Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Unconditional love or contractual love, I suppose both have their upsides and downsides.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Lacewing]

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

Love without commitments.

Love does not require any commitment. The same way one can love a baby or child with their whole heart, not expecting anything in return, they can also love another adult human being... ANY human being. Real and true unconditional love. We can experience it for ourselves: the more we practice it, the more we see is possible.

Relationship requires commitment. That's different than love. Love can be exchanged freely.

I think you may be asking how non-commitment is working out instead of marriage for women these days? Yes? Well, of course it depends on the individual and circumstances -- different people want/need different things. Many women are quite happy and self-sufficient in remaining single -- or they prefer it to partnering with the wrong kind of person. Marriage is no guarantee of anything -- and with the wrong partner, it can feel like a jail... or worse, like Hell. Perhaps it's better to learn how to be 'committed' and responsible for a partner (if one chooses), as one would be truly committed to dear friends and family, without the need for a binding contract. Contracts are for business, not love (or loving relationships).

[Immanuel Can]

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

Love without commitments.

It's called "unconditional love". Contractual love is not for all of us.

No, uncommitted love is actually the opposite of unconditional love. Uncommitted love "loves" only until the object in question displeases it...after that, it has no commitments. So it's not really love at all. It's just lust, or desire, or even narcissism. It has no concern for what happens to its object beyond the present moment, and even in that, only for what it's object can do for it...not what it can do for the object of its attention.

[Immanuel Can]

Love is not the same as sex. Are you talking about sex?

So...you're saying you think that sex requires contracts, but love doesn't? Or do you just mean that neither sex nor love require commitment?

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love

I have no idea how you imagine that. And I'm not sure there's a "we," unless you have multiple-personality disorder.

[Lacewing]

Love without commitments.

It's called "unconditional love". Contractual love is not for all of us.

No, uncommitted love is actually the opposite of unconditional love.

No, they're different... not opposite.

Commitment is about relationship. That may or may not also involve love.

[Immanuel Can]

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

Love without commitments.

Love does not require any commitment.

Quite the contrary. Love delights in total, unreserved commitment.

I think you're making an error of amphiboly here. I'm speaking about "commitment," and you're shifting the term to "conditional." Conditional "love" isn't even really love, which is also true of uncommitted "love."

Relationship requires commitment. That's different than love.

I disagree. We do have names for uncommitted "love": we call it cheap sex, one-night-stands, getting some, getting run-through, rape, prostitution, promiscuity, exploitation, using people, pump-and-dump, hit-and-quit, fornication...and so on. These are not complimentary terms, of course; but they are accurate the the moral status of that particular action.

All dignified since the '60s under the phony term, "free love," of course.

Many women are quite happy and self-sufficient in remaining single...

Yes. We call those women "liars."

What you find is that when you get them to be candid, almost every one of them will admit to loneliness, sadness, a feeling of deprivation, a sense of being overburdened, abandonment, being unloved and unloveable, and so on. The myth of the happy, childless, unanchored, middle-aged woman is pretty much just that. Maybe you just aren't getting to those deeper conversations.

Marriage is no guarantee of anything...

Quite right. It's a risk. So is love. But without commitment, real love isn't there in the first place.

[Lacewing]

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love

I have no idea how you imagine that.

I.C., do you know what unconditional love means?
Do you feel unconditional love for your wife, or are there conditions?
Are you able to feel love for all human beings of every kind, or are there conditions?

[Immanuel Can]

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love

I have no idea how you imagine that.

I.C., do you know what unconditional love means?

Do you know what the word "uncommitted" means?

[Lacewing]

Love without commitments.

Love does not require any commitment.

Quite the contrary.

No, NOT 'quite the contrary'.

Love can be combined with commitment, but neither commitment nor love requires the other.

Relationship requires commitment. That's different than love.

I disagree. We do have names for uncommitted "love": we call it cheap sex, one-night-stands, getting some, getting run-through, rape, prostitution, promiscuity, exploitation, using people, pump-and-dump, hit-and-quit, fornication...and so on.

That's what YOU call it... and this is exactly why I asked you previously if you were talking about 'sex' rather than 'love'. You are confusing the two... and that's actually very sad, especially for a Christian. You should know what love is and be able to give it freely.

When you talk about God's love, are you talking about sex? If not, then why are you being so dense about the love that human beings are capable of?

Many women are quite happy and self-sufficient in remaining single...

Yes. We call those women "liars."

Who is 'we'? You are speaking of your own short-sighted view.

What you find is that when you get them to be candid, almost every one of them will admit to loneliness, sadness, a feeling of deprivation, a sense of being overburdened, abandonment, being unloved and unloveable, and so on.

You are exaggerating to make your delusional point. Nearly every human being, female or male or whatever, would like to be with the right kind of loving and supportive partner to share life's path with. But many are very happy with all the other fulfilling aspects of their lives, which they wouldn't give up to be in a partnership.

Maybe you just aren't getting to those deeper conversations.

Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Marriage is no guarantee of anything...

Quite right. It's a risk. So is love. But without commitment, real love isn't there in the first place.

Your idea of 'real love' seems as contrived as your theism.

I don't need commitment in order to love. It's shocking, but informative, that you think you do.

[Lacewing]

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love.

I have no idea how you imagine that.

I.C., do you know what unconditional love means?

Do you know what the word "uncommitted" means?

I'm responding to what you just said to Sculptor about 'unconditional love'. If you have no idea how someone would imagine that you have a problem with unconditional love, then why not confirm what it means to you?

The concept of being 'uncommitted' means different things for different people and for different circumstances, naturally. It does not have to be paired with the concept of freely feeling love.

Now, will you please answer my questions to you regarding 'unconditional love' (if you don't have a problem with it, as Sculptor suggests)?
Do you know what unconditional love means?
Do you feel unconditional love for your wife, or are there conditions?
Are you able to feel love for all human beings of every kind, or are there conditions?

[Gary Childress]

Love without commitments.

It's called "unconditional love". Contractual love is not for all of us.

No, uncommitted love is actually the opposite of unconditional love. Uncommitted love "loves" only until the object in question displeases it...after that, it has no commitments. So it's not really love at all. It's just lust, or desire, or even narcissism. It has no concern for what happens to its object beyond the present moment, and even in that, only for what it's object can do for it...not what it can do for the object of its attention.

So is "uncommitted love" a form of "love" or is it not? I mean, as a Christian do you "love" Palestinians, or is being "committed" to Israel's 'right to defend itself' a form of "love" of Palestinians?

[Immanuel Can]

...neither commitment nor love requires the other.

Apparently, your "love life" hasn't worked out for you.

Relationship requires commitment. That's different than love.

I disagree. We do have names for uncommitted "love": we call it cheap sex, one-night-stands, getting some, getting run-through, rape, prostitution, promiscuity, exploitation, using people, pump-and-dump, hit-and-quit, fornication...and so on.

That's what YOU call it...

I didn't invent any of those names. It's what people recognize uncommitted "love" as being.

When you talk about God's love, are you talking about sex?

Of course not. But God's love is also not uncommitted, and human love, when it's in its right form, should mirror His.

What you find is that when you get them to be candid, almost every one of them will admit to loneliness, sadness, a feeling of deprivation, a sense of being overburdened, abandonment, being unloved and unloveable, and so on.

Nearly every human being, female or male or whatever, would like to be with the right kind of loving and supportive partner to share life's path with.

Yep. And those that say they don't care about it are mostly lying.

I don't need commitment in order to love.

Really? Well, it's interesting that you even think of that as "love."

[Immanuel Can]

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love.

I have no idea how you imagine that.

I.C., do you know what unconditional love means?

Do you know what the word "uncommitted" means?

I'm responding to what you just said to Sculptor about 'unconditional love'.

And I'm responding to your question.

The concept of being 'uncommitted' means different things for different people and for different circumstances, naturally.

Well, let's see if that's true.

But I've said nothing about "conditional". I've been talking about "committed." Before I'll answer you, you'll need to represent what I've actually said. Otherwise, you're going to have to find somebody else to answer your question.

[Immanuel Can]

It's called "unconditional love". Contractual love is not for all of us.

No, uncommitted love is actually the opposite of unconditional love. Uncommitted love "loves" only until the object in question displeases it...after that, it has no commitments. So it's not really love at all. It's just lust, or desire, or even narcissism. It has no concern for what happens to its object beyond the present moment, and even in that, only for what it's object can do for it...not what it can do for the object of its attention.

So is "uncommitted love" a form of "love" or is it not?

Well, as the old saying goes, love is measured by what it will do. It is not measured by what somebody says. A "love" that has no commitment to its object is just exploitation, using and discarding. It takes, it enjoys, but does not give of self. So it moves on when the chance for its own enjoyment moves on. There's no real love in it. Love commits.

[iambiguous]

Or is "theorizing" ever and always the bottom line for you regarding morality?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑

If you, Iambiguous, would decide to avail yourself of the skyhooks and those amazing intellectual transfer systems that are present and operating, you could then ascend to undreamed of levels!

Come up into the intellectual clouds with you?

Or you could just go yourself. No need for me to hold your hand.

In fact, that's what the Satyrs of this world are for, isn't it?

Theory [in the Greek sense] most certainly has a great deal to do with morality.

I'm not rejecting theory. I'm merely suggesting that in regard to human morality, the technical/theoretical arguments either come down out of the clouds or they don't.

Indeed, I suspect that what people of color and women and homosexuals and Jews are most interested in, in regard to your own "serious philosophy" here, is what their actual fate might be if you and those like Satyr do acquire the political power to enforce their own pie in the sky dogmas.


Again, let's get back to this, Mr. Wiggle:

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

On the other hand, there are those who insist there is but one way in which to "see nature". Religiously -- objectively -- as they do.

The Satyr Syndrome let's call it. And the equivalent of that here.

It's not whether morality is objective or subjective to this clique/claque. It's whether it is "natural".

And, in regard to things like race and gender and sexual orientation and Jews and liberals and politics, if you are not sure what is natural, they'll tell you.

But, in my view, what they won't tell you [there or here] is what actual policies they would pursue if they were in a position of power in a particular community. Would they go as far as, say, the Nazis? Or perhaps something a bit less draconian?