Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I'm still not really sure as what is your point is, that you are making to me personally?

The point he is making is that just because you don't feel like doing bad things to people, that is no reason not to do them, because it is just a personal feeling that you didn't arrive at through a rational process. So whenever you find yourself not wanting to hurt somebody, you should stop and think about why you don't want to hurt them, and if you can't come up with a rational reason for not hurting them, logic demands that you should do something bad to them. That's why we need God to stop us from doing things that we didn't want to do anyway. Now do you understand?

It's perfectly okay to believe in God without having a rational reason, btw.

[Dontaskme]

I'm still not really sure as what is your point is, that you are making to me personally?

The point he is making is that just because you don't feel like doing bad things to people, that is no reason not to do them, because it is just a personal feeling that you didn't arrive at through a rational process. So whenever you find yourself not wanting to hurt somebody, you should stop and think about why you don't want to hurt them, and if you can't come up with a rational reason for not hurting them, logic demands that you should do something bad to them. That's why we need God to stop us from doing things that we didn't want to do anyway. Now do you understand?

Very well said Harbal. That makes perfect rational sense to me, I very much value your opinion...thanks.

As if I could just freeze frame the continuous flow that is life, to stop this unstoppable flow, to ponder for awhile, and ask myself what would I do to react to an event in any given moment of time.

We cannot freeze frame reality like that. It's impossible. Reaction is automatic and instantaneous in the moment, reaction is not something that is known to have happened after the event, or presupposed to happen before the event.. There is only what is happening NOW.
If that was true then you would have known was was going to happen before it happened. So for example, if any of us know that nuclear war is definitely going to break out, then nuclear war has already happened. Otherwise, we could not have made the claim to know.

IC doesn't seem to be able to understand, that nothing can be done to prevent what happens in the instant anything happens,and that happening is always instantaneous in the immediate flow of life living itself. We, as part of the living dynamic that is life, can choose to be good or bad in the moment, we can choose to act responsibly, and to know responsibility is obvious to us in also knowing irresponsibility is to reap the consequences of our own good or bad actions, as they are known only through our personal direct experience, and not through the personal experience of another, which is impossible...because no other, is ever who I AM.

We cannot undo or take away, or stop the free will of choice to act a certain way in other people. But we can control how as an individual self choose to act in life, based on the knowledge we already have, which informs us, that good is good and bad is bad, and value is value and worth is worth..and never the opposite. This is just basic common sense.


.

[Dontaskme]

It's perfectly okay to believe in God without having a rational reason, btw.

What's irrational here is that IC claims he can know the God who he believes is creating everything that is happening.

Meaning, IC knows must already know what is going to happen before it happens because he also knows what God knows.. If IC's claim that he can know God is correct, then everything that happens in the life of IC has already happened, which makes IC just a shadow of his former self, a mere puppet on a stage, redundant and useless.
IC's claim would automatically cancel himself out, he'd be just a fictional puppet without strings attached. And we all know how the Pinocchio story goes, he's a completely fabricated made-up fictional character, just like his creator God, the other character who IC believes is pulling his imaginary strings.


.

[Harbal]

Very well said Harbal. That makes perfect rational sense to me, I very much value your opinion...thanks.

As if I could just freeze frame the continuous flow that is life, to stop this unstoppable flow, to ponder for awhile, and ask myself what would I do to react to an event in any given moment of time.

That's the beauty of having God around; we don't need to trouble our pretty little heads with stuff like wondering what we should do. We just ask God and he tells us. The only problem is that ordinary people like us don't always understand what God says -mainly because he still speaks like they did in 17th century England- so we have to ask someone who understands that way of talking. Fortunately, the special people who do understand what God says -people like IC- are very happy to tell us what he wants, so we don't even need to try to work it out for ourselves; how easy is that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

IC, Do you have any comment on the following thread;

The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
viewtopic.php?t=40374

[Harbal]

IC's claim would automatically cancel himself out, he'd be just a fictional puppet without strings attached. And we all know how the Pinocchio story goes,

You can't possibly compare IC to Pinocchio, that's ridiculous; his nose would be twice as long as his arm were that the case.

[Harbal]

...

IC, Do you have any comment on the following thread;

The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
viewtopic.php?t=40374

I have a comment: It's as barmy as the rest of your threads.

[Dontaskme]

That's the beauty of having God around; we don't need to trouble our pretty little heads with stuff like wondering what we should do. We just ask God and he tells us. The only problem is that ordinary people like us don't always understand what God says -mainly because he still speaks like they did in 17th century England- so we have to ask someone who understands that way of talking. Fortunately, the special people who do understand what God says -people like IC- are very happy to tell us what he wants, so we don't even need to try to work it out for ourselves; how easy is that?

Love it!

Well said Harbal.

[Dontaskme]

You can't possibly compare IC to Pinocchio, that's ridiculous; his nose would be twice as long as his arm were that the case.

Yes quite right, So either God exists, or IC exists, they cannot both exist. One of them is lying, being an imposter, for sure.

As they say, the camera never lies. The image is always a presentation / an identical exact image of what the image is representing.

[Immanuel Can]

If you can't forbid racism, you can't forbid slavery, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia either. All those things, people have "valued." So answer the question, if you dare...

1. Racism does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing racism.

2. Slavery does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing slavery.

3. Rape does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing rape.

4. Genocide and Pedophilia do not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing them either.

But that's not the question. I didn't ask you if YOU wanted to do them. I asked on what basis a subjectivist can oppose or condemn them when others do them.

Or do you just let them rage unchecked, because "they don't exist for me"?

[Dontaskme]

If you can't forbid racism, you can't forbid slavery, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia either. All those things, people have "valued." So answer the question, if you dare...

When you say to another person, namely 'me'.. If you can't forbid racism, you presuppose ''me'' can't do something. You are placing a condition on ''me'' to act a certain way. You are making an assumption that I cannot think for myself, or even make up my own mind about something that is of value or not of value to 'me'.
When in reality, my action or inaction can only be a violitional happening here in ''me'' first and foremost, it will always be an unconditional action, free to act without any presupposition or condition to be any different.There can be no other 'agency' actioning here, only 'me'

Any action can go either one way or the other. An action cannot be presupposed or known beforehand which way it will go, choice is automatic and instantaneous. Even when choice seems to have turned in the opposite direction, that opposite choice is also immediate, as it will be unconditionally free to act, it's unconditionally free to choose any and every which way it so chooses in the immediate moment.

IC wrote: All those things, people have "valued."

When other people choose to value racism, slavery,rape,genocide, or pedophilia that is their unconditional freedom to do so, it's their will to choose what is of value to them. If these are not your values, that's your because you have chosen to not value them. You are free to choose what you value and don't. Therefore, you have no business denying someone else's freedom to choose what they value and don't, just as they have no business denying you of your freedom to choose what is of value to you or not.
You cannot choose for another person what values they hold, just as another person cannot choose for you what you forbid. Choice is always unconditionally free to choose one way or the other, good or bad values. That's life being moral, it's allowing the freedom to choose without condition, without forcing one to act in a way they don't want to.

Life is action. Unquestioned action is morality. Questioning your actions is destroying the expression of life. A person who lets life act in its own way without the protective movement of thought has no self to defend.

Therefore IC... A 'moral man' is a 'chicken'. A 'moral man' is a frightened man, a chicken-hearted man -- that is why he practices morality and sits in judgement over others. And his righteous indignation! A moral man (if there is one) will never, never talk of morality or sit in judgement on the morals of others. Never!

'' Only the man who is capable of immorality can talk of morality. There is no such thing as immorality for me''

[Immanuel Can]

...

IC, Do you have any comment on the following thread;

The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
viewtopic.php?t=40374

I have a comment: It's as barmy as the rest of your threads.

I have to agree with that comment; Harbal's graphic way of putting it is accurate.

[Immanuel Can]

...you presuppose ''me'' can't do something...."

So, no real answer. Just the usual pile of codswallop, nonsense and general horse manure.

Not bothering with a response. Life is too short.

[Dontaskme]

But that's not the question. I didn't ask you if YOU wanted to do them. I asked on what basis a subjectivist can oppose or condemn them when others do them.

Or do you just let them rage unchecked, because "they don't exist for me"?

So when you say ''If you can't forbid racism'' which you are you referring to here ? you, or some other you ?

You cannot be expected to answer to another you, only your own you.


Life is action. Unquestioned action is morality. Questioning your actions is destroying the expression of life. A person who lets life act in its own way without the protective movement of thought has no self to defend.

[Harbal]

IC, Do you have any comment on the following thread;

The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
viewtopic.php?t=40374

I have a comment: It's as barmy as the rest of your threads.

I have to agree with that comment; Harbal's graphic way of putting it is accurate.

Thank you for that. He's got me on ignore, so I don't think he sees my comments unless some good Samaritan quotes them.