Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was saying individuals who come to a platform to publicly share their opinions and hear the opinions of others should be treated as individuals who have come to a public platform to share their opinions and hear the opinions of others, respectfully.
Respectfully? The only reason to conclude on that note is if individuals can engage in that very act without being “respectful” and that goes against what you said when you originally used that term.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
An individual can treat other individuals respectfully, regardless of whether the other individual is respectful. I already explained everything there is for me to explain in the previous responses. I appreciate your queries on my explanation and how I could elaborate them to deepen my understanding of my ideas and the ability to share them with others. Having said that, I don't believe there is anything more for me to share or address that you haven't already discussed. Therefore, with nothing else productive left for me to say, I would like to discontinue our chat. Hopefully we can meet again on a different topic.

19 days later

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Hopefully we can meet again on a different topic.
It’s clear that you use AI to make your arguments so here’s what I read.

Relativism is a philosophical position that asserts that truth and morality are subjective and vary depending on individual perspectives or cultural contexts. One common criticism of relativism is that it can be seen as self-refuting because if it claims that all truths are relative, then the statement itself would also be relative, leading to an inherent contradiction.

The argument against relativism is that it undermines its own claim by proposing an absolute truth about the nature of truth. As a result, some philosophers argue that adopting relativism leads to logical inconsistencies.

However, it's essential to recognize that relativism, like any philosophical perspective, has various interpretations and counterarguments. Some proponents of relativism might respond to the self-refuting criticism in different ways. Philosophical debates often involve exploring the nuances and complexities of different positions to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.

Do you agree that it’s a self refuting notion, if not then what’s your counterargument?

Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Unfortunately, I'm unable to convey my enthusiasm through text, but I'm delighted to hear such a thought-provoking question. Certainly, I'll share my thoughts.

In the forum link that follows I provide my stance on truth being relative without contradiction:

This is my current understanding of the nature of truth:
I believe in the coexistence of multiple independent truths, each based on a specific lens and reference system. Truth, to me, is the alignment of one system with another. For instance, True North serves as a metric for aligning with what North is. All these perspective truths remain valid in their respective contexts and do not invalidate one another. Objective truth applies when choosing materials to withstand boiling water, considering their ability to resist heat. On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty. The key is to choose the most practical truth for specific questions, understanding that each truth arises from a particular perspective and should be considered as a "prospective truth." Embracing multiple truths and appreciating their validity in different contexts is vital. Rather than seeking a universal truth, considering different perspectives leads to the most relevant and meaningful answers.

If you are seeking to go into this in depth, feel free to post on my forum. I will try to keep morality on this forum. We can pick up on morality after discussing truth since I believe it is necessary to understand morality.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty.
Then they don’t coexist under that example because according to you you can’t objectively prove beauty therefore it doesn’t objectively exist within that context.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty.
Then they don’t coexist under that example because according to you you can’t objectively prove beauty therefore it doesn’t objectively exist within that context.
This does not imply they cannot coexist. Beauty can be viewed as both objectively nonexistent and subjectively existent simultaneously. This is because objective refers to an attribute of an object while subjective Refers to the attribute of a viewer or subject. It is in this way that an object may hold no intrinsic value or beauty and an external entity or subject can value or find beauty in an object through their perspective. Therefore, beauty does not exist within an object but within perspective. I see this to have no inconsistencies or controversies and give a much more comprehensive understanding of reality.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
This does not imply they cannot coexist. Beauty can be viewed as both objectively nonexistent and subjectively existent simultaneously.
Non existence and existence are polar opposites, so this notion that they coexist with each other is logically incoherent, if anything they cancel each other out.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Imagine reality as a three-dimensional space. Within this space, there are countless flat parallel planes that make up different aspects of reality. To exist means to simply be present. Consider value and emotions – they exist on one plane of reality but may not exist on another. This is akin to the idea that something can be meaningful and beautiful in one aspect of reality but not in another. This illustrates how subjective existence can differ from objective existence, as they reside on distinct planes that shape reality. Each layer of reality offers a unique perspective or lens through which we view the world.

In essence, value exists subjectively, but not objectively; value exists within the perspective, but not the object.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Thank you for making this so explicitly clear. Well done.

Each human has differrent and changing set of X, and each express X to their children and others in various ways.
This is exactly what I was thinking of, that morality is passed down to the descendants, in the subconsciousness. So many people experience an "inner voice" or something of that sort that tell them the right thing to do, and it's not that a supernatural being is guiding them as the OP tried to suggest shamelessly.

But that doesn't happen to everyone, I guess a family of psychopaths would experience all the contrary.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,834
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is exactly what I was thinking of, that morality is passed down to the descendants, in the subconsciousness. So many people experience an "inner voice" or something of that sort that tell them the right thing to do, and it's not that a supernatural being is guiding them as the OP tried to suggest shamelessly.

Ha. I went back to find the contexxt of my comments and still not sure why I  wrote them as you quoted me.  maybe I was refering to genetics only. I dunno. Maybe would have to read Double-rs comments to better understan why i wrote that.
 
Certaingly genetics errors of this or that are passed at diffferrent degrees and differrent times, child, grandchild etc. Gets complicated, tho humans begining to understand the complexity of genetics more and more


Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
@ebuc
I believe that there are two forms of morality, the subconscious and the conscious. I agree that a person's subconscious morality is a genetic trait that is passed down, but I believe that a person's conscious morality is not.

I describe them as the following:
  1. Subconscious Morality: This is the subconscious sense of right and wrong that seems to be instinctual and is often influenced by genetics and early upbringing. It operates beneath our conscious awareness and can be shaped by evolutionary factors. For example, feelings of empathy and cooperation might be part of our subconscious morality. This form of morality is not easily swayed or controlled and operates quite independently of your will.
  2. Conscious Morality: This is the moral reasoning that occurs at a more conscious level. It involves evaluating situations, considering ethical principles, and making deliberate decisions about what is right or wrong. This form of morality is decided through rationality and is easily controlled by your will.
It's important to note that these two forms of morality are not always in alignment. Sometimes, our conscious evaluation of a situation might suggest one course of action, while our subconscious feelings or deeply rooted beliefs might pull us in a different direction.

It's also worth considering that conscious morality can influence subconscious morality over time. As we engage in conscious moral reasoning and repeatedly make choices aligned with those reasons, our subconscious reactions and beliefs may gradually shift to be more in line with our conscious values.

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
It's also worth considering that conscious morality can influence subconscious morality over time. As we engage in conscious moral reasoning and repeatedly make choices aligned with those reasons, our subconscious reactions and beliefs may gradually shift to be more in line with our conscious values.
I agree. I think the human brain is enough flexible to do what you just described which is the basis of epigenetics. 

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,834
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
I went back an read D_r's comments, that I was quoting.  Now I see my X was not related specifially to X chroomsome and that D_r' X was not about chrosome at all.

X as symbol for a moral standard ex thou shalt not kill. Not kill other humans is inferred. Chickens snakes, cattle etc is not inferrred.

The X for each person is differrent, ---to whatever degree---, from parents, siblings etc, because each individual takes in { absorb/gleans } slightly differrent whole set of morals as they experience life, and that set changes over time.

Morality is learned from  Meta-space conceptual teachings from parents, intentionally or non-intentionally.

Morality is learned from movies, --starting back when movies came on the scene---.

Morality is learned from books.

The sub-conscious part morality is likened to the instinctual part experience of seeing bullies, abusing others ---to whatever degree---, and feeling that, that is not good/right thing to do to others. Do not onto others, what you would not like done to you.

Share not with your cousins, that, which  you would not have them share with you.

As far as the X or y chromosomes genetics passing on this or that influencing of behavior, is much more complicated as it has to be balanced with the living experiences of each set of circumstances of our lives, starting as child with rising cognition of what is what all around them, and asking question to better understand how, why people behave this way or that way.

Young people look for somone to model themselves after. Young people want to be like the adults and often mimic them, to whatever degree.

Then along the way o flife, they may decide, that, they developed a pattern of behaviour that the think is in error for various reasons. One of those reasons being, a new set of circumstances to fit in with a new group of people---ex differrent church group--- they find they like the behaviours of, and want to fit in.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
Based on your understanding, how do you believe morality relates to the conscious and subconscious self?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Imagine reality as a three-dimensional space.
We weren’t discussing reality, we were discussing context which is more specific and less broad then the wide scope of reality.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
This does not imply they cannot coexist. Beauty can be viewed as both objectively nonexistent and subjectively existent simultaneously. This is because objective refers to an attribute of an object while subjective Refers to the attribute of a viewer or subject. It is in this way that an object may hold no intrinsic value or beauty and an external entity or subject can value or find beauty in an object through their perspective. Therefore, beauty does not exist within an object but within perspective. I see this to have no inconsistencies or controversies and give a much more comprehensive understanding of reality.
Nonexistence and existence are polar opposites, so this notion that they coexist with each other is logically incoherent, if anything they cancel each other out.
Imagine reality as a three-dimensional space. Within this space, there are countless flat parallel planes that make up different aspects of reality. To exist means to simply be present. Consider value and emotions – they exist on one plane of reality but may not exist on another. This is akin to the idea that something can be meaningful and beautiful in one aspect of reality but not in another. This illustrates how subjective existence can differ from objective existence, as they reside on distinct planes that shape reality. Each layer of reality offers a unique perspective or lens through which we view the world.

In essence, value exists subjectively, but not objectively; value exists within the perspective, but not the object.
We weren’t discussing reality; we were contextually speaking which is a little more specific and less broad than wide scope of reality.
My explanation was meant to be coherent with morality's relation to objectivity. This is why I was trying to provide a clearer example of how something can exist subjectively while not objectively.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
My explanation was meant to be coherent with morality's relation to objectivity. This is why I was trying to provide a clearer example of how something can exist subjectively while not objectively.
That makes no sense, how can something that doesn’t exist be related to anything?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe the only way for us to disagree with the meaning is if we have a difference in our definitions. Do you agree with the following, and if not, where do you get your definition?

Explanations for "objective" and "subjective":
  • Objective: Something is objective when it's based on facts that everyone can agree on. For example, if the painting is 3 feet wide and 2 feet tall, that's an objective fact. It's the same for everyone who looks at it. Objective things are like the measurements of the painting that don't change no matter who's looking.
  • Subjective: Something is subjective when it's based on personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. So, when you and your friend have different opinions about how cool the painting is, that's subjective. Your feelings and thoughts about the painting are unique to you and your friend, and they might be different from someone else's.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you agree with the following, and if not, where do you get your definition?
I agree.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Which category do you believe morality to fall and why?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Which category do you believe morality to fall and why?
Objective because I believe in God.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Your belief in God doesn't change the definition nor does it show how morality aligns with objectivity. I believe it is possible for a person to believe in God and recognize morality as subjective, depending on your definition of God. I think many people view God differently, emphasizing the subjectivity of morality. What makes you believe your belief in God makes morality objective?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe that my admiration for my favorite color remains regardless of whether all others acknowledge it. I accept that my value for the color is real and that it is not consistent for all individuals making it a subjective reality. I do not believe that because others don't value my favorite color as their favorite that it degrades the value of the color for me, I value it all the same.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
What makes you believe your belief in God makes morality objective?
I didn’t say my belief in God makes morality objective, I said my belief in God is why I believe morality is objective. The former is a declaration of fact and the latter is simply stating one’s beliefs.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,419
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim

The armed forces of Nazi Germany, wore belt buckles emblazoned with the words “Gott mit Uns.” That is “God with Us” in English. 
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe that the Bible emphasizes God is subjective through the many different ways that it expresses God to different individuals. To Moses he was a burning bush, to the disciples he was the Holy Spirit, and still to others he was a voice. I believe this is the Bible demonstrating that God is experienced differently by everyone. This is why I believe the Bible clearly represents God as subjective. Therefore, I think you can accept morality as subjective while retaining your beliefs.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that there are different definitions of God. It's even possible some misinterpret God and claim he is the same as another's and then do things such as you described. I'm not sure how your interjection helps our conversation though?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that the Bible emphasizes God is subjective through the many different ways that it expresses God to different individuals.
I believe morality is objective based on the objective results, if you’ve lived good you’ll be rewarded through heaven and if you’ve lived bad you will be punished through hell, those results is how I assess morality.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Do you then believe that God is subjective, as I highlighted in the bible, but morality is objective and consistent for all individuals?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that God is subjective, as I highlighted in the bible, but morality is objective and consistent for all individuals?
Sure.