You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Moral Truth is the Foundation and Measure of True Unity
Except that's not how things work at all. Look up a monkey being able to recall 20 numbers on a screen after being flashed for 1 second and do it with 100% accuracy, in order. Your story of faulty receptors is intellectually lazy, and it still doesn't explain how everyone can recognize what theft, murder, rape, and all another kind of bad things, yet at the same time not really because it's all interpretive and not readily, instantly recognized.
It all depends on the level of abstraction you decide your perception lives in. You say theft is objective? Even legislative definition of theft differs by country. Is taking a life jacket from a parked private yaht to save someone's life a theft or an act of courage and good will? Is taking from the rich and giving to hungry theft or act of courage and good will? Is rape always bad? What if there's only one woman left on earth and one man and she doesn't want to have sex? Will rape be perceived as bad or as an act of greatness to save the humanity? It's all just hypothetical and only to show that there's no objective good or bad, there's no objective morality. It's all subjective and what's good for one being is bad for another.
Theft isn't legislated, and the law recognizes the difference between necessity and theft, as do animals.
You're threading a flimsy line of thought: do the means justify the ends. They don't. It's objective, what is necessary and what isn't, equally what Theft, Murder, Rape is, is never for interpretation. Whether it is good or bad or whether justified or not peope will recognize readily.
Sorry, I can't agree with you at all. The theft can't be objective because even ownership isn't objective. You'd first need to have the ownership recognized objectively to even consider a theft (taking the ownership away without permission). Are you sure the house you paid for belong to yourself, or maybe it belong to the worms who occupy the land it's built on for generations? Anyway, I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion. It's always good to share different points of view. BTW, there would be no discussions needed or even existing if the 'morality' would be objective, there would be nothing to discuss, ever.
You're dissecting it into individual abstractions when it requires simple discernment of "Necessary vs Unnecessary" and arguing that because it doesn't resemble that it's not something that is evident in nature readily, trying to reason away, without much reasoning, how everything Recognizes the same things, whether something is Necessary and whether something is Unnecessary.
Because there's a universal recognition of things, albeit not sufficiently explicit for your tastes, there is no discussion since everyone is in agreement about what dirt, air and water are, or what is good and what is bad, what is necessary and what is needless.
I find it odd that abstractions are needed as to who the Sovereign of this planet are, worms built the Giza Water Pump.
http://sentinelkennels.com/Research_Article_V41.html