moral relativism

[popeye1945]

Morality is biological; it comes from being a biological creature. Religion/morality is a biological extension of self into the outer world. The physical world itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. Morality is about serving the security and well-being of biological creatures, in this case, humanity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; experience and thought are meaning. Experience is our altered biology from the outside energies that surround us. Cultures, mythologies, and a history of confusion muddy the waters of our understanding that we, as humans, are the sources of all meaning in the world. The systems and structures of our societies are reminders of our biological knowledge of ourselves as creators of meaning. Do not let old, archaic mythologies and cultural differences get in the way of understanding the nature of human existence, for as creators of all meaning found in the world, we are at the centre of our universe. As a common carbon-based biology, all life forms are in this together. Mythology, geography, and culture confuse the issue that the only rational foundation of morality is our common biology.

[iambiguous]

Morality is biological; it comes from being a biological creature. Religion/morality is a biological extension of self into the outer world. The physical world itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. Morality is about serving the security and well-being of biological creatures, in this case, humanity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; experience and thought are meaning. Experience is our altered biology from the outside energies that surround us. Cultures, mythologies, and a history of confusion muddy the waters of our understanding that we, as humans, are the sources of all meaning in the world. The systems and structures of our societies are reminders of our biological knowledge of ourselves as creators of meaning. Do not let old, archaic mythologies and cultural differences get in the way of understanding the nature of human existence, for as creators of all meaning found in the world, we are at the centre of our universe. As a common carbon-based biology, all life forms are in this together. Mythology, geography, and culture confuse the issue that the only rational foundation of morality is our common biology.

Wow! I think he might be onto something here!!

After all, to the best of my current knowledge, all these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

...are biologically human beings.

Funny thing is though despite this common biology, they are all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum in regard behaviors deemed to be either rational or irrational, moral or immoral.

[popeye1945]

Morality is biological; it comes from being a biological creature. Religion/morality is a biological extension of self into the outer world. The physical world itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. Morality is about serving the security and well-being of biological creatures, in this case, humanity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; experience and thought are meaning. Experience is our altered biology from the outside energies that surround us. Cultures, mythologies, and a history of confusion muddy the waters of our understanding that we, as humans, are the sources of all meaning in the world. The systems and structures of our societies are reminders of our biological knowledge of ourselves as creators of meaning. Do not let old, archaic mythologies and cultural differences get in the way of understanding the nature of human existence, for as creators of all meaning found in the world, we are at the centre of our universe. As a common carbon-based biology, all life forms are in this together. Mythology, geography, and culture confuse the issue that the only rational foundation of morality is our common biology.

Wow! I think he might be onto something here!!

After all, to the best of my current knowledge, all these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies


...are biologically human beings.

Funny thing is though despite this common biology, they are all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum in regard to behaviors deemed to be either rational or irrational, moral or immoral.

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

[Belinda]

Morality is biological; it comes from being a biological creature. Religion/morality is a biological extension of self into the outer world. The physical world itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. Morality is about serving the security and well-being of biological creatures, in this case, humanity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; experience and thought are meaning. Experience is our altered biology from the outside energies that surround us. Cultures, mythologies, and a history of confusion muddy the waters of our understanding that we, as humans, are the sources of all meaning in the world. The systems and structures of our societies are reminders of our biological knowledge of ourselves as creators of meaning. Do not let old, archaic mythologies and cultural differences get in the way of understanding the nature of human existence, for as creators of all meaning found in the world, we are at the centre of our universe. As a common carbon-based biology, all life forms are in this together. Mythology, geography, and culture confuse the issue that the only rational foundation of morality is our common biology.

Wow! I think he might be onto something here!!

After all, to the best of my current knowledge, all these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies


...are biologically human beings.

Funny thing is though despite this common biology, they are all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum in regard to behaviors deemed to be either rational or irrational, moral or immoral.

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

But God is not necessarily a supernatural being. The pantheist god is coterminous with nature.

[popeye1945]

Wow! I think he might be onto something here!!

After all, to the best of my current knowledge, all these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies


...are biologically human beings.

Funny thing is though despite this common biology, they are all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum in regard to behaviors deemed to be either rational or irrational, moral or immoral.

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

But God is not necessarily a supernatural being. The pantheist god is coterminous with nature.

Hi Belinda,

Pantheism is a rational focus on worship, not unlike many native spiritual ways. Spinoza's god is a sensible consideration; these are based upon what can be experienced and can create a sacred worldview. Even the old sun god made perfect sense as that which gives life to all living things. I remember reading a book called "Black Elk Speaks", in which he states that the central mountain of the world is the Black Hills, but he said the sacred mountain is everywhere. I believe he meant to indicate that we are all the centre of our universe. The imaginative creation of a supernatural realm has had unfortunate long-term consequences. The idea should have been left with our ancestors, for today we very much need the mentality of living in a sacred world, the real world of nature. Humanity as yet does not have self-control, and with that, abuse's nature, the larger aspect of humanity's self. The next myth that is needed makes humanity realize its position as the creator of all meaning and embrace that profound responsibility. God should be coterminous with nature, and one should be able to feel that through the almost lost experience of feeling the rapture of being alive, when one can lose the self in nature.

[iambiguous]

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

Above you noted that the only "rational foundation of morality is our common biology".

Then I pointed out that all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

...are biologically human beings.

Yet in regard to what they construe to be rational or irrational, moral or immoral, there are [historically and culturally] hundreds and hundreds of at times conflicting assessments of what constitutes good and bad behaviors, right and wrong behaviors.

Or take a moral conflagration like abortion. Biologically, there is the fetus being destroyed and biologically there are women forced to give birth.

So, given their common biological existence, what is the foundation for a rational morality here?

Just out of curiosity, are you perchance a deontologist? a moral objectivist? a pantheist?

[popeye1945]

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

Above you noted that the only "rational foundation of morality is our common biology".

Then I pointed out that all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

...are biologically human beings.

Yet in regard to what they construe to be rational or irrational, moral or immoral, there are [historically and culturally] hundreds and hundreds of at times conflicting assessments of what constitutes good and bad behaviors, right and wrong behaviors.

Or take a moral conflagration like abortion. Biologically, there is the fetus being destroyed and biologically there are women forced to give birth.

So, given their common biological existence, what is the foundation for a rational morality here?

Just out of curiosity, are you perchance a deontologist? A moral objectivist? A pantheist?

I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting. Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator. The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear. I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, which is what moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

[Belinda]

There are an unlimited number of variables that distract and confuse the central point of morality, everywhere, the common well-being and security of the biological members of every society. There is not a wide understanding that humanity creates all meaning in the world, and there can be no human self-control until it is realized. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. This must be embraced if you are to overcome superstition in the forms of religions that believe a supernatural being provides us with a moral system. It is a sacred ignorance and maybe the ultimate demise of humanity if not left behind.

But God is not necessarily a supernatural being. The pantheist god is coterminous with nature.

Hi Belinda,

Pantheism is a rational focus on worship, not unlike many native spiritual ways. Spinoza's god is a sensible consideration; these are based upon what can be experienced and can create a sacred worldview. Even the old sun god made perfect sense as that which gives life to all living things. I remember reading a book called "Black Elk Speaks", in which he states that the central mountain of the world is the Black Hills, but he said the sacred mountain is everywhere. I believe he meant to indicate that we are all the centre of our universe. The imaginative creation of a supernatural realm has had unfortunate long-term consequences. The idea should have been left with our ancestors, for today we very much need the mentality of living in a sacred world, the real world of nature. Humanity as yet does not have self-control, and with that, abuse's nature, the larger aspect of humanity's self. The next myth that is needed makes humanity realize its position as the creator of all meaning and embrace that profound responsibility. God should be coterminous with nature, and one should be able to feel that through the almost lost experience of feeling the rapture of being alive, when one can lose the self in nature.

I agree "God should be coterminous with nature" until I recall that nature, including human nature, is cruel and based as much on fear as on love. Nature is uncaring, whereas humans and some other animals care.

True, sympathy emerges from nature . Besides nature we need another God which is love not fear. This love God does not exist in all of nature so we have to protect and nourish it. This paragraph endorses Humanism.

Humanists need not be socialists, however Humanism's Core Values:
Humanism emphasizes human potential, reason, and the dignity of individuals. These values can lead individuals to advocate for social justice and equality, which align with socialist ideals.

[popeye1945]

But God is not necessarily a supernatural being. The pantheist god is coterminous with nature.

Hi Belinda,

Pantheism is a rational focus on worship, not unlike many native spiritual ways. Spinoza's god is a sensible consideration; these are based upon what can be experienced and can create a sacred worldview. Even the old sun god made perfect sense as that which gives life to all living things. I remember reading a book called "Black Elk Speaks", in which he states that the central mountain of the world is the Black Hills, but he said the sacred mountain is everywhere. I believe he meant to indicate that we are all the centre of our universe. The imaginative creation of a supernatural realm has had unfortunate long-term consequences. The idea should have been left with our ancestors, for today we very much need the mentality of living in a sacred world, the real world of nature. Humanity as yet does not have self-control, and with that, abuse's nature, the larger aspect of humanity's self. The next myth that is needed makes humanity realize its position as the creator of all meaning and embrace that profound responsibility. God should be coterminous with nature, and one should be able to feel that through the almost lost experience of feeling the rapture of being alive, when one can lose the self in nature.

I agree "God should be coterminous with nature" until I recall that nature, including human nature, is cruel and based as much on fear as on love. Nature is uncaring, whereas humans and some other animals care.

True, sympathy emerges from nature . Besides nature we need another God which is love not fear. This love God does not exist in all of nature so we have to protect and nourish it. This paragraph endorses Humanism.

Humanists need not be socialists, however Humanism's Core Values:
Humanism emphasizes human potential, reason, and the dignity of individuals. These values can lead individuals to advocate for social justice and equality, which aligns with socialist ideals.

Hi Belinda,

Nature is neither cruel nor loving; it just is. Our interpretations are biological experiences and not necessarily properties of the world as an object. They are, however, how what is out there affects our biology for better or worse, and they are painted with the emotions of a biological subject. Darwin got a bad rap with social Darwinism, not his thinking. He was only too aware of the harshest of all realities that life lives upon life, and what kind of god sets something like that up? I don't believe that humanity needs another god; humanity needs to recognize its responsibility to the rest of the animal world, in that from their perspective, humanity is godlike. Humanity needs to gain self-control for itself, and it can only do this when it recognizes it is a creator, in that it is the creator of all meaning. Generation after generation, we are relatively immortal in that it is you, as others, the same pattern and different experiences, we need to see ourselves better in the following generations, that we might serve ourselves and others as one, one identity. We are related to every living thing on the planet through our common carbon-based biology, and we are all in this together as one.

[Belinda]

Hi Belinda,

Pantheism is a rational focus on worship, not unlike many native spiritual ways. Spinoza's god is a sensible consideration; these are based upon what can be experienced and can create a sacred worldview. Even the old sun god made perfect sense as that which gives life to all living things. I remember reading a book called "Black Elk Speaks", in which he states that the central mountain of the world is the Black Hills, but he said the sacred mountain is everywhere. I believe he meant to indicate that we are all the centre of our universe. The imaginative creation of a supernatural realm has had unfortunate long-term consequences. The idea should have been left with our ancestors, for today we very much need the mentality of living in a sacred world, the real world of nature. Humanity as yet does not have self-control, and with that, abuse's nature, the larger aspect of humanity's self. The next myth that is needed makes humanity realize its position as the creator of all meaning and embrace that profound responsibility. God should be coterminous with nature, and one should be able to feel that through the almost lost experience of feeling the rapture of being alive, when one can lose the self in nature.

I agree "God should be coterminous with nature" until I recall that nature, including human nature, is cruel and based as much on fear as on love. Nature is uncaring, whereas humans and some other animals care.

True, sympathy emerges from nature . Besides nature we need another God which is love not fear. This love God does not exist in all of nature so we have to protect and nourish it. This paragraph endorses Humanism.

Humanists need not be socialists, however Humanism's Core Values:
Humanism emphasizes human potential, reason, and the dignity of individuals. These values can lead individuals to advocate for social justice and equality, which aligns with socialist ideals.

Hi Belinda,

Nature is neither cruel nor loving; it just is. Our interpretations are biological experiences and not necessarily properties of the world as an object. They are, however, how what is out there affects our biology for better or worse, and they are painted with the emotions of a biological subject. Darwin got a bad rap with social Darwinism, not his thinking. He was only too aware of the harshest of all realities that life lives upon life, and what kind of god sets something like that up? I don't believe that humanity needs another god; humanity needs to recognize its responsibility to the rest of the animal world, in that from their perspective, humanity is godlike. Humanity needs to gain self-control for itself, and it can only do this when it recognizes it is a creator, in that it is the creator of all meaning. Generation after generation, we are relatively immortal in that it is you, as others, the same pattern and different experiences, we need to see ourselves better in the following generations, that we might serve ourselves and others as one, one identity. We are related to every living thing on the planet through our common carbon-based biology, and we are all in this together as one.

Nature is not the sort of thing that conceptualises. It's we who conceptualise nature. Nobody has to search far before becoming aware that our concept of nature includes that nature is uncaringly cruel.E.g. measles virus, e.g. calf being ripped apart by wolf: e.g. human lust for power. Whatever nature be, nature is not a sufficient candidate for God of love.

However, At least in anglophone countries, Spinoza’s reputation as a political thinker is eclipsed by his reputation as a rationalist metaphysician. Nevertheless, Spinoza was a penetrating political theorist whose writings have enduring significance. In his two political treatises, Spinoza advances a number of forceful and original arguments in defense of democratic governance, freedom of thought and expression, and the subordination of religion to the state. On the basis of his naturalistic metaphysics, Spinoza also offers trenchant criticisms of ordinary conceptions of right and duty. And his account of civil organization stands as an important contribution to the development of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
The God of love is a personification of love and hope, not a big kind uncle up in the actual sky or in some other supernatural way of being. Love and hope are good, and they must be nurtured .

[popeye1945]

I agree "God should be coterminous with nature" until I recall that nature, including human nature, is cruel and based as much on fear as on love. Nature is uncaring, whereas humans and some other animals care.

True, sympathy emerges from nature . Besides nature we need another God which is love not fear. This love God does not exist in all of nature so we have to protect and nourish it. This paragraph endorses Humanism.

Humanists need not be socialists, however Humanism's Core Values:
Humanism emphasizes human potential, reason, and the dignity of individuals. These values can lead individuals to advocate for social justice and equality, which aligns with socialist ideals.

Hi Belinda,

Nature is neither cruel nor loving; it just is. Our interpretations are biological experiences and not necessarily properties of the world as an object. They are, however, how what is out there affects our biology for better or worse, and they are painted with the emotions of a biological subject. Darwin got a bad rap with social Darwinism, not his thinking. He was only too aware of the harshest of all realities that life lives upon life, and what kind of god sets something like that up? I don't believe that humanity needs another god; humanity needs to recognize its responsibility to the rest of the animal world, in that from their perspective, humanity is godlike. Humanity needs to gain self-control for itself, and it can only do this when it recognizes it is a creator, in that it is the creator of all meaning. Generation after generation, we are relatively immortal in that it is you, as others, the same pattern and different experiences, we need to see ourselves better in the following generations, that we might serve ourselves and others as one, one identity. We are related to every living thing on the planet through our common carbon-based biology, and we are all in this together as one.

Nature is not the sort of thing that conceptualises. It's we who conceptualise nature. Nobody has to search far before becoming aware that our concept of nature includes that nature is uncaringly cruel.E.g. measles virus, e.g. calf being ripped apart by wolf: e.g. human lust for power. Whatever nature be, nature is not a sufficient candidate for God of love.

Cruel/caring and indifference are human concepts indicating an awareness of the survival and well-being of biological subjects; these cannot be attributed to nature. For biology, the world as object just is; nothing has meaning that biology does not bestow upon it. We cannot even blame nature. There is in nature that which is ineffective, supportive, or undermining of the processes of life. Biology is not something different from nature; it is governed by the rhythms and frequencies of the earth and the cosmos. The Earth is not a closed system, and neither is biology a closed system. " Nature is not a sufficient candidate for a god of love." Perhaps love is mislabeled; love is a social construct, not credible even in the context of society, unless one speaks of the love of one's offspring, which seems universal to all organisms, but even that is not absolute. Politically incorrect as it no doubt is, this popular concept called love is extremely conditional on both sides of the equation.

However, At least in anglophone countries, Spinoza’s reputation as a political thinker is eclipsed by his reputation as a rationalist metaphysician. Nevertheless, Spinoza was a penetrating political theorist whose writings have enduring significance. In his two political treatises, Spinoza advances a number of forceful and original arguments in defense of democratic governance, freedom of thought and expression, and the subordination of religion to the state. On the basis of his naturalistic metaphysics, Spinoza also offers trenchant criticisms of ordinary conceptions of right and duty. And his account of civil organization stands as an important contribution to the development of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The God of love is a personification of love and hope, not a big kind uncle up in the actual sky or in some other supernatural way of being. Love and hope are good, and they must be nurtured.
[/quote]

The different systems governing humanity are trying to find what is the most good, for the most people. America is supposed to be the hallmark of democracy, but at the same time, it is governed by billionaires. In such a situation, one can change the parties, but one cannot change the policies of the billionaires. In China, one cannot change parties, but one can change the policies. One needs to ask oneself if there is rightfully just one right way to govern. The steaks are always the same, as with morality itself, the security, and the welfare of biological subjects. Thanks for the reminder, I shall go back and read some more Spinoza! Hope springs eternal, it is the essence of life's becoming.

[iambiguous]

I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting.

 
Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."

What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions?

Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?

In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though, if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their own dogmas.

History to date, for example.

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it.

After all, objective morality, immortality and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind.

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment?

As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? 

Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion given the existential parameters of our lived lives.

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.

Morality and sanity?

In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? 

[popeye1945]

I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting.

 

Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."
What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions? Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?
In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their own dogmas.

Morality based upon our common human biology is rational because it is the most immediate of our experiences, and common to species. We know what experiencing a particular in nature is like compared to that of another. Another point we should not lose sight of is how morality for others comes about. If one does not recognize the self in another creature, compassion does not arise; compassion is the essence of morality and morality is the essence of society. It is so elemental and so obvious to me that I find its non-acceptance mind-boggling. We all speak the same emotional language unless one happens to be a psychopath.

History to date, for example.

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it.
After all, objective morality, immortality, and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind. [/quote]

You pointing this out just underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment?
As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion given the existential parameters of our lived lives. [/quote]

Optimal value judgment would be self-interest, where you identify yourself with the self in others, allowing compassion to arise for all concerned, and biases fall by the way. How much saner do you think this approach is, compared to counting on a multitude of differing gods to hand down their judgments?

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.
Morality and sanity? [/quote]

Do you mean the process of thinking?

In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? [/quote]

That would be someone not basing their morality on our common biology. By the way, our objective reality is a subjective experience.

[Belinda]

I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting.

 

Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."
What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions? Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?
In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their own dogmas.

Morality based upon our common human biology is rational because it is the most immediate of our experiences, and common to species. We know what experiencing a particular in nature is like compared to that of another. Another point we should not lose sight of is how morality for others comes about. If one does not recognize the self in another creature, compassion does not arise; compassion is the essence of morality and morality is the essence of society. It is so elemental and so obvious to me that I find its non-acceptance mind-boggling. We all speak the same emotional language unless one happens to be a psychopath.

History to date, for example.

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it.
After all, objective morality, immortality, and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind.

You pointing this out just underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment?
As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion given the existential parameters of our lived lives. [/quote]

Optimal value judgment would be self-interest, where you identify yourself with the self in others, allowing compassion to arise for all concerned, and biases fall by the way. How much saner do you think this approach is, compared to counting on a multitude of differing gods to hand down their judgments?

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.
Morality and sanity? [/quote]

Do you mean the process of thinking?

In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? [/quote]

That would be someone not basing their morality on our common biology. By the way, our objective reality is a subjective experience.
[/quote]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust.

Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much more rare.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately other stories in the public eye are more complex such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit.

Politicians , leaders , who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. At least we may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians .

No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.

[Belinda]

 

Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."
What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions? Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?
In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their own dogmas.

Morality based upon our common human biology is rational because it is the most immediate of our experiences, and common to species. We know what experiencing a particular in nature is like compared to that of another. Another point we should not lose sight of is how morality for others comes about. If one does not recognize the self in another creature, compassion does not arise; compassion is the essence of morality and morality is the essence of society. It is so elemental and so obvious to me that I find its non-acceptance mind-boggling. We all speak the same emotional language unless one happens to be a psychopath.

History to date, for example.

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it.
After all, objective morality, immortality, and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind.

You pointing this out just underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment?
As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion given the existential parameters of our lived lives.

Optimal value judgment would be self-interest, where you identify yourself with the self in others, allowing compassion to arise for all concerned, and biases fall by the way. How much saner do you think this approach is, compared to counting on a multitude of differing gods to hand down their judgments?

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.
Morality and sanity? [/quote]

Do you mean the process of thinking?

In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? [/quote]

That would be someone not basing their morality on our common biology. By the way, our objective reality is a subjective experience.
[/quote]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust.

Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much more rare.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately other stories in the public eye are more complex such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit.

Politicians , leaders , who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. At least we may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians .

No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.
If anthropologists were to produce a list of all known virtues, including my brief list above , some virtues would be cancelled out, such as 'sympathy' would be cancelled by even one culture where 'cruelty' is the desirable norm. 'Hospitality' would be cancelled by the existence of even one culture where fear of strangers is the desirable norm. I can see I am going to find it hard to name one universal virtue.

Likely candidates for the status of universal virtue include courage, hope, and reason, compounded.