24
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 04:16 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Your understanding of my words doesn't accurately reflect my intent or how I think. That may be because of how you read, how I write, or some combination. Either way, I am clarifying now that there was miscommunication, so stop bickering about it.
There's very good reason to 'bicker' - you use words (material loss) that everyone else in common writings understands to mean property/wealth loss (so causes confusion)....then outright call children property (which should be challenged)...then say death too is material (which further confuses the conversation -see next)

The material loss of the body is suffered by the person who died. Your original statement was about Job suffering material loss - so Job cannot suffer the material loss - it was suffered by those associated with him. As a further objection, the death of a person should never be described as a material loss.

So what Job suffered was the earthly loss of their souls / their company / their minds / their connection to him, and the work they did for him (which last is material but no where near as important as the deaths)...but the deaths were suffered by his associates. Which you ignore, or confuse as material loss (in your words, death of the body) suffered by Job.

So the confusion is in your writing.

Quote:
Feminism has criticized the notion that marital partners are each other's 'property,' yet that is exactly what marriage as an institution does, i.e. make people who are not blood relatives 'proper' family to each other
Che? Children are connected to Parents, and spouses are committed to each other. Neither is the property of the other. Children have less legal rights, but they most certainly are not property. Neither are spouses.

Do you actually believe this ugliness?

Do you not see where the belief in 'you're my property' so often leads?

Have a look at the evils that were committed against spouses or dependents, and you will find at the heart that the perpetrator so often believed them to be property, and treated them as such.

Quote:
Idk. All I know is that it is difficult to communicate clearly with you. Maybe there are other people than me that can communicate with you more clearly. Idk.

As I previously mentioned - your difficulty is that you have an end assumption (X), and when faced with a problem (A), your question is 'how do I get from this problem (A) to X?'

If you can't logically go from A to X (and you really want to reach X), then the only way is to employ double standards, false comparison, diversion, superficial cover, etc.

It's difficult for you because I am used to seeing those tactics, and can explain their use (the wordiness you accuse me of employing due to some nefarious motivation), and the problems caused by them.

It may help you to know that I used to be Christian. I used to have blinkers. But my parents also taught me about principles and self responsibility...and deep down, I always wanted to know why I believed what I believed. That lead down a long path of finding the inconsistencies in my own beliefs, identifying the rationalisations I used, the reasons for my beliefs...and consequently, having found through hard work the flaws in my own beliefs....it's easy to see when others employ the same flawed processes.

What I've asked of you - I've similarly asked of myself.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 04:22 pm
@vikorr,
Well stated; I, myself, went through almost the same process.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 04:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Hi CI, thank you.

As a note, although we haven't always seen eye to eye - I've always considered you a very thoughtful person. That is to say, if it doesn't come across in my writings, I enjoy reading a lot of what you write.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 05:13 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
There's very good reason to 'bicker' - you use words (material loss) that everyone else in common writings understands to mean property/wealth loss (so causes confusion)....then outright call children property (which should be challenged)...then say death too is material (which further confuses the conversation -see next)

You're bickering with a strawman; a very life-like strawman but a strawman nonetheless.

Quote:
The material loss of the body is suffered by the person who died. Your original statement was about Job suffering material loss - so Job cannot suffer the material loss - it was suffered by those associated with him. As a further objection, the death of a person should never be described as a material loss.

The material loss of death, whether a person losing their own body or losing the living bodies of loved ones, is a material loss because the spirit of the person isn't lost with death. You still have the person's spirit within yourself, your memory and heart. That person's soul also lives on after their body dies.

The body is the material part of the embodied soul. There is also the life-energy part, which has eternal life.

Quote:
So what Job suffered was the earthly loss of their souls / their company / their minds / their connection to him, and the work they did for him (which last is material but no where near as important as the deaths)...but the deaths were suffered by his associates. Which you ignore, or confuse as material loss (in your words, death of the body) suffered by Job.

Let's say you have a CD that you love. You played the CD so many times, you know it by heart. Then the CD breaks and you can't play it anymore, but it served the purpose of transferring its data into your memory. You now have a copy of the CD's music within you, so that music lives on within you and everywhere else it made an imprint.

Quote:
So the confusion is in your writing.

I understand it's important for your ego to place the blame completely on me, but it's your biased subjectivity doing that instead of looking at the full reality of how miscommunication works.

Quote:
Quote:
Feminism has criticized the notion that marital partners are each other's 'property,' yet that is exactly what marriage as an institution does, i.e. make people who are not blood relatives 'proper' family to each other
Che? Children are connected to Parents, and spouses are committed to each other. Neither is the property of the other. Children have less legal rights, but they most certainly are not property. Neither are spouses.

You still haven't fully analyzed the meaning of the word, 'property' in your mind. You subjectively interpret it in terms of a status difference between living things and objects, or people and animals. It really only ultimately refers to things that belong together, i.e. that are 'proper' together.

Quote:
Do you actually believe this ugliness?

Lucifer is the lord of beauty and pride. You putting this in aesthetic terms of 'ugliness' gives away your paradigm for thought being aesthetic instead of functional.

Quote:
Do you not see where the belief in 'you're my property' so often leads?

I know where it can lead, and I know why it doesn't have to lead there.

Quote:
Have a look at the evils that were committed against spouses or dependents, and you will find at the heart that the perpetrator so often believed them to be property, and treated them as such.

Evil is also perpetrated against people because they regard others as belonging to a separate group/category/family from themselves. Are you unaware of that?
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 06:25 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You're bickering with a strawman; a very life-like strawman but a strawman nonetheless.
It's very easy to make claim without a shred of articulation to back it up....hence I've done the courtesy of explaining every criticism I've made of your writing.

Please return the same courtesy.

Quote:
The material loss of death, whether a person losing their own body or losing the living bodies of loved ones, is a material loss because the spirit of the person isn't lost with death. You still have the person's spirit within yourself, your memory and heart. That person's soul also lives on after their body dies.

The body is the material part of the embodied soul. There is also the life-energy part, which has eternal life.
No drama there - except it doesn't appear to add anything to the context of our conversation, so what's your point.

The context, as I seem to be frequently reminding you, which relates to your claim that the story of Job was only about his material loss, and his reaction to it, then my statement that the story also included the deaths of numerous people, then your statement that death was the material loss of the body, then my statement that 'uh, Job didn't suffer the material loss of the body, so it wasn't his material loss'.

Quote:
Let's say you have a CD that you love. You played the CD so many times, you know it by heart. Then the CD breaks and you can't play it anymore, but it served the purpose of transferring its data into your memory. You now have a copy of the CD's music within you, so that music lives on within you and everywhere else it made an imprint.
An example, in context, that doesn't explain where it's going, or what it's explaining?
Quote:
I understand it's important for your ego to place the blame completely on me, but it's your biased subjectivity doing that instead of looking at the full reality of how miscommunication works.
Projecting?

I explained why each part of your writing created confusion.

Quote:
You still haven't fully analyzed the meaning of the word, 'property' in your mind. You subjectively interpret it in terms of a status difference between living things and objects, or people and animals. It really only ultimately refers to things that belong together, i.e. that are 'proper' together.
You won't find this 'definition' anywhere in common writing. You want to stick with this, and wonder why such writing on your part causes confusion?

Quote:
Lucifer is the lord of beauty and pride. You putting this in aesthetic terms of 'ugliness' gives away your paradigm for thought being aesthetic instead of functional.
Interpreting things for your own benefit now I see.

Ugly in context is synonymous with:
- dark
- corrupt
- evil
- degrading
- etc

Quote:
I know where it can lead, and I know why it doesn't have to lead there.
Does the ideology of a human being property contribute to good as well? Care to explain how?

Quote:
Evil is also perpetrated against people because they regard others as belonging to a separate group/category/family from themselves. Are you unaware of that?
Very aware that there are many reason for committing evil. Certainly I don't need to talk about all the ideologies behind evil actions, or the motivations for evil, when the topic is a specific one. So why the nonsense question?

Thinking about it, I am not at all surprised that you find such conversations very uncomfortable. Even in the days that I attended church, I don't recall ever encountering someone with as many blinkers as you. In all likelihood, out there in the real world, you have a lot of things that are quite likeable. That is to say, this butting of heads is unfortunate. Still, such blindness, particularly when put into writing, should be challenged.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 06:27 pm
@vikorr,
I guess I've always been the "yellow" sheep in my family, and have disagreements with them on religion and politics. They are all christians, and I'm an atheist married to a buddhist. My religion is science and logic: At least that's what I like to believe. I'm open to any criticism of my opinions, and I try to honestly respond to them. I have no patience for racism and liars. Morals is a work in progress even for democracies. I remember a time (during WWII) when our government put us Japanese Americans into concentration camps without being charged with any crime. During that same period, Japanese Americans who volunteered into the 442nd Infantry Battalion were the most decorated unit in history. Racism raised its ugly head again with the election of Donald Trump who called Mexicans "criminals and rapists," and wanted to "ban all Muslims from entering our country." It's rather sad when we're supposed to be a country of equality, and "all men are created equal."
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 06:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They are all christians, and I'm an atheist married to a buddhist.
Does that ever cause any dramas? I'm curious, because I know very little about buddhism, and I'm lead to believe there are different types of it (some very peaceful, almost a way of life, and others more militant). My presumption is that you married a woman for whom buddhism is a way of life.

Quote:
My religion is science and logic: At least that's what I like to believe
I actually like the idea of God, though it doesn't bother me if he/she doesn't exist.

My 'religion' would be of self growth, which can only be achieved through taking self-responsibility for every aspect of who I am. In doing so, I found the only way to grow is through finding the consistent principles in life and living by them (finding the consistent principles, also means constantly testing them, and not ignoring inconsistencies). It also meant understanding the difference between personal responsibility, and contributing circumstances. The extension of that growth to social connections is a lot more complicated. In that journey, I discovered the affects of personal ideologies. This paragraph in a nutshell, is why I post in relation to ideologies a lot, Livings included.

Science falls under my personal 'religion', but it isn't the primary focus, for me.

Quote:
I have no patience for racism and liars. Morals is a work in progress even for democracies. I remember a time (during WWII) when our government put us Japanese Americans into concentration camps without being charged with any crime. During that same period, Japanese Americans who volunteered into the 442nd Infantry Battalion were the most decorated unit in history. Racism raised its ugly head again with the election of Donald Trump who called Mexicans "criminals and rapists," and wanted to "ban all Muslims from entering our country." It's rather sad when we're supposed to be a country of equality, and "all men are created equal."
One of the things I admire about a lot of your writings, is knowledge you have gathered an integrated into your life from your personal history, WW2 and your travels included.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 08:59 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Does the ideology of a human being property contribute to good as well? Care to explain how?

It can indeed. Do you put extra effort into caring for your own body and welfare compared with that of others? Your body is your property and like other property that is yours, you take better care for it than property that belongs to other people.

Quote:
Quote:
Evil is also perpetrated against people because they regard others as belonging to a separate group/category/family from themselves. Are you unaware of that?
Very aware that there are many reason for committing evil. Certainly I don't need to talk about all the ideologies behind evil actions, or the motivations for evil, when the topic is a specific one. So why the nonsense question?

The point you are basically ignoring in your response after quoting it is extremely important; so the fact that you ignore it tells me there is so little point in engaging in discussion with you. Some people want to debate without even giving full consideration to what they're debating against, and you seem to be such a person.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 11:39 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Your original statement was about Job suffering material loss - so Job cannot suffer the material loss - it was suffered by those associated with him. As a further objection, the death of a person should never be described as a material loss.


According to Peter Cook's Devil in Bedazzled Job was a loony.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:14 am
@livinglava,
vikorr wrote:
Does the ideology of a human being property contribute to good as well? Care to explain how?


Livinglava wrote:
It can indeed. Do you put extra effort into caring for your own body and welfare compared with that of others? Your body is your property and like other property that is yours, you take better care for it than property that belongs to other people.
And yet again you remove conversation from its context. The context here, is of one human being the property of another. In other words, the full wording, which in context shouldn't be needed is:

Does the ideology of a human being the property of another human contribute to good as well? Care to explain how?

That italicised paragraph, in full, is what what we were discussing. Honest people have no need to keep removing conversation from context. Dishonest people do.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:25 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
The point you are basically ignoring in your response after quoting it is extremely important
It is extremely important if your intent is to divert the conversation away from looking at what I criticised you for, and what I asked you to justify.

Even your premise is nonsense:
- we are discussing an extremely specific statement regarding people viewing other people as property, and no good comes from it
- you say 'you have consider everything else that contributes to evil'
- I say 'other causes exist but aren't relevant to whether or not good comes of someone viewing others as property'
- you accuse me of ignoring things...

...absolute nonsense. Are you sick?
Quote:
Some people want to debate without even giving full consideration to what they're debating against


Staying true to context is not ignoring other contexts that weren't in contention - it is staying true to context.

If you would like to discuss other contexts after we finished this one, I am more than happy to do so. But you still have not justified your statement that people are property. You have claimed that good comes of this view (as you seem to have immense trouble with context - in the story of Job, you have claimed that children are the property of their parents, and wives are the property of their husband) - so how about we finish one conversation at a time, and you back up that claim.

Or are you going to try yet another dishonest diversion, to avoid answering the question?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:30 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Does the ideology of a human being property contribute to good as well? Care to explain how?

Livinglava wrote:
It can indeed. Do you put extra effort into caring for your own body and welfare compared with that of others? Your body is your property and like other property that is yours, you take better care for it than property that belongs to other people.
And yet again you remove conversation from its context. The context here, is of one human being the property of another. In other words, the full wording, which in context shouldn't be needed is:

Extension of self-identification is probably the most common reason people contribute to the well-being of others. Family members are identified as more like oneself than members of other family. In fact, group 'belonging' in general is a form of property-ownership, where membership in the group is viewed like being part of a common body, which cares for itself the way an individual cares for his/her own body for the benefit of the mind & soul.

Of course it doesn't make sense to treat some people better than others because you view them as your property more than others for whatever reason, but that is the culture of ego/identity, where the world is divided up into self and other. Of course there is the possibility of rising above ego and treating all humans and even all living (and non-living) things as brothers and sisters within the same creation under the same heavenly father; but most people get stuck in the self-vs.-other paradigm where inclusion defines people and things as property and exclusion defines them as someone else's property/problem.

Quote:

That italicised paragraph, in full, is what what we were discussing. Honest people have no need to keep removing conversation from context. Dishonest people do.

Dishonest people can avoid honesty by insisting on narrow interpretations and rejecting others that elucidate the faults in the narrower ones.

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:30 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
According to Peter Cook's Devil in Bedazzled Job was a loony.
My view is each to their own if it isn't hurting others....hence my objection to the bet between God and Satan.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:41 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
In fact, group 'belonging' in general is a form of property-ownership
Now you're just making things up.

Quote:
where membership in the group is viewed like being part of a common body, which cares for itself the way an individual cares for his/her own body for the benefit of the mind & soul
which is not viewing others as your own property. It's called social connection.

Quote:
Dishonest people can avoid honesty by insisting on narrow interpretations and rejecting others that elucidate the faults in the narrower ones.
So very true...it depends on the context of the conversation...it's amazing how you can say this while trying to divert from answering a simple question.

In fact, no where in your response did you actually answer the question put to you. Here's your mentions of property

Quote:
In fact, group 'belonging' in general is a form of property-ownership
Which it is not. It is social connection.

Quote:
but most people get stuck in the self-vs.-other paradigm where inclusion defines people and things as property and exclusion defines them as someone else's property/problem.
Which makes very little sense, but appears to be a criticism of viewing others as property.

So, can you point out any good that comes from viewing others as property?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:41 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
According to Peter Cook's Devil in Bedazzled Job was a loony.
My view is each to their own if it isn't hurting others....hence my objection to the bet between God and Satan.

The story of Job isn't meant to put forth God and Satan as role models for human behavior.

It is a story that personifies forces of good and evil to help people make sense of how to deal with good and bad things that happen to them.

Job is tested to see if he is only faithful to God because of his good fortune and blessings he receives.

The general point is that there are people who only love others as long as they are benefiting from them; but when times get tough, their love abates.

Instead of cursing God for his misfortune, Job remained faithful and it turned out he received even greater blessings as a result.

That is a lesson about the spiritual blessings that we receive when we don't curse God for misfortune that befalls us; misfortune that is inevitable because of the mixed nature of this fallen creation, which is not a pure paradise due to the presence of sin.

The devil's role in the story of Job personifies the negative forces that cause Job suffering and thus test his faith to God. In short, the story is saying that God is the creator of everything and thus also the interplay of good and evil within the creation; yet if we turn on him and curse him when bad befalls us, we only add to our own suffering; and that is exactly what Satan wants us to do because Satan wants us to worship him instead of God.

So when you say things like God is bad and a better God would not even allow suffering in the world at all, you are basically choosing Satan over God. For there to be free will, there has to be the possibility of sin and evil. Otherwise the world would be an inescapable paradise and our will to goodness would be meaningless because there would be no evil to resist in the pursuit of virtue and righteousness.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 05:44 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
The story of Job isn't meant to put forth God and Satan as role models for human behavior.
God shouldn't be a role model for human behaviour?

Quote:
It is a story that personifies forces of good
You mean God? Then why is he not meant to be a role model for human behaviour, if he's good, and wants us to be good?

Quote:
help people make sense of how to deal with good and bad things that happen to them.
No issue with this part of the story.

Glad to see you are steering away fro your claims that people are the property of others.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 06:04 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
The story of Job isn't meant to put forth God and Satan as role models for human behavior.
God shouldn't be a role model for human behaviour?

We are created in His image. So the struggles we go through resisting evil and choosing good are reflections of what He has gone through. E.g. God was tempted by fallen humanity before the flood to save the animals and let the humans drown, but then He realized that humans can't be perfect and the rainbow was given as a sign of forgiveness. From that story, we can learn to understand the dynamic interplay between allowing sin to destroy itself and forgiving sin because it's inevitable, but if you drowned your neighbors and cited God drowning people in the flood of Noah, that would not be a good interpretation of that story's purpose.

Quote:
It is a story that personifies forces of good
You mean God? Then why is he not meant to be a role model for human behaviour, if he's good, and wants us to be good?[/quote]
Good and evil exist outside of humans as well as within us. In the story of Job, forces of good and evil external to Job are personified as God and Satan.

Different stories convey meaning in different ways.

Quote:

Glad to see you are steering away fro your claims that people are the property of others.

Your thinking is too black and white. There are examples of how viewing people as property causes harm and others where it leads people into virtue. You have to understand all the nuances of what may at first seem contradictory to grasp the full complexity of reality.

You keep getting angry at God that everything doesn't fit into the narrow perspective you've developed, but that's not how reality works.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 06:14 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
Different stories convey meaning in different ways.
So don't do anything evil that he does, and do the good things he does.

Well, if that's the case we agree.

Quote:
There are examples of how viewing people as property causes harm and others where it leads people into virtue.
Not an example that you've yet provided, despite being asked multiple times.

Quote:
You keep getting angry at God
Projecting again?

You seem to be under the false assumption that criticising certain religious beliefs = being angry at God.

I'm saying that in your version of God, 'God' displays a number of examples of evil behaviour.

Quote:
that everything doesn't fit into the narrow perspective you've developed, but that's not how reality works.
Oh dear - says the man who starts with an ending, and tries to make everything fit into it.

Narrowness serves a purpose when a very specific statement has been said that is in dispute - discuss anything relevant to that statement, but not others. However, as you can't answer the questions put to you about your statement....you keep trying to divert the context to other topics...then keep claiming I'm ignoring those other topics (despite my offer that we discuss those after you actually answer the question put to you). It's very dishonest of you.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 May, 2019 06:22 am
@vikorr,
Hmmm. Like other topics with you, the time has come for me to start considering whether or not conversation is worthwhile with someone who:
- keeps removing conversation from context
- keeps avoiding answering questions
- keeps trying to divert attention away from his failure to answer questions

Last time we had a conversation, your dishonesty was just as blatant. Perhaps I just keep hoping you would actually grow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 09:57:37