FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Morality

Morality

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Hello everyone,

This issue comes from various threads that tend to begin with one question and then spiral off into debates about morality. Because I am interested in the topic, I thought I would give it it's own thread.

I was wondering how you fabbers _iew morality and what impact that has on your _iew of swinging. There are people who think morality comes from religion. There are others who see morality as a byproduct of the social contract. Others believe morality exists in it's own right (Kant likend morality to math...that it was a fact of the universe). Some people think it is a result of evolution, that we find many things morally wrong that are unfavorable to the continuation of our species. This is not an exhaustive list. Mayne you don't believe in morality at all?

So, please, don't answer too hastily. Give your beliefs some critical thought, and then share those thoughts with me. I find this fascinating and would like to hear more from you.

And lets keep this civil. Interesting debate should not have to fight with personal arguments and insults.

Thanks everyone!!

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ingle Beds LassWoman over a year ago

Bedfordshire

Morality to me is all about how I feel about the things. If I feel that I wont feel good about it, I won't do it as it would be morally wrong for me. For me, morals are personal and non judgemental.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I feel we need to look into ourselves more, ask some very searching questions and go into our darker side, even if it scares us, there are lots of answers in there.

There appear to be three types of mindset regarding morals;

Those who do as they are told by the law, because it is the law.

Those who do as they please regardless of the law.

Those who can see beyond the law, and who wouldn't do those things whether the law existed or not.

I feel I am the third type, by having compassion for others, I don't need the law to dictate to me what is right and wrong, so if the law says tomorrow, it is ok to murder, rape, sexually abuse children, I will remain constant through compassion and empathy, and the fact that I've seen through these things for myself, not because somebody else told me too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ivnwcplCouple over a year ago

liverpool

I think this is an extremely hard thing to truly answer correctly.... almost every culture from the beginning of the human race up to now has had very different standards and beliefs about what is sexually moral and what isn't. There are sexual actions that are frowned upon greatly by some posters while others would consider it normal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

My morals come from my heart, it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

If I chose to judge someone for their morals/lack of morals then I will

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I always think "will i get away with this?" before shoving it in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals come from my heart, it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

If I chose to judge someone for their morals/lack of morals then I will "

THIS!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I always think "will i get away with this?" before shoving it in."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Hello everyone,

So, please, don't answer too hastily. Give your beliefs some critical thought, and then share those thoughts with me. I find this fascinating and would like to hear more from you.

And lets keep this civil. Interesting debate should not have to fight with personal arguments and insults.

Thanks everyone!!morals are a list or guide to how you live your life based on what you know others or the majority of others would see as right and wrong and how you interpret that, I believe in the process of natural evolution so religion doesn't come into it for me ,I see a partnership man and woman married or not with maybe a family as a good basis to live a wholesome life ,for whatever reason that failed for me but for the most part it was very successful and I was very happy .

As a member of fab and entering into the spirit of why we are here ,to further our sexual adventures ,I dont see myself as being 100% moral I still have moral values that I live with and by which help me make good decisions but I have done things as a result of my time here I don't regard as morally correct ,that is the only reason I say I don't see myself and others on here as moral people ,not saying they are not good people though ,hope that clarifies it from my perspective

-Courtney"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

I think morals come from a whole mixture of sources that you mention OP. I understand that some people aren't religious themselves, but I think that in the UK we are at least culturally Christian, and I think that that does have an impact. No one lives in a vacuum, and morals can be affected by the people around you. Just look at the banking sector to see how if everyone around you is breaking the law, its easy to get caught up in it.

In my opinion, if you are judging is something is moral or immoral it depends on the impact it has on others. With swinging, everyone should be aware and consenting, so if no one is getting hurt, then where is the harm? Some people think that homosexuality is immoral, but it doesnt hurt anyone, so where is the harm?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *randmrsminxyCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

morals , mostly preached to us by people in silly uniforms ,telling us we will burn in hell . While they fiddle with choir boys , or tell us birth control is wrong while the spread of STD,S spirals out of control around the world .Or for $1000 dollars the lord will wash away are sins and make you clean .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *awnmistMan over a year ago

Wrexham

morality is a word -- and not the thing behind the word that the word only stands for. The meaning of all words exists inside the spaces between it's own letters.

Morality is what each different person says that it is. It cannot be taught or lectured on. Nobody should ever be seen to gain or profit from it's use. Even to boost one's own ego or reputation on this site. As some folk seem to think they may also do with their pictures ha ha!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

You know the death camps in the war, the majority of the soldiers that gassed and shot the Jews where "normal" guys that had "normal" jobs many family men.

They didn't think twice about murdering innocent people.

Yet some stood their ground, refused whatever the consequences to them, some where simply given other jobs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You know the death camps in the war, the majority of the soldiers that gassed and shot the Jews where "normal" guys that had "normal" jobs many family men.

They didn't think twice about murdering innocent people.

Yet some stood their ground, refused whatever the consequences to them, some where simply given other jobs"

And those who did murder people, but perhaps did it out of fear that their own families might be targeted if they did not obey orders? How do you know none of them thought twice?

Even this is example isn't a straight bad vs good dichotomy. Shades, as with everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney"

He can say it was within his moral philosophy, I can say it wasn't within mine and that I think he is wrong and should be punished as a result.

But since there are no laws, I would have no way to enforce that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *awnmistMan over a year ago

Wrexham

morality is a word -- and not the thing behind the word that the word only stands for. The meaning of all words exists inside the spaces between it's own letters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney"
in that instance I am the predator and the rules of nature come into play the weakest lose ,you can't beat the force of nature

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

He can say it was within his moral philosophy, I can say it wasn't within mine and that I think he is wrong and should be punished as a result.

But since there are no laws, I would have no way to enforce that. "

So you really believe that someone can legitimately say that murdering someone else was within their moral code?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etzPlayCouple over a year ago

Southend

We live by the only law:

"Everyone is a Cunt including us, just have to find a Cunt you can live with and other Cunts to socialise with"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney in that instance I am the predator and the rules of nature come into play the weakest lose ,you can't beat the force of nature

Have you read Hobbes? I think you would enjoy it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

He can say it was within his moral philosophy, I can say it wasn't within mine and that I think he is wrong and should be punished as a result.

But since there are no laws, I would have no way to enforce that.

So you really believe that someone can legitimately say that murdering someone else was within their moral code?"

I don't understand how a human being could genuinely believe that, so I don't think they could legitimately say that - but that's because my _iew is completely coloured by MY moral code. But in the absence of a legal system or some other form of societal contract, who decides?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ery curious maleMan over a year ago

Bishop Auckland

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

Agree completely everyone is influenced by their upbringing and adult life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Morality is subjective.

Mine is based on My life experiences- by definition a constantly-evolving circumstance.

For me its about having integrity. Treating others as I would wish to be treated, and hoping they do this too.

It has nothing to do with religion but the basics of my character- the building blocks, and life and experiences may change the exterior but the foundations remain firm.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *awnmistMan over a year ago

Wrexham

this site is a load of crap for idiots that are guilt ridden about their own past -- or lack of attending oxford or cambridge university ha! Well the "open" university is second best to the university of "Life". So get a real life all of you lot and go back to college somewhere else. Keep all your chit chat to the shallow simple issues around sex please. Rank over, Now all of you just swivel on my dead grand dads cock ha ha!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

He can say it was within his moral philosophy, I can say it wasn't within mine and that I think he is wrong and should be punished as a result.

But since there are no laws, I would have no way to enforce that.

So you really believe that someone can legitimately say that murdering someone else was within their moral code?

And therein lies the question. Who decides? I said there was no law when you woke up, I didn't say there was no social contract.

I always find it interesting that people believe they can create moral rules for themselves, but not extrapolate those _iews to others. What holds you to those _iews, then? I have an opinion on the matter, but I'm trying to be neutral for purposes of the thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"this site is a load of crap for idiots that are guilt ridden about their own past -- or lack of attending oxford or cambridge university ha! Well the "open" university is second best to the university of "Life". So get a real life all of you lot and go back to college somewhere else. Keep all your chit chat to the shallow simple issues around sex please. Rank over, Now all of you just swivel on my dead grand dads cock ha ha!"

Thanks for that. You feel free to stick to the shallow simple issues about sex

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bsinthe_boyMan over a year ago

Luton

I don't believe in some "big sky book" with universal morality. I believe morals come both from within and are influenced by society. Just look at how things that are accepted change throughout history.

For swinging, I see nothing wrong morally with honest non-monogamy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

people dont have the minerals to stick to their morals

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I feel we need to look into ourselves more, ask some very searching questions and go into our darker side, even if it scares us, there are lots of answers in there.

There appear to be three types of mindset regarding morals;

Those who do as they are told by the law, because it is the law.

Those who do as they please regardless of the law.

Those who can see beyond the law, and who wouldn't do those things whether the law existed or not.

Agree wholeheartedly with this, acting in a way which deliberately causes harm to others is my idea of "immoral".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My morals to me are simply a part of me and a fundamental factor in the way I live my life!

I don't consider myself better or worse than anyone else! Sometimes I give to the homeless, sometimes I walk past and look the other way!

My one principal philosophy in life is to treat others as I would like to be treated myself. Sometimes I manage this - sometimes I fail miserably!

When it comes to swinging there are a lot of 'cheats' and many debates/comments about them and whether it's ok to meet them or not!

My stance on this - rightly or wrongly - is that I'm my own moral guardian - no-one else's - and the only face I have staring back in the mirror is mine - so I (generally) live life according to my own moral code and leave others to live by theirs!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Interesting question.

For me personally I would say that my morals are based on life experience mostly. I suppose that religion/law/ethics all play a part in that somewhere along the line but for the main part my morals stem from my own personal beliefs.( I'm not religious for instance but my family are).

I live by my own morals and so anything that I get involved in, I have to question whether I can justify it to myself morally. If that makes sense ? For example, I wouldn't lie to my husband about how much my new shoes cost because it would be wrong for me to do so based on my own morals. My friend does this a lot and giggles about it because it isn't a big deal to her.

As far as swinging goes, I'm pretty relaxed about sex in general. I don't see a problem with fun between consenting adults so long as it comes without deceit. There are some things that I have fantasised about but wouldn't do because I couldn't justify it to myself morally.

I need to think about this question a bit more. Good thread.

Mrs x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Subjective morals come from empathy, or lack of it. It can be hard to empathise when you haven't been through something or yourself or seen someone you care for go through it.

The bible has it's own set of objective morals that people need to follow to be a part of that religion, but they did not create empathy in people. We have that skill inside us already without religion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icentiousCouple over a year ago

Up on them there hills

To me morality is an individual cognitive construct a form of belief.

Odd how morality goes out of the window in times of danger or stress, where as things we value don't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think your morals come from a number of different sources and they all of us have different ones although the fundamentals are the same.

It's a combination of parenting, social surroundings, and also the moral state of the country (I can think of way of wording that better). What would have been morally right or wrong for my parents at my age is different to what it for me today. Homosexuality is probably a good example as is terminology that today is considered racist but was widely used previously.

The hypertheical question is almost impossible to answer as we have all been brought up rightly that murdering someone is immoral. However go back in history and at some point it would have been fully justified. Although the bigger question would then be what's are car doing there!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r TriomanMan over a year ago

Chippenham Malmesbury area

If there's no law then people may choose to behave as they wish - it would be interesting to see if that guy (the one who killed the woman) sticks to his moral code when the woman's husband then kills that guys kids, wife and dog, and burns down his house.

I'm guessing that such a state of behaviour would not exist for long before some form of law is imposed. I also believe that this is how religions and religious law came about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Mine don't really affect my _iew on anything except myself and the people i want in my life - definitely affects the relationships i have with them.

Like i don't really care if people cheat, but don't make me a part of that. And yes when i've been cheated on i cheated back on that person to feel less helpless, and went against my own morals, so i'm not sure what that says about me.

I don't think people are simple at all, just because society favours something doesn't mean it's right or even the best thing for it. Segregation has been legal, homosexual illegal an classed as a mental illness when all that was was love sometimes - love was illegal i don't get how that even happened really, but society went along with that. I'm sure it didn't really coincide with everyone's morals and that's why this stuff changed, because people didn't want to hide any more or feel ashamed. Idk just rambling now...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney in that instance I am the predator and the rules of nature come into play the weakest lose ,you can't beat the force of nature

Have you read Hobbes? I think you would enjoy it

"
Hobbes the philosopher you mean ,no but will take a look as I have a very philosophical outlook of life and especially fab life are you actually in Leeds Courtney or knaresborough?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Its a concept as others have said a word, defined within its own limitations by 'those who know what's best' or as a control measure to limit the parameters of our thoughts and inquiring minds..

some in all societies need something to stop them doing 'wrong' to others etc and some need a 'moral code' set by others to have their own boundaries to live within, if that works for them then fine..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *randmrsminxyCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

"morality is a word -- and not the thing behind the word that the word only stands for. The meaning of all words exists inside the spaces between it's own letters.

Would it not be fair to say , with out morals you have no morality or visa versa ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Very interesting thread Courtney - thanks for putting it up! X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

"You know the death camps in the war, the majority of the soldiers that gassed and shot the Jews where "normal" guys that had "normal" jobs many family men.

They didn't think twice about murdering innocent people.

Yet some stood their ground, refused whatever the consequences to them, some where simply given other jobs

And those who did murder people, but perhaps did it out of fear that their own families might be targeted if they did not obey orders? How do you know none of them thought twice?

Even this is example isn't a straight bad vs good dichotomy. Shades, as with everything. "
I do know some thought twice (from what I've read) some had a huge fight with themselves, but there was also those that carried out their duties without a second thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney in that instance I am the predator and the rules of nature come into play the weakest lose ,you can't beat the force of nature

Have you read Hobbes? I think you would enjoy it

Hobbes the philosopher you mean ,no but will take a look as I have a very philosophical outlook of life and especially fab life are you actually in Leeds Courtney or knaresborough? "

Yes, Hobbes the philosopher.

And Leeds 100% baby! Although if I lived in knaresborough I think I'd be living a fairy tale

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r TriomanMan over a year ago

Chippenham Malmesbury area

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney"

Being picky; I'd question this scenario - who would make cars when there is no law covering the standards to which they are made (think VW), no law to say that the workers get paid or that the customer pays for the vehicle - they can just steal it, no code of conduct on the roads and so on...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Morality is for me a combination of what I expect and evaluate and predict others to hold, as well as my own state, concerning unwritten standards of conduct.

We typically overestimate own own, whilst underestimating others' standards of morality. This can make for some interesting and powerful clashes of expectations etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

Right, but those are not moralistic laws. So for the purposes of my (admittedly poor) thought experiment, just assume those bits are taken care of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r TriomanMan over a year ago

Chippenham Malmesbury area

I think they are as even without laws and unions, most would agree that an employer is morally bound to give a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Manufactures have a moral obligation to there customers, not just a legal one, to provide them with a product that works and that complies with the law; much of the anger at VW is in regards to their morals, and how they have lied and cheated the authorities and their customers.

And, even without laws most feel that it is only right and proper to give something of equal value in exchange for goods.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Morality for me evolves with consciousness and is determined by one's world_iew or frame of reference and the associated logic behind one's actions. If there were no laws, I imagine someone would take the lead and create them with their followers, because their world_iew demanded the need for them. The rules and laws created would then be subject to change through questioning and inquiry, but only evolve as the lawmakers world_iew evolves. The few will create the rules for the many, much as has happened from time immemorial. How each individual _iews those rules and laws would still be coloured by their world_iew.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Regarding the murder thing, you are already mixing multiple points. Murder in this country is defined as unlawful killing.

So are you asking if killing another person can ever be justifiable or moral?

Or are you are also asking if unlawfully killing another person can ever be justifiable or moral?

Then what about unlawful euthanasia, unintentionally excessive self-defence, war not backed by law, etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thanks for all of your answers so far! Great reading.

For those of you who think morality is personal and not objective (or universal), let me give you a hypothetical, a thought experiment:

You wake up to find that you now live in a world without laws. There is no legal entity telling you what you can and can't do. Everything else about the world is the same.

A man and a woman get into a fight because the woman took the man's parking spot. The man murders the woman before your eyes.

Was the man objectively morally wrong? Or can he say that what he did was within his moral philosophy. And remember, laws don't exist so you can't make that argument.

-Courtney

Right, but those are not moralistic laws. So for the purposes of my (admittedly poor) thought experiment, just assume those bits are taken care of. "

You should have used the example that people farm and eat animals, yet we don't eat people. Could have been interesting to discuss.

If people truly don't care about rules then they won't care, they'll kill someone because they think other people are not valuable, unlike themselves.

These people actually exist, some on a small scale and are fairly harmless except to only those who get close to them, some are rapists or serial killers, then others on a grand scale get int o power and then cause damage to societies overall.

They will have morals, but their morals benefit themselves, nobody else. Many agree with them too, even those with different morals to them because they justify their actions with some other logic that ties them to them, a type of empathy in a way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Regarding the murder thing, you are already mixing multiple points. Murder in this country is defined as unlawful killing.

So are you asking if killing another person can ever be justifiable or moral?

Or are you are also asking if unlawfully killing another person can ever be justifiable or moral?

Then what about unlawful euthanasia, unintentionally excessive self-defence, war not backed by law, etc. "

You are right, I should have use "killed" instead of "murdered," but that is a technical point that misses the bigger issue. I'm not asking about killing per se, I'm asking about acts that are generally considered morally indefensible in a world without law (removing law from the picture because it is an easy escape clause).

And I'm not asking about justified killing, or whether killing can ever be justified. That is a different issue that already assumes the existence of law or moral code. I'm asking, with the help of a clearly flawed thought-experiment, whether there is a universal morality in the absence of law.

It really is a more abstract question.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

No one can say "that is immoral" with a full stop. "

Cutting the ears off a kitten?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

No one can say "that is immoral" with a full stop. It should be "that is immoral, according to my own set of moral standards". Can I judge people against my moral standards? Of course I can and I do. Can I say something is moral or immoral in the same way as I can say something is legal or illegal? No, I can't, because there is no such thing as a codified universal set of things which are or are not moral. "
doesn't stop a human being from saying they believe something is immoral though ,no-one in my opinion has a right to tell another human being how to live but they can show disdain and express an opinion about it ,the law and the police are our guides as to wether we achieve that or not and in many cases they get it wrong to ,morals are a code laid down by a majority of like thinking people keeping good and the law in mind to further the good of mankind but like you say our own individual morals govern how we get through life ,I believe that being on fab is not a moral thing so we are all immoral but with different degrees as to how much ,it doesn't affect a lot of peole on here's ability to be good people though ,just not a good moralistic standpoint for life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

No one can say "that is immoral" with a full stop.

Cutting the ears off a kitten?

next "

Cutting fins off a shark. I think it's cruel and unnecessary. Certain fishermen don't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Another wide question: if one person or a small number of people feel something is not immoral, does that mean that this is not universally immoral?

Is that question being asked?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Another wide question: if one person or a small number of people feel something is not immoral, does that mean that this is not universally immoral?

Is that question being asked? "

Universal morality is normative. It says what should or should not be. Whether someone agrees is, therefore, irrelevant.

What you are mentioning here is individually relative morality. Which many above have argued for as well. But it is mutually exclusive from Universalism (as a moral philosophy).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

In theory they should be universal. All life has rights, they differ though depending on what that life is.

All life has been given unequal values, until that changes there is no such thing as universal morals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide. "

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In theory they should be universal. All life has rights, they differ though depending on what that life is.

All life has been given unequal values, until that changes there is no such thing as universal morals."

Unless the moral is preserve the thing that has the higher consciousness

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney"

Agreed, but many posts are deviating to the relative/universal morality argument. Mostly favoring relative morality. Thought I might add a soupcon of balance!

Interesting topic though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney"

I think I fall somewhere between meta-ethical moral relativism and moral nihilism (I've been googling, I'm not much of a philosopher). I just don't believe in an objective abstract set of moral absolutes. They have all come about as a result of religious, legal and societal influences. Arguably it's because humans DON'T have an intrinsic sense of what is moral and what is immoral that religion and state and laws had to exist in the first place. If morality was absolute then everyone would automatically do what was required for a peaceful and harmonious world. It's because we don't that there have to be laws like don't steal, don't murder.

Moral relativism isn't a justification for an action, in my version. It is just saying that there are no universals and no absolutes. I can react to people and judge their actions based on my understanding of what is and is not moral, but it doesn't make that an objective fact.

As for how I would maintain my moral code in the absence of laws....I would say conscience. I never do anything that I think I wouldn't be happy to look at myself in the mirror after doing. When it comes to my interactions with other people, I think about how I would like to be treated and go with that. But it's impossible to separate that from my upbringing, experience and the society I live in - and someone else's version of what's morally acceptable will differ from mine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In theory they should be universal. All life has rights, they differ though depending on what that life is.

All life has been given unequal values, until that changes there is no such thing as universal morals.

Unless the moral is preserve the thing that has the higher consciousness "

We don't know what level of consciousness plants, humans or animals have. We can almost get an idea from how from how they communicate with us, but only from our level of understanding and their level of being able to tell us.

I heard about a boy who fell into a coma, came out of it and was left in a supposed vegetative state. 12 years later he was able to communicate and said he was fully aware of everything going on but couldn't move or let anyone know. He was conscious, nobody knew that though. Bit of an extreme example maybe, i just like the story.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

I have a firm set of values and I live my life to those as best I can. I don't believe I buy into the whole morals thing as society is so diverse that my head would explode.

I go with my values and my gut.... Those tell me if I think something is wrong.

But just because I think it, there is zero obligation for others to think or do the same

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust. "

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

I feel like that's a flawed question, because if someone found the Holocaust morally acceptable they have already justified it to themselves. That doesn't mean they can justify it to someone who doesn't find it morally acceptable (which, in this case, is the overwhelming majority of other people).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

I see what you are saying Ruby, but if we are to believe that morals only have value as they relate to the individual, then someone who committed genocide can, rightly, say that genocide is moral [to them]. It would be true for that person. If you disagree, then you are saying that there is a different standard of morality. Necessarily.

And if there is a different standard, then where does it come from? And thus we arrive back at my original question.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

That's the whole point about moral relativism though, you don't have to agree with others morality, but you do justify it by accepting that culturally, politically, and philosophically, others may hold a different moral _iew.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

And if there is a different standard, then where does it come from? And thus we arrive back at my original question.

-Courtney"

That's exactly what I'm saying. But me saying that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable, or that other people should. Just that if they believe it to be moral (to them) then it is moral (to them).

And we come back to my original answer that I think our own morals are a product of our own upbringing, society and experiences. If you are getting into the realms of what would be considered psychopathy (because I can't understand how otherwise someone could feel genocide to be morally right (to them)) then there are potentially psychological influences too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

But I still don't feel that "justifies" in the sense of thinking it's ok because they believe their actions to be moral. It still goes against what I believe to be immoral so, to me, it's not justified as an action.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

And if there is a different standard, then where does it come from? And thus we arrive back at my original question.

-Courtney

That's exactly what I'm saying. But me saying that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable, or that other people should. Just that if they believe it to be moral (to them) then it is moral (to them).

This perfectly answers my question. You would agree that to a person who commits genocide and believes he acts morally, genocide is a moral act. That is consistent. It's not what I believe, but it is consistent with your belief in the origin of morality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

I would say morals and ethics are a defense mechanism of the organism society.... society works on keeping people in a bubble... precidents are put in place in order to limit people in a particular docile way of thinking.

before society we were in an overgeneralized way of speaking... hunter gatherers.

Morals and ethics stops the strong willed in society preying on the weak...and you'll find that these are put in place by the weak.

if you stand back at society and look at it from a distance morals and ethics are just contraccts you can choose to read or choose not to read. being moth immoral and moral are equally viable and no 'god' will spring forth from the heavens in order to shoot you down.

being so caught up in society we find that we are taught morals and ethics from an early age simply because people have forgotten anything outside of society... it is considered the only way forward.

way to overcomplicate things once again humanity

Welcome to duality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

And if there is a different standard, then where does it come from? And thus we arrive back at my original question.

-Courtney

That's exactly what I'm saying. But me saying that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable, or that other people should. Just that if they believe it to be moral (to them) then it is moral (to them).

Yes that about sums it up (more succinctly).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

So are you saying that no matter how the Nazis might justify their actions in regarding Jews as vermin requiring extermination, they transgressed a universal morality regarding their actions, and you would take an absolute moral position on Genocide

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"My morals come from my heart, it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

If I chose to judge someone for their morals/lack of morals then I will "

For me too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

the key to your answer is belief.... do i believe strongly enough that the world will be a better place without the jews etc etc in it.... if yes then its moral a means to an end.... if i dont believe in it as much it becomes less and less immoral.... morality is concept that you buy in and out of... because at the end of the day you could take the middle ground remain detatched and go whatever happens happens for a reason.... if you want to go a bit more deeper into it.... it ties in with why are humans here as a species....

if humans were here to be bred and eaten by a superior race... there would be a lot fewer moral issues with mass genocide of humans from a human perspective... likt in 'the time machine' being killed is just a way of life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

No, I'm saying that they couldn't transgress a universal morality because there isn't a universal morality. But they transgressed against what I consider to be moral. By my moral code their actions were not justified. By theirs, they were.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I would say morals and ethics are a defense mechanism of the organism society.... society works on keeping people in a bubble... precidents are put in place in order to limit people in a particular docile way of thinking.

before society we were in an overgeneralized way of speaking... hunter gatherers.

Morals and ethics stops the strong willed in society preying on the weak...and you'll find that these are put in place by the weak.

being so caught up in society we find that we are taught morals and ethics from an early age simply because people have forgotten anything outside of society... it is considered the only way forward.

way to overcomplicate things once again humanity

Welcome to duality."

Hiya Fae!

So, are you nihilistic then? I realize that you are saying that our current moral system is based on a type of social contract (correct me if I'm wrong), but are you also saying those morals shouldn't exist?

I have read quite a few books that argue that animals in nature (excepting humans) operate in such a way that they appear to have social structures. If you think about it, humans are the only animals that kill other species to the point of extinction as opposed to killing for food, territory, etc. (of course this doesn't apply to animals removed from their natural habitat). Would you say this is a type of morality? Maybe morals come from evolution (which might be why we have a gut reaction against incest, killing, etc - because it's bad for our species)?

That is a lot of muddled thinking, I know.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

Are you Karl Pilkington?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

before society we were in an overgeneralized way of speaking... hunter gatherers.

Morals and ethics stops the strong willed in society preying on the weak...and you'll find that these are put in place by the weak.

being so caught up in society we find that we are taught morals and ethics from an early age simply because people have forgotten anything outside of society... it is considered the only way forward.

way to overcomplicate things once again humanity

Welcome to duality.

Hiya Fae!

That is a lot of muddled thinking, I know.

-Courtney"

Hi Courtney!

you set this thread up as a trap didn't you! lol

i allow people to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights to do the same...

But i think nothing in the world exists... i believe it is all a concept to be brought in and out of and basically im down here playing a game. I learn new facets of myself from my experiences giving me a greater awareness of myself. I can choose to be any one of those facets in any given moment... in the knowledge that im being perfect in every second.

good and bad are both required in order to understand the other... how would you know a sense love if you hadn't had the contrast of being enraged at some point.

Therefore i believe every experience happens for a reason and provides a lesson.. i let go of the negative and positive attributes as they are figments of a biased and filtered mind and learn the lessons quickly which allow new experiences to enter my life quicker and faster.

Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

By this i mean in life you only have one _iewpoint... the perspective you hold with your set of experiences leading up to that point. noone else can have that _iewpoint ever. so what good is it arguing who is right and wrong. Both are right and both are wrong dependant on who's perspective you are _iewing from... so like a mathematical formula... cancel out both sides...and what are you left with?? the experience!

The more you hold on to the less fluidity you have... any attatchments you have you are invested into and you drag those concepts along the road with you.... the more you have ...the heavier the weight on you...and the less energy you have into moving forward. ( simple energetics)

Also we are in duality... expect to have 2 polarisations in everything.... learn to tread the middle ground.

In energetic terms look at a sine wave oscillating that is the basuic pattern of everything in life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain."

for the sake of discussion would you mind me asking you for some of these absolutes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside."

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain."

What is the source of the absolutes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney"

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?"

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

The differences people perceive I think come from all the other factors in play - like when a plane takes off, does is suspend the law of gravity?? No, but the law of thrust (or velocity or whatever it is) may bring about a different outcome at that moment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

This is a similar thread from a couple of weeks ago.

So would you say morality can only be relative? and if so, could that be seen as a justification for genocide.

I wrote that thread too

This one is a bit more abstract, though. Less about universalism v relativism and more about the origins of morality.

-Courtney

That's a nihilistic avatar if ever I saw one..lol

So genocide can be justified by those who found it morally acceptable?

For instance the Holocaust.

Wasn't the look I was going for but I can run with that.

Back to square one then, one moral code is as valid as any other no matter how abhorrent.

Wish I hadn't mentioned the Nihilism, just inspired you..lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer."

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?"

with fact being based on belief....

if i believe the cat is alive... is my belief less viable than yours??... because this is where wars occur :P hehehehe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?"

I have a collaborated belief that you couldn't build me a perpetual motion machine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?

I have a collaborated belief that you couldn't build me a perpetual motion machine

grab two magnets... put them below freezing temperature... this will turn them monopolar.... grab a small coil of copper wire

hammer two nails into a board with notches in them about 2 inches up.... secure the monopolar magnet underneath...

set the coil across the two nails and lightly flick it.

voila

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

for the sake of discussion would you mind me asking you for some of these absolutes?"

I would have to think how to describe them, haha! I think they would be base principles like justice, compassion, altruism etc vs hatred, viciousness and harm, that kind of thing.

The further you were able to distill them into pure principles the nearer you would come I reckon - I've never thought about it in those terms.

When it comes to swinging I would have to think long and hard about the root principles involved.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

for the sake of discussion would you mind me asking you for some of these absolutes?

I would have to think how to describe them, haha! I think they would be base principles like justice, compassion, altruism etc vs hatred, viciousness and harm, that kind of thing.

The further you were able to distill them into pure principles the nearer you would come I reckon - I've never thought about it in those terms.

When it comes to swinging I would have to think long and hard about the root principles involved."

if you cant describe them how can they exist hehe :P subjective huh? to one person watersports is fun... to another its a nightmare... you cant say 1 is right and 1 is wrong?... therefore both are just experiences with lessons to be learnt.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

for the sake of discussion would you mind me asking you for some of these absolutes?

I would have to think how to describe them, haha! I think they would be base principles like justice, compassion, altruism etc vs hatred, viciousness and harm, that kind of thing.

The further you were able to distill them into pure principles the nearer you would come I reckon - I've never thought about it in those terms.

When it comes to swinging I would have to think long and hard about the root principles involved."
also how would you know what compassion is without hatred?... how can you be compassionate to someone without the knowledge of what conflict or pain is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?"

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

I don't think either are immoral in some circumstances. If the gunman has opened fire on the schoolyard then yes, feel free to take him down. If you're Tom Cruise and a pre-cog told you - not so sure!

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Back to square one then, one moral code is as valid as any other no matter how abhorrent.

Wish I hadn't mentioned the Nihilism, just inspired you..lol

If judged by a totally independent third party, then yes one moral code is as valid as another no matter how abhorrent. BUT there's no such thing as a totally independent third party because none of us can separate our _iew of the actions of others from the tenets of our own moral code.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not."

are you open to the fact other peoples truths may be different?....because in that case what is right for you might not be right for someone else... but that doesnt make them any more right or wrong than you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?"

And PS if you are referring to theistic _iews on this - as far as I understand it the law is not 'do not kill' but 'do no murder' - in other words do not take a life if it is unjust to do so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not."

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

No, I do not believe that to be true. You might feel it is right for you to become a mass-murderer, I say that's bullshit and I'm sticking to it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

Back to square one then, one moral code is as valid as any other no matter how abhorrent.

Wish I hadn't mentioned the Nihilism, just inspired you..lol

hehehe you would have had to have been in the 3rd party independant state to know what it was... otherwise how would you know noone can reach it... and in which you contradict yourself by being there yourself.

hehe welcome to the paradox that is duality

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

No, I do not believe that to be true. You might feel it is right for you to become a mass-murderer, I say that's bullshit and I'm sticking to it!

im not saying you are wrong... or right... your perspective is your perspective... but unless you have been in my shoes....

what if for example... all my life i had been abused by... i dont know...freckled kids... to the point where i had almost died each time... in my perspective for self defence purposes i may well consider genocide.

who is to say i'm wrong?... or are you saying i should ignore my instinctual need for self-preservation?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?"

I never said to kill or not was a moral absolute, I don't think it is for precisely that reason - it IS right to take down a gunman firing on the children, it's NOT right to open fire on a bunch of schoolkids. I don't think it matters a damn what our perception is - I say there are absolutes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

No, I do not believe that to be true. You might feel it is right for you to become a mass-murderer, I say that's bullshit and I'm sticking to it!

im not saying you are wrong... or right... your perspective is your perspective... but unless you have been in my shoes....

who is to say i'm wrong?... or are you saying i should ignore my instinctual need for self-preservation?"

In my opinion self-defence is one side of a moral absolute, genocide the other, I see no conflict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin."
but genocide and self defence can be the same thing....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se."

if a man trippe don the pavement... which was upturned due to an earthquake... and he knocked a ladder which caused a man to snap his neck... what is just?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se."

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin."

Sure, the question of what is right or wrong in any given circumstance can be complex and hard to perceive, but I would still contend that there is a truth to the matter - that even questions of balance can be weighed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

if a man trippe don the pavement... which was upturned due to an earthquake... and he knocked a ladder which caused a man to snap his neck... what is just?

There is no fault there anyway, it was accidental.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin.

What is truth if not a perception?... one persons truth is different to anothers... ask the muslims or buddhists what their truths are... can pretty much guarantee they'll be different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?"

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

if a man trippe don the pavement... which was upturned due to an earthquake... and he knocked a ladder which caused a man to snap his neck... what is just?

There is no fault there anyway, it was accidental.

hehe so you are saying that mans life isnt worth some form of justice? he's a lesser man? thats slightly immoral hahahaha

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?

with fact being based on belief....

if i believe the cat is alive... is my belief less viable than yours??... because this is where wars occur :P hehehehe"

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?

with fact being based on belief....

if i believe the cat is alive... is my belief less viable than yours??... because this is where wars occur :P hehehehe

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney"

we'll get around to it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin.

What is truth if not a perception?... one persons truth is different to anothers... ask the muslims or buddhists what their truths are... can pretty much guarantee they'll be different.

I believe truth and perception are entirely different, one is finite, the other infinitely variable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation."

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

if a man trippe don the pavement... which was upturned due to an earthquake... and he knocked a ladder which caused a man to snap his neck... what is just?

There is no fault there anyway, it was accidental.

hehe so you are saying that mans life isnt worth some form of justice? he's a lesser man? thats slightly immoral hahahaha"

It's not a question of worth, it's a question of culpability.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think there are moral absolutes, yes.

I believe interpretations of moral questions are modified according to society and experience, and sometimes even lost in the process - but the absolutes remain.

What is the source of the absolutes?

Well, you could simply call them a law of the universe. I believe there is spiritual law as real as any law of physics.

So a theist source of moral absolutes then?

If I kill someone through self defence is that immoral. If I kill someone and that prevents them killing many others is that immoral?

I don't think it necessarily need be a theistic idea - whether the laws were set in place by an entity or just came to be via some cosmic bang is not prescriptive I don't think.

The point I would make is there IS a truth of the matter whether I can perceive it or not.

Where did the Truth come from? Also if in some circumstances it is right to kill and others it is wrong to kill then it surely cannot be a moral absolute, as what you are describing is contextual?

whether brainwashed or not... would you risk the lives of 100's of innocent people.. because of your morals?

there is always another side to the coin.

What is truth if not a perception?... one persons truth is different to anothers... ask the muslims or buddhists what their truths are... can pretty much guarantee they'll be different.

I believe truth and perception are entirely different, one is finite, the other infinitely variable."

how can you know the truth if you are limited by your beliefs and experiences?... they act as filters detracting from the truth...

the truth is in this case... infinite possibility...as i mentioned earlier...everything is a viable possibility noone gets scolded by a higher power (other than man made) for immoral actions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?"

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

how can you know the truth if you are limited by your beliefs and experiences?... they act as filters detracting from the truth...

Indeed they do. I would suggest we must find ways to perceive beyond them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed."

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?"

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge."

The spirit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge."

I like this...

If change is the only constant in life other than an inevitable end to a circle... then experiences hold lessons for us.

Whilst i don't expect people to agree i belief our energies are innate.. and our bodies act as vessels of which to learn a particular set of lessons in. for example if i needed experience of being a wealthy upperclass snob... id be born into a privileged family where said experiences would be more likely to occur than say... a teapot.

the awareness of oneself passes from body to body over lifetimes on a quest to re remember our full potentials. ( if we are a binary code... the programming for our potential lies dormant ready to be activated, meaning we already are 'everything' and 'nothing'

makes me laugh when people say i'm not bitchy or i'm not this or that... we all have the aptitude to be everything...we all have every facet within ourselves... you just may not be aware of it...or you have acknowledged you are that...you just choose not to show it.

''everything is possible''

''own it''

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge.

The spirit?"

Yup. We are spiritual animals as well as physical ones.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge.

The spirit?

Yup. We are spiritual animals as well as physical ones."

If we are spiritual beings, is the spirit where the moral absolutes come from?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney"

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As I've said before... my own morality is largely informed by the people I've met who have insilled in me the ethic of striving to be a man of integrity and moral judgement. Among those people is God, who's extreme love, forgiveness and empathy have utterly humbled me. Thus, when I act in life... I often think "what would God think of me if God could see me now?" and that is what motivates me to be more moral... not any fear of hell or other commandments that I "should" act moral. This person needn't be God, however, it could simply be someone that you hold in high regard as a leading moral figure... if you think "what would person X think of me if they could see me now?" it urges you to want to act more morally.. and through doing so your morality becomes contagious.. causing others to perhaps think of being more moral themselves.

In this sense I believe that morality is utterly relative in that we anchor it only in the best and worst people we know... in who we aspire to be. I often think that people become less moral when they fail themselves and those they look up to... this causes them to give up for a while... with any luck you can inspire them to get back on the bike and start being moral again.

My own nuance to this, however, is that God's eternal existence and God's extreme goodness provides an objective anchor in all this relativity... it is still all relative... but in relation to an anchor that is eternal and unfluctuating. What this means is that someone who has had no contact with other nice humans, perhaps in a tribe that practices terrible deeds... they can still have a revelatory vision of God and come to realise the shame of their behaviours.

Where I disagree with the Faiths is in the idea that God has a fixed set of moral answers to certain life situations... such as homosexuality being immoral and other such nonsense. For me, this is simplistic paint by numbers nonsense. Instead, God only ever inspires our own sense of morality towards improving and striving to become the epitome of goodness.

That's my take... not trying to smash god over everyone's head... just being honest about how I see it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

I personally believe that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs. I believe we all have the ability to judge these things inherently built into us.

So for me morality and morals are not relative but absolute. That does not mean that mitigation and circumstances can not change what is morally right or wrong but it does mean that if something is morally right or wrong, taking all into consideration, it remains at that moral state imperturbably.

I do not go along with the moral equivocation that says it's OK because everyone one else is doing it or they did it to me or if I don't do it first then someone else will.

The right thing to do is always the right thing to do and was always the right thong to do. What is wrong always was wrong and will always remain wrong.

Of course the real difficulty is deciding what really is right and wrong in the first place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I think you both missed the point I made originally - the moral absolute I would suggest is likely to be more about JUSTICE, than taking a life per se.

Ok how do we discover these moral absolutes?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, we all 'see through a glass dimly' even after much study and contemplation.

So you say we discover them or not through inquiry and learning lessons from our experiences?

That may be one way for sure, it will depend on the individual I suspect. We also do have some innate knowledge I believe, though that can be lost/supressed/destroyed.

Oooh how did the innate knowledge get there?

Haha, it didn't have to 'get there' - it is innate!!

I believe we are conceived with it as part of the spirit to some extent, an intuitive knowledge.

The spirit?

Yup. We are spiritual animals as well as physical ones.

If we are spiritual beings, is the spirit where the moral absolutes come from?"

It depends in what sense you mean that, but they are indeed spiritual principles.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"As I've said before... my own morality is largely informed by the people I've met who have insilled in me the ethic of striving to be a man of integrity and moral judgement. Among those people is God, who's extreme love, forgiveness and empathy have utterly humbled me. Thus, when I act in life... I often think "what would God think of me if God could see me now?" and that is what motivates me to be more moral... not any fear of hell or other commandments that I "should" act moral. This person needn't be God, however, it could simply be someone that you hold in high regard as a leading moral figure... if you think "what would person X think of me if they could see me now?" it urges you to want to act more morally.. and through doing so your morality becomes contagious.. causing others to perhaps think of being more moral themselves.

That's my take... not trying to smash god over everyone's head... just being honest about how I see it

A very interesting perspective.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)"

'I think, therefore I am' is a fact. X = X is a fact. If you drop an apple it will fall to the ground is a fact. So there are some facts that are self-evidently true and do not require any form of belief. However, these are very very much in the minority. Instead, the vast wealth of science's facts are always up for being shown wrong should new evidence come along. Thus, they are not true in the standard sense... but provisional and hopeful assertions.

Most facts are based on beliefs. If you want to live your life only on facts that aren't based on beliefs... then you should probably lock the door, stay at home and do nothing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

2+2 =5 ... prove me wrong? its commonly agreed concepts that make the general answer 4.

hence all science is founded on belief... so science is as viable as religion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)"

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

If an argument is going to be raised that this was an undiscovered (then a discovered) "truth" then that is just a shit definition of the word "fact", introducing an academic semantic distinction which has no part in the value or validity of the point which was being made using the word "fact".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)"

I have completely lost tract of this thread since I went shopping!! Love the discussions though

But no. Plato said KNOWLEDGE is justified true belief...not fact. But even that definition is contentious. Other people have differing opinions.

Continue on with the lovely discussion

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

i will save post on this thread and counteract any suggestion with the words...

''But thats your perception... how can you possibly know what anyone else see's/believes/is right to them. (delete as appropriate)

therefore facts cannot exist, science cannot exist... the ultimate truth cannot be witnessed in the eyes of a human being due to filters and preconceptions.

all we know logically is every option is logical... and viable no matter the probability and cannot be dismissed.''

been a pleasure all nice to have such a conversation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i will save post on this thread and counteract any suggestion with the words...

''But thats your perception... how can you possibly know what anyone else see's/believes/is right to them. (delete as appropriate)

therefore facts cannot exist, science cannot exist... the ultimate truth cannot be witnessed in the eyes of a human being due to filters and preconceptions.

all we know logically is every option is logical... and viable no matter the probability and cannot be dismissed.''

been a pleasure all nice to have such a conversation.

Of course... Everything is a dream.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"i will save post on this thread and counteract any suggestion with the words...

''But thats your perception... how can you possibly know what anyone else see's/believes/is right to them. (delete as appropriate)

therefore facts cannot exist, science cannot exist... the ultimate truth cannot be witnessed in the eyes of a human being due to filters and preconceptions.

all we know logically is every option is logical... and viable no matter the probability and cannot be dismissed.''

been a pleasure all nice to have such a conversation.

Of course... Everything is a dream.

Oh no! Even my dreams are rubbish!

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Morality to me is all about how I feel about the things. If I feel that I wont feel good about it, I won't do it as it would be morally wrong for me. For me, morals are personal and non judgemental. "

The first answer and one I completely agree with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"2+2 =5 ... prove me wrong? its commonly agreed concepts that make the general answer 4.

hence all science is founded on belief... so science is as viable as religion.

Not sure that's a good example. Maths, and in particular arithmetic, is one of the few things that is actually universally constant. The only way 2 + 2 could equal 5 is if we changed the meaning of the symbol 5 or 2. We cannot change the absolutely constant fact that the value 2 represents when added to itself will always equal the value represented by the symbol 4.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtyGirlWoman over a year ago

Edinburgh

"My morals are influenced by (but not dictated by) my upbringing which includes religion and the law, but also my experiences and they have changed and evolved over time.

They are MY morals. I do not believe in morality as an objective, universal standpoint.

I've been saving this thread cause I've been too busy to give it my full attention but this pretty much covers my _iew (although I've not read further down yet so I may come back and add more).

My morals have initially come from my parents and whilst they've grown on their own due to the experiences I've had throughout my life I think they continue to grow as I do. I agree that it's a very personal thing because I'm way more liberal than the rest of my family so I think mine are now quite different to those of my parents. The fundamentals like the difference between right and wrong in terms of legalities are pretty black and white for me but the rest comes from inside. I know that I'm a decent person and I try not to judge, I think we're all so different and have different standards of what's morally right for us. I don't think it's a topic that can have a straightforward answer to it because the question isn't straightforward. It's interesting though. Very.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A fact is an item of knowledge. It cannot exist independent of the human mind. Phenomena exist... but they are not facts. They only become facts when we come to think of them as such.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Of course... Everything is a dream."

What a ridiculous assertion... isn't it obvious that everything is just a 2 dimensional hologram that exists on the rim of a black hole

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply...."

That's fine because he agrees with me now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"A fact is an item of knowledge. It cannot exist independent of the human mind. Phenomena exist... but they are not facts. They only become facts when we come to think of them as such."

No...you are confusing ontological facts with epistemological facts. If all human minds ceased to exist (or ALL animal minds for that matter) things would still exist. Things would still be.

If you disagree with this, then we have deeper disagreements than just morality. Which is fine....but not the point of the thread and also it still doesn't negate the difference between ontology and epistemology.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply...."

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs"

You're mixing up knowledge and facts again. The argument relating to justified true beliefs in epistemology (attributed to Plato) related to knowledge not facts....but you keep saying facts are justified true beliefs, which is not so.

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't. "

There is no such thing as a fact, just useful theories that are yet to be disconfirmed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't. "

I don't think so.

Your original comment was on facts yes?

And how you think belief plays no role in facts.

Unless you have some facts none of us know about? Maybe you could give me an example of a fact, that's not an example of our knowledge?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nFairnessMan over a year ago

The Four Corners

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't.

There is no such thing as a fact, just useful theories that are yet to be disconfirmed

i like this guy :P

no way of confirming anything unless we figure a way to allow 2 people to go through the exact same experiences with the same beliefs and eveerything else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't.

There is no such thing as a fact, just useful theories that are yet to be disconfirmed

i like this guy :P

no way of confirming anything unless we figure a way to allow 2 people to go through the exact same experiences with the same beliefs and eveerything else."

I agree on this point too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A fact is an item of knowledge. It cannot exist independent of the human mind. Phenomena exist... but they are not facts. They only become facts when we come to think of them as such.

No...you are confusing ontological facts with epistemological facts. If all human minds ceased to exist (or ALL animal minds for that matter) things would still exist. Things would still be.

-Courtney"

As I stated... phenomena exist independent of the human mind i.e. if humans ceased to be things would still exist... but facts wouldn't. Facts are items of knowledge

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I disagree that facts are based on belief. I fundamentally disagree with this.

However, that is for another thread and I have to go grocery shopping. Maybe we can discuss over drinks of we ever meet

-Courtney

Hi Courtney,

Knowledge (facts) is technically defined ,epistemologically, as a

- justified

-true.

- belief.

Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)

Surely the planets revolving around the sun was an undiscovered fact before it was realised (believed).

It was a fact before it was known.

Yes the sun example is correct, it existed as a fact before it was known. The 'belief the sun circled the earth , was never a fact- wasn't true and there was no justification for the belief

so there are

1) facts about which we have knowledge (known knows).

2) facts about which we have no knowledge . (Known unknowns)

3) unknown facts about which we have no knowledge ( unknown unknowns ).

As for a fact being shitty cos it needs to be true.

Well a fact is a proposition , all propositions are either true or untrue.

Do you realize in your very answer you necessitate that facts and knowledge are different? This goes completely adverse to your earlier comments equating knowledge with fact.

They are different....so the definition you have given for knowledge (which is contentious in itself) is inconsistent with this reply....

Hi, my earlier comment was on knowledge, not facts.

Of course knowledge (what we know) is a subset of facts, cos there will be some facts about which we know nothing .

But all the facts that we do know - are all true justified beliefs

And earlier you said..."Has to be all 3 things, or it's not a piece of knowledge (fact)" as if knowledge and fact are one and the same...which they aren't.

I don't think so.

Your original comment was on facts yes?

And how you think belief plays no role in facts.

Unless you have some facts none of us know about? Maybe you could give me an example of a fact, that's not an example of our knowledge?"

I never said belief plays no part in facts....I said that facts aren't based on beliefs. But in any case, I would argue that ontological facts, facts regarding being, exist apart from our belief of their existence.

Knowledge on the other hand, which is the definition you gave when I was talking about facts, does rely on beliefs.

But this doesn't address the original issue regarding morality, so it has really been a long endnote....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

There is a similarly outraged response from a perp in the 'veris' thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

(Sorry if this repeats anything above, too much wine for deep thought

)

I believe morals are the standards by which we live our lives. Initially we are given them by our parents, our religion or society, but we adapt them to our own experiences. We use them to judge ourselves, and berate ourselves when we fail to meet their standards. Problems only really arise when we try to judge other people to our set of standards, in effect saying that our standards are better than theirs, when really they are just different. Who knows, if we had lived thier life, in their shoes, maybe our own morals would be different.

I have moved swiftly from "sex is only permissible when in a loving, married relationship, and even then solely for the procreation of children" to "Wahey! Let's get jiggy". Amazingly the sky didn't fall in, and it makes you realise how 'morals' have often been used as a form of control in the past.

Mr ddc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But this doesn't address the original issue regarding morality, so it has really been a long endnote...."

Good to discuss

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just enjoyed reading back throuh everyone's responses to this. I'm agnostic on the existence of the material universe so it was fun reading some of that stuff... even though it got a little tongue tied in places.

One word which someone mentioned earlier got me thinking... "empathy". It strikes me that morality finds its basis in our raw consciousness i.e. in our ability to empathise. It is one thing to question whether morality is objective and universal... but it is a much more complex question to ask if empathy is objective and universal. For a start... all of our science is predicated upon our ability to empathise with a 3rd person perspective. So.. if we believe that this empathy is only relative or culturally defined then that casts doubt on the whole notion of objectivity and scientific fact. This, in a strange sense, leads us back to how this thread ended lol.

So I would argue that the basis of morality is empathy. That, whilst morality is relative and culturally shaped... empathy is not. Thus in nazi Germany there may have been a morality that made killing jews ok... but our empathy, if awoken, would know instinctually that this was immoral.

Just some closing thoughts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etzPlayCouple over a year ago

Southend

can we get to 175 so this post ends please xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

But this doesn't address the original issue regarding morality, so it has really been a long endnote....

Good to discuss

Yes, and thanks for the discussion!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"can we get to 175 so this post ends please xx"

Well, thanks for that. I thought it was going well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"can we get to 175 so this post ends please xx

Well, thanks for that. I thought it was going well.

I've enjoyed both of your morality threads. Thanks Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etzPlayCouple over a year ago

Southend

"can we get to 175 so this post ends please xx

Well, thanks for that. I thought it was going well.

Yeah but your an American with a Law Degree (american) who is based in Leeds, doesn't add up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"(Sorry if this repeats anything above, too much wine for deep thought

)

Mr ddc"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Things only exist if you place your attention on them.

got sidetracked on this point...

Noone on this forum existed until i acknowledged fabsswingers on google... in my world...seeing as that's the only perspective i have that's perfectly viable.

If you place your attention on the positive in something... its a good thing....

If you place your attention on the negative...it's a bad thing.... everything has the ability to be both.

Which do you choose, and how does that reflect in your life?

The external is a reflection of the internal.

If your messy inside... your life will be messy on the outside.

if you are stable and happy on the inside...youll be the same on the outside.

The cat is dead when the poison is released, whether we see it or not. So I disagree. But thanks for your insight and opinion! Rather fascinating to hear such a different point of _iew.

-Courtney

I would argue that is an assumption. if the poison was for an example an edible form... how can you be sure that the cats instincts warn it away from the poison?....

Or that when the gas released it malfunctions?

or that the cat died from a heart attack due to the stress before any poison could be eaten?

or that a 22 year old snuck into the room and whisked the cat away whilsyt you werent looking :P

my point is these are all viable possibilities that you would consider improbable... BUT they are all viable... so there is no definitive answer.

Assuming the facts are true (the ontological facts - that there is a cat, that gas is released, that the cat is still in the box) then the cat is dead, but unobserved.

I love animals, but the cat is dead. I know it's hard to accept.

what is fact dear? if not a series of collaborated belief?

I have a collaborated belief that you couldn't build me a perpetual motion machine

grab two magnets... put them below freezing temperature... this will turn them monopolar.... grab a small coil of copper wire

hammer two nails into a board with notches in them about 2 inches up.... secure the monopolar magnet underneath...

set the coil across the two nails and lightly flick it.

voila

Lol..Priceless..a Dragons Den pitch for you ....Laws of Thermodynamics pah!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Your values are taught to you when your young and intially your beliefs too. As you get older you form others based on your experiences these may change ot build on original ones.

Values beliefs and experinces are the cardboard and glue that create your moral box.

Your moral box is just your way of _iewing and dealing with the world.

Not everyone's box is the same and thats fine but some people cant see the cardboard for what it is...and therefore think there in the box of black and white that judges all the other colourful boxes.

with me?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Thanks everyone for a great discussion!!

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)