moral relativism

[henry quirk]

You see henry, since I understand what I wrote then doing it according to my conditions, which by any other name is the Socratic Method, doesn't waste my life force on Meh, well, at least doesn't waste as much as it otherwise would.

I asked one question.

Rephrased: becuz Junior is a'floatin' in his womb-ignorance and is incapable of havin' a say, whatever Mama sez, goes, yeah?

[Walker]

Careful, guy: you're startin' to read like Biggy.

Anywho...

What you seem to say is: becuz Junior is a'floatin' in his womb-ignorance and is incapable of havin' a say, whatever Mama sez goes.

Yes? No?

Not exactly.

What I said is, agreement is superfluous. Mamma's word is absolute. What Mamma says, goes, and that's all right. If mamma says it's time to die, that's fine with the lil' fetus person.

This is because of total, complete, absolute, uncorrupted trust.

Should his stages of life continue on to birth, infancy, toddler, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age, decrepitude, and finally dissolution of the body, each stage excepting the fetus stage and dissolution stage will be less than innocent, unless purified.

Choose a good question, and don't be in a rush for any answers.

[henry quirk]

Choose a good question,

Here's one: does Junior belong to himself?

[Walker]

On a personal note, I’ve found that if the question is earnest enough, the answer may come out of left field, in other words, not necessarily where it’s expected to be found. This is because if earnest enough, and if the question is worthy, then the question is being perpetually asked as new conditions appear, conditions such as the passage of time, a power outage, an insight, a random conservation, many ways.

For example, this may hold some answers to the posting that was not clear, was murky because of my lack of clear transmission. This could even be the source of another question, or observation:




This little puppy was born helpless, and except for instinct it was a blank slate. It had total innate trust when born. It totally trusted its mamma.

Soon enough, the spunky little survivor accumulated the little bit of experience required to doubt.

Now that it knows a thing or two, the puppy has doubt about handing over the precious ball. He has learned of the dualistic line that separates subject from object, and which aids the survival instinct to distinguish advantage from disadvantage.

[henry quirk]

Does Junior belong to himself?

[Walker]

Choose a good question,

Here's one: does Junior belong to himself?

He has not yet crossed the line that creates the "I" that belongs.

Looks like that little puppy has crossed the line.

[Walker]

Since mamma ain't always lookin' out for the lil' fetus person ...

And since his sense of self-preservation is still hanging out in infinite potentiality ...

Along with his future ailments when he's old ...

Then you would think someone would look after the little fella's human rights.

[Walker]

Counter proposal: just explain what you posted.

The original posting was the explanation.

*

Original Posting:

In theory, if he could, the little fetus person may disagree with mamma’s notions of how just her cause actually is.

However, he could only base that judgment on reasoning, memory, and knowledge of causation, none of which the little fella has yet acquired, due to the limitations imposed by his womb-confinement.

In actuality, the little fetus person knows nothing of relationships, thus his trust is total and complete. What mamma says is fine for him.

Mamma's just cause, is his just cause. Not yet corrupted by experience, his instinctive trust and loyalty is total, and complete.

-----

Another edit: ignore the first edit.

10-4

[Ansiktsburk]

What’s the consensus so far in this discussion?

[henry quirk]

He has not yet crossed the line that creates the "I" that belongs.

When does Junior cross the line?

[Walker]

He has not yet crossed the line that creates the "I" that belongs.

When does Junior cross the line?

Hi henry.

Without hooking up the little fella to electrodes and assigning a trained technician to monitor brain scans for changes, the presence of which may in itself affect pin-pointing the exact moment of the crossover in ways unknown due to the Observer effect, I reason that the baby sees the mother’s hands repeatedly, then his own hands repeatedly, and after an unknown number of repetitions, recognition begins to set into the infant’s memory.

Then, with memory activated, rudimentary, particular, pre-verbal comparisons begin to be made between what can at first be detected as only general similarities of shape.

Finally, the pre-verbal realization of hand ownership spontaneously clicks in the little noggin, and from this, dualistic thought grows increasingly complex through the life stages. I’ve heard that scientists now say that cognitive capabilities don’t fully mature until sometime in the 20’s. Just to tie in the memory of the puppy reference above, that’s about 3.5 dog years for the puppy … but that’s just an unchecked, possible correlation because at some point, dogs do reach maturity. *

But, bottom line straight answer, in the spirit of physics, physics being the best guess with available information **, this analysis is purposely missing the Observer effect on the little tyke caused by the electrodes and technician, which brings it closer to philosophy, because it doesn't rely on outside information.

I’d say the crossover happens when the sense of separate-self spontaneously appears, and the moment that specifically happens is early on, sometime after the doctor holds the newborn up like a chicken on its way to the chopping block and slaps that bare bottom to make the baby cry and clear the lungs, although I don’t think they do that anymore.

Note: We have many children and grandchildren.

* humour
** Thus the advantage of education.

[henry quirk]

So: Junior has no claim to himself till well after birth, yeah?

[Walker]

So: Junior has no claim to himself till well after birth, yeah?

The reason for one at a time, is because subsequent questions, by you, should pivot off the unknown answer I have yet to supply.

I don't see you pivoting off the answer I supplied.

In fact, I see no evidence that I'm not talking to total incomprehension.

[Walker]

So: Junior has no claim to himself till well after birth, yeah?

Let’s put it this way.

Moral Relativism

Inherent right to life for a human being is not relative to self-identification as autonomous entity, or relative to any self-identification at all.

This applies to all stages of human development.


For example, as an adult, your human rights are not legally and morally contingent on whether or not you identify as someone who has paid money into a socialist Ponzi scheme such as Obamacare. They're not contingent on your social credit score, either.

[iambiguous]

Is your body yours? Is your mind yours? Is your life yours?

Yes or no.

Note to others:

Is henry to be taken seriously here?

Is he actually making a sophisticated philosophical point that I keep missing?

Or is he basically just in his own little world posting opinions that only really make sense to him? Coming from ILP, I run into this all the time.

Seriously. I'm relatively new here so I don't have an accumulated "take" on just how sophisticated the thoughts of others are.

So, given a particular context in which moral opinions clash, what down here in our interactions with others does it mean to think as he does?