Is morality objective or subjective?

[Sculptor]

Okay. I don't recognise this characterisation of the GPs I've known, including my brother.

Diagnoses and treatments are informed by empirical evidence. I prefer that to irrational belief in substance dualism, for which there's no evidence.

Yes, but with doctoring its more about a deductive process than inductive. Science has to procede from the unknown, medicine unfolds towards known diseases.

But we speak as we find.

I know a scientist working with epigenetics, who continually complainst that her brother who is a doctor is too narrow minded to do science.

It's not only some medics who have fallen in with 'shut up and calculate'.

True, but medicine is more amenable to the direct deductive approach. Where it fails is on the recognition of a more holistic understanding of the person, or more serious occult problems. Symptoms treatment is the norm.

I have a really good doctor that properly investigates and finds what's going on, but absolutely useless for getting to underlying problems. She is great making referrals and prescribing, but, like many doctors I have know is more concerned with how well the treatments seem to be solving symptoms but has a sort of dead space for speculation. And this is pert of their indoctrination - to avoid worrying the patient with causes that may not be relevant, but instead go for the most likley.

In 2007-8 four different doctors failed to identify my tonsil cancer, because they were treating symptoms of other, less serious things.
It was only when one of these symptoms spontaneously remitted that they cut my neck open - looking for yet another less serious disease. That, after nine months, is when they found cancer cells in the lymph nodes. By then it was stage four.

Cancer diagnosis is often late.

[Belinda]

Yes, but with doctoring its more about a deductive process than inductive. Science has to procede from the unknown, medicine unfolds towards known diseases.


I know a scientist working with epigenetics, who continually complainst that her brother who is a doctor is too narrow minded to do science.

It's not only some medics who have fallen in with 'shut up and calculate'.

True, but medicine is more amenable to the direct deductive approach. Where it fails is on the recognition of a more holistic understanding of the person, or more serious occult problems. Symptoms treatment is the norm.

I have a really good doctor that properly investigates and finds what's going on, but absolutely useless for getting to underlying problems. She is great making referrals and prescribing, but, like many doctors I have know is more concerned with how well the treatments seem to be solving symptoms but has a sort of dead space for speculation. And this is pert of their indoctrination - to avoid worrying the patient with causes that may not be relevant, but instead go for the most likley.

In 2007-8 four different doctors failed to identify my tonsil cancer, because they were treating symptoms of other, less serious things.
It was only when one of these symptoms spontaneously remitted that they cut my neck open - looking for yet another less serious disease. That, after nine months, is when they found cancer cells in the lymph nodes. By then it was stage four.

Cancer diagnosis is often late.

Therapy for mental illness is the most obvious example of best clinical practice. Psychiatry and neuroscience work together to treat the patient holistically. In an acute situation the psychiatrist may be able to reassure until the appropriate medication takes effect. Psychosomatic effects such as blood pressure surges may be lessened by holistic, lifestyle means. I understand that cancers always require physical interventions and holistic treatments for cancer are aimed at prevention.

I have no idea how difficult it is to diagnose tonsil cancer. I imagine a mouth specialist such as a dentist might be more observant about signs like tissue changes in the mouth and pharynx.Anyway, I am sorry you have been through the mill. I hope you are okay, now so many years have passed.

[Age]

But the definition I USE for the word:

Morality'; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

'Subjective'; are one's views.

'Objective'; are EVERY one's agreed upon and accepted views.

You're free to use words any way you like. But I'd guess you can't find a dictinary definition of objectivity that calls it 'every one's agreed upon and accepted views'.

Maybe, maybe not.

But that definition WORKS PERFECTLY with how 'objectivity' is FOUND.

That ain't how English speakers use that word.

And, how you use that word is NOT how "english speakers" use that word EITHER. Otherwise what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are ALL fighting and quarreling over?

See, what is absolutely True is that MY USAGE is IRREFUTABLE. As WILL be FULLY DISCOVERED and SEEN.

SEE, while one is formulating how to put words into a series of IRREFUTABLE texts, or what some might call the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, (also known as the GUT and the TOE), one has to also provide 'definitions' that FIT IN PERFECTLY with ALL the other words and their definitions, in usage.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the words and their definitions, (which WERE "currently" being used in the days when this WAS being written, and when 'you', posters, WERE reading this) did NOT FIT IN PERFECTLY with each other. Otherwise, what could explain YOUR consistent and persistent DISAGREEING with each "other".

Only when ALL of the pieces of the puzzle FIT PERFECTLY TOGETHER, and are put TOGETHER PERFECTLY, can the Big or WHOLE Picture be CLEARLY SEEN. Now, putting together the pieces of the PUZZLE of Life, so that ALL of 'you', human beings, can SEE, CLEARLY, 'Life', for what 'It' Truly IS, is done through literature, and not through drawings nor pictures. Through the 'proper' usage of words, themselves, the Big Picture of Life will be clearly illustrated. The BIG and WHOLE Picture of Life is SEEN through words, and, literally, their meanings.

We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

But 'we' do NOT.

See, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how just two little letters can DISTORT, and thus CONFUSE, 'things' so VERY EASILY and so VERY SIMPLY. So, what happens is that what is said is then NOT 'seen', or in other words just NOT 'understood', FULLY.

Now, what 'you' MEAN by 'we' is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what 'I' MEAN by 'we'. So, whose usage is True or Right?

Oh, and by the way, when EVERY one is in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what IS the case, or what are the Facts, are NOT even in DISPUTE. Therefore, IRREFUTABLE, as I keep on EXPLAINING here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is if NOT absolutely EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is just AN OPINION. But, just as OBVIOUS is WHEN EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Now, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION 'this', then PLEASE go on ahead.

I KNOW that 'this' is IRREFUTABLE because I KNOW absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact.

SEE, ALL 'truth' and ALL of what is 'right' and 'wrong' in Life (or 'morality') just comes down to AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. And, NO 'argumentum ad populum' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with 'this'. But if ANY one wants to think or BELIEVE 'it' does, then again PLEASE go ahead and try.

Because what I say here is IRREFUTABLE I can NOT be Wrong. But if ANY one thinks or BELIEVES otherwise, then it should be VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY for them to just write down 'WHY I am Wrong' so "others" CAN SEE WHY, ALSO, correct?

[Peter Holmes]

But the definition I USE for the word:

Morality'; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

'Subjective'; are one's views.

'Objective'; are EVERY one's agreed upon and accepted views.

You're free to use words any way you like. But I'd guess you can't find a dictinary definition of objectivity that calls it 'every one's agreed upon and accepted views'.

Maybe, maybe not.

But that definition WORKS PERFECTLY with how 'objectivity' is FOUND.

That ain't how English speakers use that word.

And, how you use that word is NOT how "english speakers" use that word EITHER. Otherwise what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are ALL fighting and quarreling over?

See, what is absolutely True is that MY USAGE is IRREFUTABLE. As WILL be FULLY DISCOVERED and SEEN.

SEE, while one is formulating how to put words into a series of IRREFUTABLE texts, or what some might call the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, (also known as the GUT and the TOE), one has to also provide 'definitions' that FIT IN PERFECTLY with ALL the other words and their definitions, in usage.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the words and their definitions, (which WERE "currently" being used in the days when this WAS being written, and when 'you', posters, WERE reading this) did NOT FIT IN PERFECTLY with each other. Otherwise, what could explain YOUR consistent and persistent DISAGREEING with each "other".

Only when ALL of the pieces of the puzzle FIT PERFECTLY TOGETHER, and are put TOGETHER PERFECTLY, can the Big or WHOLE Picture be CLEARLY SEEN. Now, putting together the pieces of the PUZZLE of Life, so that ALL of 'you', human beings, can SEE, CLEARLY, 'Life', for what 'It' Truly IS, is done through literature, and not through drawings nor pictures. Through the 'proper' usage of words, themselves, the Big Picture of Life will be clearly illustrated. The BIG and WHOLE Picture of Life is SEEN through words, and, literally, their meanings.

We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

But 'we' do NOT.

See, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how just two little letters can DISTORT, and thus CONFUSE, 'things' so VERY EASILY and so VERY SIMPLY. So, what happens is that what is said is then NOT 'seen', or in other words just NOT 'understood', FULLY.

Now, what 'you' MEAN by 'we' is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what 'I' MEAN by 'we'. So, whose usage is True or Right?

Oh, and by the way, when EVERY one is in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what IS the case, or what are the Facts, are NOT even in DISPUTE. Therefore, IRREFUTABLE, as I keep on EXPLAINING here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is if NOT absolutely EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is just AN OPINION. But, just as OBVIOUS is WHEN EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Now, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION 'this', then PLEASE go on ahead.

I KNOW that 'this' is IRREFUTABLE because I KNOW absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact.

SEE, ALL 'truth' and ALL of what is 'right' and 'wrong' in Life (or 'morality') just comes down to AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. And, NO 'argumentum ad populum' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with 'this'. But if ANY one wants to think or BELIEVE 'it' does, then again PLEASE go ahead and try.

Because what I say here is IRREFUTABLE I can NOT be Wrong. But if ANY one thinks or BELIEVES otherwise, then it should be VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY for them to just write down 'WHY I am Wrong' so "others" CAN SEE WHY, ALSO, correct?

If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

Iow, wtf are you talking about? Are you on drugs?

[Age]

We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

Let us ASSUME, for just one moment anyway, that the word 'we' referred to absolutely EVERY one of the so-called "english speaking" human beings, and that when 'we' (from an internal or 'subjective' perspective or point of view) or 'they' (from an external or 'objective' perspective or point of view), use the word 'objective' 'we' mean something like; 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of ANY one's opinion (or view).

So, 'we' are in AGREEMENT and ACCEPT 'this' definition.

Now;

1. OBVIOUSLY, whatever is put forward or comes to light IS an 'opinion' (or view). So, no matter what is said regarding 'what actually is the case - for the facts - 'it' will ALWAYS be someone's opinion, or view, correct?

To me, there is absolutely NO WAY of escaping this Fact. Absolutely EVERY 'thing' said or written HAS TO ALWAYS BE an 'opinion' or a 'view' of someones, correct?

If ANY one DISAGREES WITH 'this' or does NOT ACCEPT 'this', then WHY?

2. Until someone does put their opinion or view forward about WHY they are DISAGREEING with 'that', then us now ASSUME, for just a while anyway, that we can NOT ESCAPE the Fact that ALL Facts have to be of opinions and views. So, now we can remove the redundant 'regardless of anyone's opinion (or view'), from "our", or "their", ASSUMED definition of the 'objective' word here. Which means that 'we', or 'they' are left with the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED definition for the 'objective' word as; 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts').

3. Now, how, EXACTLY, is, 'what is actually the case' - 'the facts', ACTUALLY FOUND or ARRIVED AT?

4. OBVIOUSLY, 'what is actually the case' - 'the facts' would HAVE TO BE what IS AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED as 'what is actually the case' - 'the facts'. How those 'things' are FOUND or ARRIVED AT could NOT be ANY other way. Unless, OF COURSE, they CAN.

And, if they CAN, then 'we' AWAIT HOW, EXACTLY.

But if NO explanation is provided, then 'what actually is the case' - 'the facts' are FOUND and ARRIVED AT is through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

AND, whilst ANY 'thing' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by LESS THAN EVERY one, then that 'thing' WILL REMAIN just a 'subjective view or opinion'. BUT, if EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE with ANY 'thing', then 'that thing' is 'objectively True, Right, and/or Correct. This is JUST SIMPLY because there is, literally, absolutely NO one DISPUTING 'that thing'.

Now, as "skepdick" POINTED OUT in reply to your post "peter holmes":
That's precisely how I am using it in pointing out that morality is objective.

It is actually the case. It is a fact that morality exists.

That is exactly the way we use the word when say that gravity is objective too.

So, to whoever it is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE that 'morality' exists, then those of 'us' can PROCEED to SEE IF 'morality' is 'objective'.

To FIND OUT and SEE if some 'thing' is some 'thing' else (or some other 'thing'), then the definitions for BOTH of those words HAS TO come to light, be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTED, and the BEST, SIMPLEST, EASIEST, and QUICKEST way for that to occur is just through PEACEFUL DISCUSSION. Only when EVERY one in the DISCUSSION is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of the definitions for those words, then, and only then, can thee ACTUAL case (or Truth) - the Fact/s, be UNCOVERED and SEEN for what they Truly ARE.

As "skepdick" so rightly POINTED OUT and SHOWED that 'it is a Fact that 'morality' DOES exist', which absolutely NO one in this thread has DISPUTED, so far.

So, if 'we' are AGREEING and ACCEPTING that 'objective' is; what is actually the case' - 'the facts, AND, because you only picked up on this one of my three definitions, then if 'we' also AGREE and ACCEPT that 'morality' is; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior then if 'we' AGREE and ACCEPT that 'abusing' each other is wrong, and thus is; 'what is actually the case' - 'the facts'. Then, WHY EXACTLY is this, according to you, 'NOT morality objective'?

If 'we' ALL AGREE and ACCEPT that 'we' ALL do NOT want to be abused like being hit in the head with bricks, for example, by "others", then WHY could this NEVER be 'moral objectivity', to you?

After all, 'water is H20' is just an 'opinion' or 'view', AS WELL?

And, if you want to CONTINUE to CLAIM that 'water is H2O' is a 'fact' and NOT an 'opinion' nor 'view', then what is that 'fact' based ON, EXACTLY?

"skepdick" has ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN that what 'water IS, EXACTLY, is ONLY defined by whatever a 'person' wants to define 'water' as. "skepdick" did this by questioning you in regards to WHY did you STOP at that 'H2O' baseline for what 'water' is, EXACTLY. As ALREADY SHOWN 'you' could have gone down further into the quantum level to define what 'water IS, EXACTLY'. Or, you could have defined 'water' in ANOTHER WAY.

Either way, however you CHOOSE to define what 'water IS' is, AGAIN, whatever 'you' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.

And, whatever one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS, is their 'opinion' or 'view', which obviously could be DISPUTED and/or REFUTED by "another". However, if and WHEN EVERY one is AGREEING UPON and ACCEPTING some 'thing', then, AGAIN, there is, literally, NO one left to even try to DISPUTE nor REFUTE that 'thing'. This AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE with and by ALL, to me, is WHEN 'objectivity' is REACHED, when Truth is FOUND, and what makes 'what is Right and what is Wrong' ACTUALLY Right and Wrong. This is WHEN, 'what is actually the case' - 'the facts', also come-to-light, REVEALED, and thus FOUND and KNOWN, ONCE and for ALL.

And, until then the rest of what is said and written are just personal or subjective 'views', and 'opinions', ONLY, which may or may NOT BE True, Right, and/or Correct.

[Age]

You're free to use words any way you like. But I'd guess you can't find a dictinary definition of objectivity that calls it 'every one's agreed upon and accepted views'.

Maybe, maybe not.

But that definition WORKS PERFECTLY with how 'objectivity' is FOUND.

That ain't how English speakers use that word.

And, how you use that word is NOT how "english speakers" use that word EITHER. Otherwise what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are ALL fighting and quarreling over?

See, what is absolutely True is that MY USAGE is IRREFUTABLE. As WILL be FULLY DISCOVERED and SEEN.

SEE, while one is formulating how to put words into a series of IRREFUTABLE texts, or what some might call the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, (also known as the GUT and the TOE), one has to also provide 'definitions' that FIT IN PERFECTLY with ALL the other words and their definitions, in usage.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the words and their definitions, (which WERE "currently" being used in the days when this WAS being written, and when 'you', posters, WERE reading this) did NOT FIT IN PERFECTLY with each other. Otherwise, what could explain YOUR consistent and persistent DISAGREEING with each "other".

Only when ALL of the pieces of the puzzle FIT PERFECTLY TOGETHER, and are put TOGETHER PERFECTLY, can the Big or WHOLE Picture be CLEARLY SEEN. Now, putting together the pieces of the PUZZLE of Life, so that ALL of 'you', human beings, can SEE, CLEARLY, 'Life', for what 'It' Truly IS, is done through literature, and not through drawings nor pictures. Through the 'proper' usage of words, themselves, the Big Picture of Life will be clearly illustrated. The BIG and WHOLE Picture of Life is SEEN through words, and, literally, their meanings.

We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

But 'we' do NOT.

See, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how just two little letters can DISTORT, and thus CONFUSE, 'things' so VERY EASILY and so VERY SIMPLY. So, what happens is that what is said is then NOT 'seen', or in other words just NOT 'understood', FULLY.

Now, what 'you' MEAN by 'we' is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what 'I' MEAN by 'we'. So, whose usage is True or Right?

Oh, and by the way, when EVERY one is in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what IS the case, or what are the Facts, are NOT even in DISPUTE. Therefore, IRREFUTABLE, as I keep on EXPLAINING here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is if NOT absolutely EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is just AN OPINION. But, just as OBVIOUS is WHEN EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Now, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION 'this', then PLEASE go on ahead.

I KNOW that 'this' is IRREFUTABLE because I KNOW absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact.

SEE, ALL 'truth' and ALL of what is 'right' and 'wrong' in Life (or 'morality') just comes down to AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. And, NO 'argumentum ad populum' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with 'this'. But if ANY one wants to think or BELIEVE 'it' does, then again PLEASE go ahead and try.

Because what I say here is IRREFUTABLE I can NOT be Wrong. But if ANY one thinks or BELIEVES otherwise, then it should be VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY for them to just write down 'WHY I am Wrong' so "others" CAN SEE WHY, ALSO, correct?

If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

I have ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS, but OBVIOUSLY NOT with YOU, YET.

OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERY one would AGREE and ACCEPT that the world is flat.

AND, if you are now, or were, going to use that RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD CLAIM; "EVERY one ONCE BELIEVED the earth was flat", then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing this 'OPINION' or 'VIEW' of YOURS on EXACTLY.

'you', people, in the days when this was being written, REALLY DO NOT 'think' through 'things' FULLY.

Iow, wtf are you talking about?

ONLY what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is 'what' EVERY one COULD and WOULD AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. That is WHAT I am talking about.

And, how I KNOW that this is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is BECAUSE I would NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT absolutely ANY 'thing' that was NOT ALREADY PROVED to be absolutely and ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, OR Correct.

Are you SLOWLY coming to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' here now? Or, are you STILL completely and utterly BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here?

Are you on drugs?

LOL
LOL
LOL

What has this got to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' WHATSOEVER AT ALL here?

And, considering that it is 'you' who has NOT YET been ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' CLEARLY here, some are now asking the similar.'

This here was A TYPICAL RESPONSE from those adult human beings, BACK IN THOSE OLDEN DAYS.

They, mostly, REALLY thought and BELIEVED that they HAD THOUGHT THROUGH and CONSIDERED absolutely EVERY 'thing', and as such then based their JUDGMENTS of "others" on those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, is a REALLY humorous 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE.

AND, I have NOT YET even BEGUN to go through FULLY, with this one, what thee ACTUAL True, Right, AND Correct answer is to that "age-old" question;
If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

is because those who asked it, back in those VERY OLD DAYS actually BELIEVED that they KNEW what the answer was, and BELIEVED that there was ONE answer ONLY, and so were TOTALLY CLOSED to being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND ANY 'thing' else, nor further.

But as 'we' ALREADY KNOW the STUPIDITY, ABSURDITY, and RIDICULOUSNESS of asking 'this question', while BELIEVING that there is ONLY ONE answer, SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY FOR ITSELF.

It was ONLY WHEN these human beings STOPPED being SO CLOSED, as PROVED absolutely True and Right ONCE AGAIN here, was it THEN when they STARTED asking questions WHILE SEEKING 'discussions'. Until then they REMAINED as BLIND and as STUPID as being WITNESSED and OBSERVED here.

ONLY WHEN a person became Honest, OPEN, and seriously Wanting to CHANGE, for the better, that they then SOUGHT OUT Truly OPEN 'discussions', which was WHEN that one BEGAN to become Truly WISER.

We AWAIT for those people to COME FORWARD and ask questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the Truly CLOSED position, as just how CLOSED the question posed here WAS, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN to be.

[Peter Holmes]

Maybe, maybe not.

But that definition WORKS PERFECTLY with how 'objectivity' is FOUND.


And, how you use that word is NOT how "english speakers" use that word EITHER. Otherwise what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are ALL fighting and quarreling over?

See, what is absolutely True is that MY USAGE is IRREFUTABLE. As WILL be FULLY DISCOVERED and SEEN.

SEE, while one is formulating how to put words into a series of IRREFUTABLE texts, or what some might call the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, (also known as the GUT and the TOE), one has to also provide 'definitions' that FIT IN PERFECTLY with ALL the other words and their definitions, in usage.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the words and their definitions, (which WERE "currently" being used in the days when this WAS being written, and when 'you', posters, WERE reading this) did NOT FIT IN PERFECTLY with each other. Otherwise, what could explain YOUR consistent and persistent DISAGREEING with each "other".

Only when ALL of the pieces of the puzzle FIT PERFECTLY TOGETHER, and are put TOGETHER PERFECTLY, can the Big or WHOLE Picture be CLEARLY SEEN. Now, putting together the pieces of the PUZZLE of Life, so that ALL of 'you', human beings, can SEE, CLEARLY, 'Life', for what 'It' Truly IS, is done through literature, and not through drawings nor pictures. Through the 'proper' usage of words, themselves, the Big Picture of Life will be clearly illustrated. The BIG and WHOLE Picture of Life is SEEN through words, and, literally, their meanings.


But 'we' do NOT.

See, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how just two little letters can DISTORT, and thus CONFUSE, 'things' so VERY EASILY and so VERY SIMPLY. So, what happens is that what is said is then NOT 'seen', or in other words just NOT 'understood', FULLY.

Now, what 'you' MEAN by 'we' is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what 'I' MEAN by 'we'. So, whose usage is True or Right?

Oh, and by the way, when EVERY one is in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what IS the case, or what are the Facts, are NOT even in DISPUTE. Therefore, IRREFUTABLE, as I keep on EXPLAINING here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is if NOT absolutely EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is just AN OPINION. But, just as OBVIOUS is WHEN EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, then what is 'being discussed' is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Now, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION 'this', then PLEASE go on ahead.

I KNOW that 'this' is IRREFUTABLE because I KNOW absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact.

SEE, ALL 'truth' and ALL of what is 'right' and 'wrong' in Life (or 'morality') just comes down to AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. And, NO 'argumentum ad populum' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with 'this'. But if ANY one wants to think or BELIEVE 'it' does, then again PLEASE go ahead and try.

Because what I say here is IRREFUTABLE I can NOT be Wrong. But if ANY one thinks or BELIEVES otherwise, then it should be VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY for them to just write down 'WHY I am Wrong' so "others" CAN SEE WHY, ALSO, correct?

If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

I have ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS, but OBVIOUSLY NOT with YOU, YET.

OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERY one would AGREE and ACCEPT that the world is flat.

AND, if you are now, or were, going to use that RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD CLAIM; "EVERY one ONCE BELIEVED the earth was flat", then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing this 'OPINION' or 'VIEW' of YOURS on EXACTLY.

'you', people, in the days when this was being written, REALLY DO NOT 'think' through 'things' FULLY.

Iow, wtf are you talking about?

ONLY what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is 'what' EVERY one COULD and WOULD AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. That is WHAT I am talking about.

And, how I KNOW that this is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is BECAUSE I would NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT absolutely ANY 'thing' that was NOT ALREADY PROVED to be absolutely and ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, OR Correct.

Are you SLOWLY coming to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' here now? Or, are you STILL completely and utterly BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here?

Are you on drugs?

LOL
LOL
LOL

What has this got to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' WHATSOEVER AT ALL here?

And, considering that it is 'you' who has NOT YET been ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' CLEARLY here, some are now asking the similar.'

This here was A TYPICAL RESPONSE from those adult human beings, BACK IN THOSE OLDEN DAYS.

They, mostly, REALLY thought and BELIEVED that they HAD THOUGHT THROUGH and CONSIDERED absolutely EVERY 'thing', and as such then based their JUDGMENTS of "others" on those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, is a REALLY humorous 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE.

AND, I have NOT YET even BEGUN to go through FULLY, with this one, what thee ACTUAL True, Right, AND Correct answer is to that "age-old" question;
If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

is because those who asked it, back in those VERY OLD DAYS actually BELIEVED that they KNEW what the answer was, and BELIEVED that there was ONE answer ONLY, and so were TOTALLY CLOSED to being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND ANY 'thing' else, nor further.

But as 'we' ALREADY KNOW the STUPIDITY, ABSURDITY, and RIDICULOUSNESS of asking 'this question', while BELIEVING that there is ONLY ONE answer, SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY FOR ITSELF.

It was ONLY WHEN these human beings STOPPED being SO CLOSED, as PROVED absolutely True and Right ONCE AGAIN here, was it THEN when they STARTED asking questions WHILE SEEKING 'discussions'. Until then they REMAINED as BLIND and as STUPID as being WITNESSED and OBSERVED here.

ONLY WHEN a person became Honest, OPEN, and seriously Wanting to CHANGE, for the better, that they then SOUGHT OUT Truly OPEN 'discussions', which was WHEN that one BEGAN to become Truly WISER.

We AWAIT for those people to COME FORWARD and ask questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the Truly CLOSED position, as just how CLOSED the question posed here WAS, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN to be.

To repeat: if everyone thinks the world is flat, would that mean the world really is flat?

Notice, the antecedent of a conditional premise sets up a situation, as a sort of thought-experiment. So to reply that, in fact, not everyone does or would think the world is flat is to miss the point. If they did, would that mean the world is flat?

And you mistake how we may reach a conclusion - such as that the world is not flat - by consensus, agreement, and so on - with the fact that the world is not flat. The way the world is has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone thinks it is. Thinking, believing or saying something is so doesn't make it so. And that's what we (English speakers) mean when we talk about facts and objectivity.

Now, you can keep dribbling on about being open - and about how stupid my question is - or you can be honest and give a simple yes or no answer. Do you believe that if everyone thinks the world is flat, then the world is flat? And if your answer is yes, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned. Call that closed-minded, if you wish. In this case, I accept the charge.

[Age]

If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

I have ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS, but OBVIOUSLY NOT with YOU, YET.

OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERY one would AGREE and ACCEPT that the world is flat.

AND, if you are now, or were, going to use that RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD CLAIM; "EVERY one ONCE BELIEVED the earth was flat", then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing this 'OPINION' or 'VIEW' of YOURS on EXACTLY.

'you', people, in the days when this was being written, REALLY DO NOT 'think' through 'things' FULLY.

Iow, wtf are you talking about?

ONLY what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is 'what' EVERY one COULD and WOULD AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. That is WHAT I am talking about.

And, how I KNOW that this is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct is BECAUSE I would NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT absolutely ANY 'thing' that was NOT ALREADY PROVED to be absolutely and ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, OR Correct.

Are you SLOWLY coming to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' here now? Or, are you STILL completely and utterly BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here?

Are you on drugs?

LOL
LOL
LOL

What has this got to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' WHATSOEVER AT ALL here?

And, considering that it is 'you' who has NOT YET been ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' CLEARLY here, some are now asking the similar.'

This here was A TYPICAL RESPONSE from those adult human beings, BACK IN THOSE OLDEN DAYS.

They, mostly, REALLY thought and BELIEVED that they HAD THOUGHT THROUGH and CONSIDERED absolutely EVERY 'thing', and as such then based their JUDGMENTS of "others" on those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, is a REALLY humorous 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE.

AND, I have NOT YET even BEGUN to go through FULLY, with this one, what thee ACTUAL True, Right, AND Correct answer is to that "age-old" question;
If absolutely everyone 'agreed and accepted' that the earth is flat, would that mean that the earth is flat?

is because those who asked it, back in those VERY OLD DAYS actually BELIEVED that they KNEW what the answer was, and BELIEVED that there was ONE answer ONLY, and so were TOTALLY CLOSED to being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND ANY 'thing' else, nor further.

But as 'we' ALREADY KNOW the STUPIDITY, ABSURDITY, and RIDICULOUSNESS of asking 'this question', while BELIEVING that there is ONLY ONE answer, SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY FOR ITSELF.

It was ONLY WHEN these human beings STOPPED being SO CLOSED, as PROVED absolutely True and Right ONCE AGAIN here, was it THEN when they STARTED asking questions WHILE SEEKING 'discussions'. Until then they REMAINED as BLIND and as STUPID as being WITNESSED and OBSERVED here.

ONLY WHEN a person became Honest, OPEN, and seriously Wanting to CHANGE, for the better, that they then SOUGHT OUT Truly OPEN 'discussions', which was WHEN that one BEGAN to become Truly WISER.

We AWAIT for those people to COME FORWARD and ask questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the Truly CLOSED position, as just how CLOSED the question posed here WAS, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN to be.

To repeat: if everyone thinks the world is flat, would that mean the world really is flat?

To repeat: OF COURSE NOT EVERY one would think the world is flat. And, if you were STUPID enough to think the world is flat, then that does NOT mean EVERY one else would think that also.

NOW, if that is UNDERSTOOD. IF, and that is IF, EVERY one was 'thinking' the world is flat, then that is ONLY what they 'think'.

Notice, the antecedent of a conditional premise sets up a situation, as a sort of thought-experiment. So to reply that, in fact, not everyone does or would think the world is flat is to miss the point. If they did, would that mean the world is flat?

BUT I NEVER MISSED that point AT ALL.

I have CONSIDERED that point, and a FAIR WHILE AGO, ALSO.

Now, there are a FEW 'points' here.

1. What one 'thinks' is true is NOT necessarily what they would AGREE WITH and ACCEPT as being true. Let us NOT FORGET that I used the words AGREE and ACCEPT. You have CHANGED them to the 'think' word, which OBVIOUSLY would and DOES add a whole NEW laying of 'meaning' here.

2. What EVERY one 'thinks' is true is NOT necessarily what IS True, AT ALL.

3. Intelligent people ONLY AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what IS actually and IRREFUTABLY True or what COULD BE True. Intelligent people would NOT ACCEPT and AGREE with some 'thing' that IS NOT True, COULD NOT BE True, or what is NOT YET KNOWN to be True.

4. IF, and ONLY IF, EVERY one 'thought' ANY 'thing' or 'thought' 'the world was flat', then what EVERY one 'thinks', does NOT necessarily make ANY 'thing' true, NOR that 'the world is flat'.

So, the 'point' you were SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' make was NEVER MISSED. BUT, you CERTAINLY appear to have completely AND utterly MISSED the 'point' I am making here.

And you mistake how we may reach a conclusion - such as that the world is not flat - by consensus, agreement, and so on - with the fact that the world is not flat.

YES you HAVE completely AND utterly MISSED the ACTUAL 'point' I have been making here.

YOUR ASSUMING here, which is absolutely TOTALLY Wrong, ONCE AGAIN, is what is PREVENTING you from SEEING what I am SAYING and MEANING here.

AND, WHEN, and IF, you just STOPPED making ASSUMPTIONS, then you MAY START to DISCOVER and SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am making here.

But we WILL have to WAIT to SEE what you WILL do from now on.

The way the world is has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone thinks it is.

I KNOW. And, I NEVER even 'thought' this, let alone 'alluded' to this, NOR let alone SAID nor WROTE this absolutely ANYWHERE here.

This is just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW, EXACTLY, one's OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS STOP and PREVENTING them from SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and EVEN WHEN what is ACTUALLY True is WRITTEN CLEARLY before their very eyes.

'Human beings', back in the days when this was being written, LITERALLY, could ONLY "see" what they were currently BELIEVING was true, and as such they would, LITERALLY, DISTORT thee ACTUAL Truth that laid, HERE, as CLEAR as LIGHT, before them.

Thinking, believing or saying something is so doesn't make it so.

I KNOW.

AND, I QUESTIONED you about this BEFORE, BUT you were too AFRAID and SCARED to answer those questions, previously, because if you did Honestly, then you would have HAD TO CONTRADICT what you had previously written and said here.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of TWISTING and DISTORTING things around, IN THE HOPE that that will back up and support their currently HELD BELIEFS.

When you ARE READY to LOOK AT what I have CLEARLY SAID OPENLY, and have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion, then let me KNOW and WE WILL.

UNTIL then carry on IN and with your COMPLETELY CLOSED VIEWS, OPINIONS, and ATTITUDE.

And that's what we (English speakers) mean when we talk about facts and objectivity.

You are the ONE who is TOO AFRAID to define the words 'facts' and 'objectivity' here.

This is BECAUSE your BELIEF that 'you', LOL so-called "english speakers" THINK THE SAME, WILL be ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED. AND, ONCE YOUR BELIEFS ARE DESTROYED, then 'you', literally, CRUMBLE to pieces.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that you have NOT EVEN SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT what 'you', "english speakers" mean about "facts and objectivity" AT ALL.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is that what 'you' are IMAGINING has NOT even been EXPRESSED in words here.

Now, you can keep dribbling on about being open - and about how stupid my question is - or you can be honest and give a simple yes or no answer.

YOU have SOME DEFINING to do FIRST, and WE have SOME DISCUSSING to do FIRST, BEFORE a CORRECT 'yes' or 'no' answer could be given.

But you are NOT UP TO NOR CAPABLE of defining the words you use, thus NOR in having a Truly OPEN discussion.

Do you believe that if everyone thinks the world is flat, then the world is flat?

ANOTHER one who is either completely BLIND, lacks memory, or has NEVER read where I have written: I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY thing. Therefore, your question here is, literally, moot.

And if your answer is yes, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.

I have asked you a number of times about, 'How can 'facts' exist outside of opinions?' You FAILED each and EVERY time to even just respond.

Also, YOUR QUESTION here would be like me asking you: Do you BELIEVE that if you think 'morality' could NEVER be 'objective', then 'morality' being 'objective' could NEVER be true?

So, is YOUR answer 'Yes' or 'No' here?

EITHER WAY, what is 'it' that makes 'objective morality' an IMPOSSIBILITY, TO YOU?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' known as 'facts' exist in 'OPINION, ONLY'.

Call that closed-minded, if you wish. In this case, I accept the charge.

I would NEVER call ANY 'thing' "closed-minded" BECAUSE that is, LITERALLY, a misnomer, and thus completely and utterly False.

'you' ARE CLOSED. Thee Mind NEVER could be.

'you' have PROVEN this absolutely True OVER and OVER AGAIN.

And, when you REMOVE the word 'think', which I OBVIOUSLY NEVER used here, in regards to what I am SAYING and POINTING OUT, then, and ONLY then, we can BEGIN, AGAIN.

Only when you STOP TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things', then we CAN MOVE FORWARD. Until then you will REMAIN as STUCK where you have been for a LONG WHILE now.

[Age]

'Morality', itself, can be 'objective'.

As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

And, as ALREADY PROVED True, SO FAR, absolutely NONE of 'you', human beings, could DISPROVE this.

A Fact is IRREFUTABLE no matter what 'you', human beings, want to think or BELIEVE is true.

[RCSaunders]

'Morality', itself, can be 'objective'.

Since those words, as you use them, mean nothing, that statement means nothing. I hope you are joking, because if you are serious, you're sick.

[Sculptor]

It's not only some medics who have fallen in with 'shut up and calculate'.

True, but medicine is more amenable to the direct deductive approach. Where it fails is on the recognition of a more holistic understanding of the person, or more serious occult problems. Symptoms treatment is the norm.

I have a really good doctor that properly investigates and finds what's going on, but absolutely useless for getting to underlying problems. She is great making referrals and prescribing, but, like many doctors I have know is more concerned with how well the treatments seem to be solving symptoms but has a sort of dead space for speculation. And this is pert of their indoctrination - to avoid worrying the patient with causes that may not be relevant, but instead go for the most likley.

In 2007-8 four different doctors failed to identify my tonsil cancer, because they were treating symptoms of other, less serious things.
It was only when one of these symptoms spontaneously remitted that they cut my neck open - looking for yet another less serious disease. That, after nine months, is when they found cancer cells in the lymph nodes. By then it was stage four.

Cancer diagnosis is often late.

Therapy for mental illness is the most obvious example of best clinical practice. Psychiatry and neuroscience work together to treat the patient holistically.

Where, excatly do you think this is happening?

In an acute situation the psychiatrist may be able to reassure until the appropriate medication takes effect. Psychosomatic effects such as blood pressure surges may be lessened by holistic, lifestyle means. I understand that cancers always require physical interventions and holistic treatments for cancer are aimed at prevention.

I have no idea how difficult it is to diagnose tonsil cancer. I imagine a mouth specialist such as a dentist might be more observant about signs like tissue changes in the mouth and pharynx.Anyway, I am sorry you have been through the mill. I hope you are okay, now so many years have passed.

The actual cancer was not clincally identifable; i'll give them that. But the fact that there were a range of classic symptoms for neck cancer seems to have passed them by. The reason for this is that I was thought of as too young, and not enough of a drinker or smoker.
At the time there was as standardly epitomised sufferer from throat and neck cancer; a man of 65+ who's always like a drink and a smoke. Me at 48 did not fit their prejudice. Apparently I was in the vangaurd of a new wave of head and neck cancers following "safe sex" advice from the 1980s which recommended oral fun, but which led to HPV infections. The treatment for which is now much more gentle than the draconian book-throwing I received!! Since then HPV vaccinations for girls only have decreased cervical cancer and it is hoped shall lower neck cancers too.
So deep was their prejudice that my first operation was as a result of a diagnosis for a young man's disease: brachial cyst. Which they found puzzling since they commonly operated on men of 20+ not 48!! That is when they discovered the cancer infected lymph node and the rest is history.

[Sculptor]

'Morality', itself, can be 'objective'.

Since those words, as you use them, mean nothing, that statement means nothing. I hope you are joking, because if you are serious, you're sick.

Agreed.

[Age]

'Morality', itself, can be 'objective'.

Since those words, as you use them, mean nothing, that statement means nothing. I hope you are joking, because if you are serious, you're sick.

Since those words, as you use them, mean nothing, those statements mean nothing. I hope you are serious, because if you are joking, then you are joking.

When 'you', human beings, DISCOVER and LEARN what 'morality' IS, EXACTLY, then what can also be DISCOVERED and LEARNED, and CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTAND is, EXACTLY how 'morality' can be and IS 'objective'.

But please do NOT FORGET that 'you', human beings, are ONLY part of what IS HAPPENING, through an evolutionary process. 'you' are ONLY a PART of the process of what is, YET to 'you', to UNFOLD. 'you', adult human beings, and especially those of 'you' in the days when this was being written, back in those OLDEN DAYS, with 'your', literally, APE-like ways and thinking, have NOT evolved enough to be ABLE to SEE and KNOW what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, YET.

There is a GREAT DEAL MORE to be REVEALED to 'you', human beings, and how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' in a Truly 'objective' way is just one of those 'things'.

Although I have ALREADY, partly, explained, in this forum, HOW 'you' can ALSO SEE Truly 'objectively', this WAS MISSED by 'you', adult human beings, back in THOSE DAYS when I, literally, wrote HOW.

[Age]

'Morality', itself, can be 'objective'.

Since those words, as you use them, mean nothing, that statement means nothing. I hope you are joking, because if you are serious, you're sick.

Agreed.

OF COURSE they mean NOTHING to ANY one who has NO CURIOSITY AT ALL.

They were written TO BE CHALLENGED, or, at least, QUESTIONED, for CLARIFICATION.

But, 'you', posters, here FAIL, completely, on BOTH accounts.

And, one could also SAY and CLAIM:

Since your word, as you use it, means nothing, that word MEANS NOTHING.

But to do so would just, literally, be SAYING and MEANING absolutely NOTHING AT ALL, and so I will NOT just do that. INSTEAD I WILL QUESTION and CHALLENGE 'you' about that 'word'.

Considering the Fact that 'morality', like EVERY other 'view' and 'opinion' of 'things', CAN be either 'subjective' AND/OR 'objective', this, LITERALLY, MEANS 'morality', itself, can be 'objective' (and/or 'subjective').

And, because NONE of 'you', human beings, could REFUTE 'this', this ACTUALLY, and literally, means that what I SAID and CLAIMED here is IRREFUTABLE. Which, when LOOKED IT, MEANS FAR MORE than MOST of what is SAID and WRITTEN in this forum.

[Age]

So, now that THEE ANSWER to the question; 'Is morality objective or subjective?' has finally been REVEALED, and thus RESOLVED, can 'we' FINALLY move along?

Or, are 'you', adult human beings, going to keep "discussing" [fighting OVER] this ALREADY RESOLVED question for another few more thousand years?

That APE thinking that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, had, in those days when this was being written, REALLY SLOWED 'evolution' DOWN, (to a 'snail's pace', as some would say), and PREVENTED thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED and becoming far more readily ACCESSIBLE and AVAILABLE to the Truly OPEN ones, that is; CHILDREN.