'm almost 80 now and live in a senior development) and I know that my time is near ... nearer at least than ever before in my life. My partner knows that, my kids know that, my grandkids--who knows? You get the idea. Things could be a lot worse. I consider myself lucky to have lived when I did and where (the USA). Most people in the world are not so fortunate.
-->
@b9_ntt
Do you believe in justice?
-->
@Tarik
I believe that it's possible to create justice in a human legal system. I don't believe in objective justice.
-->
@b9_ntt
I believe that it's possible to create justice in a human legal system.
But how do you prove that legal system to be just is the question?
-->
@Tarik
I don't think I could prove it. Since it would be a human product, it would be imperfect. It would be an approximation of justice, which is the best we could expect from a human-created system.
-->
@b9_ntt
It would be an approximation of justice
But in order to know that you’ll also have to know what actual justice looks like.
-->
@Reece101
Firstly, you’re conflating morality with ethics. Morality is the distinction between good and bad while ethics is essentially the definition you proposed.Secondly, what side do you sit on most, consequentialism, or deontologicalism? And why?I would argue that consequentialism is multifaceted while deontologicalism is not.Thirdly, people who claim that they have objective morals don’t contribute anything to the conversation on their high horse. And often times do more harm than good when in power.
The definition that I proposed is a stable definition for morality.
I side on the side of Deontologically. The choice of the person, (the drive) overall determines the morality of the action or thought.
Thirdly, people who claim that they have objective morals don’t contribute anything to the conversation on their high horse. And often times do more harm than good when in power.
Yes.
But people who claim that they try to base their life off of an objective moral system that they follow usually have a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.