A relatively absolute moral code

[chaz wyman]

Except that Eichmann cited Kant in his defence.
Discussed recently here

I've read Arendt book.
She is clear as anyone would be who has read Kant that he was talking out of his backside.
" He invoked "duty" in an effort to explain his own version of Kantianism. Arendt writes: "This was outrageous, on the face of it, and also incomprehensible, since Kant's moral philosophy is so closely bound up with man's faculty of judgment, which rules out blind obedience.""
The point she made was how easy it was made for him to become the monster we all wanted hum to be. Her argument is difficult to accept. I'd recommend Arendt on this question though. Systems are in place so that all of us can unwittingly participate in another's suffering, be that voting for our government that has condoned rendition and torture, or buying tea.
For Eichmann he saw his duty as obeying the needs of his government. The mechanism for suffering for him was reduced to simply moving lists of names from one column into the other. It was thus that working jews became gassed jews.

But treating Jews, gays, disabled, and gypsies as special cases flies directly against Kant' categorical imperative.

[..nameless..]

I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others.

'Beliefs' are about religion, 'critical thought' is philosophy.
One can certainly say that some morality emerges naturally from... 'others'.
First, I would offer;
"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a funhouse mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers ("others"). Mythopoeicon

Is there a 'need' for morality? Not always. Many fine people are amoral. We do not vainly judge the world into little schizophrenic piles of 'right/good' and 'bad/evil'.
From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging other people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!
As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against judging others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of god!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
And goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"

Such 'judgment' only exists in the 'thoughts' of the observer, completely Perspective related.

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

I choose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these clear and useful definitions:

good = what I want

That is fine if you are offering your own personal proposed meanings in regard to your intended point.
There are many definitions, though, of such value terms. All such 'values' are Perspectival; beauty, ugly, stupid, tall... Subjective Perspectives.
Another will find 'good' to mean what is for the 'betterment' of all? They might, after all, perceive that we are all One!
And many other definitions as for all of your defined terms. See my previous definition of definition!

the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement.

The only 'useful' (another Perspectivally related term) definition to you, perhaps.
There are others who see it differently, obviously, as we are Perspectives and all unique.
For instance, the only thing that might be considered 'objective' is Reality/Existence/Truth... in sum total! As per the definition definition.
No one Perspective can ever perceive more that that which is before it at that moment; never a 'complete' Reality... Always their uniquely personally perceived feature at any moment of existence!
Perspectives are many, Consciousness is One!

"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

So those whom agreed with Hitler were morally 'right'? Sounds like a fascist definition to me. You cannot even determine right and wrong as applies to your words and actions without finding some 'support group' with whom to share the 'responsibility'?
We all know inside what is right and wrong for us!
It is 'right' for a gay man to express physical love for other men. 'Right' being that he has no options but to be who he is, to manifest his nature! There is no 'choice'.
It is 'wrong' if you are a hypocritical Xtian ignorant fascist, but the point remains.. subjective!
I don't see 'right/wrong', I see what is, Is!

It also follows from the (particularly subjective and so biased) definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good,

Who ever points to himself in judgment and finds wrong and bad and evil? Damned few! Most of those gnarly judgmental fingers are pointing at 'others' (himself!)!
'Striving for that which is not in your nature is both futile and guaranteed suffering (a 'good' thing/a 'bad' thing', and every shade of grey between!)!

something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want.

There certainly is a 'herd mentality' involved, often...
That took the responsibility off of individual Nazis! When did 'thinking', critically, for oneself, begin to die? At the advent of powers that need to manipulate the bleating masses? Keep them ignorant and they can be led by the nose to buy/vote whatever their neighbors have been brainwashed into doing? Go along to get along? It is so easy to manipulate the ignorant/thoughtless masses! And many do!

The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

Ahhh, accepting what Is, without judgment. Yeah, 'interesting' intellectually, and 'freedom and bliss' experientially!

The need for a moral code arises from the fact that other people exist.

There is a difference between a 'legal' code and some personal 'moral' code.
'Legality' is an understood consensus, perhaps not agreed with, but one understands one's place with it.

3. Each of us has a unique subjective experience and viewpoint.

Amen, brother!

4. There is no objective way to judge any experience or viewpoint as more valid than any other.

Because any one Perspective (unique, of an all inclusive Reality) is just as 'real and true' as all other Perspectives! Remember the definition definition!
It is ALL True!

Ponder the great winter cloud; it covers the sky, is cold, dark, slightly threatening...
Now imagine that you are in an airplane, rising through the cloud.
From the cold darkness into the cloud. It gets a bit brighter and brighter until you burst through the top side!
It is breathtaking how blue the sky above, the sun dazzling in it's brilliant glare as is the top side of our cloud! Brilliant white with not a shadow to give hint of it's other side, or the vast shades of 'grey' in between.
Now imagine that there are billions and trillions of folks (Perspectives) all around and throughout the cloud, at the same moment!
If asked to describe the cloud, all Perspectives would describe that which he uniquely perceives; one declares the cloud dark and cold, another would declare it's brilliance,. one a particular shade of grey, another doesn't perceive a cloud at all, and so forth.
They all describe One Cloud! One Reality!
No Perspective is 'wrong', yet, ignorantly, we do fight so over who is 'right', while everyone else is 'wrong'.
Yet the complete cloud is fully defined, described, by the sum total of all Perspectives!
All these different Perspectives perceiving the same One Reality!

5. We all want different things and sometimes we want the same thing.

Obviously, for those who "want"...

6. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others.

According to your subjective Perspective.
'Morality' is found in many contextx, all alone on a desert island, for instance.
Yeah, we all know, deep down, unless we are caught in some schizo-egoic psychological mechanisms, such as 'self-justification' and 'rationalizing'...

The following bit of 'morality' only relates to 'others' in a certain way;

"Do what you know to be right, say what you know to be true, and leave with faith and patience the consequences to god!" - F.W. Robertson

"Knowledge is that which is perceived!"

"Do NOT do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"
(EVERYTHING in the Universe, ALL INCLUSIVE, is 'others'!!!)

Thats all we need to know about 'others' for what might be apparent moral behavior.
Actually, morality is completely in the eye of hte beholder;
I might be doing what comes naturally while an onlooker might 'commend' 'my' great morality! Another observer might observe a swine! Where is the 'swine'? The 'morality'? Perspective!

Admittedly, this moral code renders most actions morally wrong, but that's the price you have to pay for making it bulletproof. However, it's worth considering seriously.

Life is a living thing, vulnerable, afraid, needy, beautiful, transformational, evolving... Encasing a 'thought' is a block of cement to make it 'bulletproof', is to kill it!
A good definition of 'word' applies here too;
"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Only through empathy can we have any idea of what is right or wrong.

'Empathy' is a being of at-One-ment with 'another' Perspective, We are One!
It has nothing to do with the vainly egoic-intellectual persuit of 'moral judgment'. (Ego is thought!)

Well, at risk of infinite repetition, I'll let the rest pass.

[chaz wyman]

If people accept Kant's categorical imperative then that guarantees that what they good is both 'good', and "right", by your definitions. Without individuals applying this rubric to choices - be they 'collective' or otherwise, then what might be right and good for the group may not be right and good for the rest of humankind. Groups can choose Hitler and make exceptional choices that lead to the holocaust. It's a shame that Germans had not listened to the council of their own philosopher.

Kant's categorical imperative is all good, though I think the Golden Rule is more beautiful. The problem, as with any principle, lies in the condition "if people accept". If people lived by Kant's categorical imperative or the Golden Rule, then the world would be a much better place, of course.

I don't think it is possible. I wouldn't care what she did - but I would NEVER shop my partner to the police. Some things will always have greater importance and meaning than ANY philosophical diktat.

[lancek4]

Since the subject has come up in a couple of other topics, I'd like to present my view on ethics here, rather than going off on tangents in those other topics. It's proably familiar stuff to some of you, since it's mostly taken from earlier posts by me in other threads:

• I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others. I choose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these clear and useful definitions:
  
  good = what I want
  
  evil = what I don't want
  
  right = what others want
  
  wrong = what others don't want
  
  The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.
  
  It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.
  
  It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

If that was a bit condensed, let's go over it in more detail:

1. In a solipsist universe, there is no need for a moral code. If you are the only person in existence, then there can be no right or wrong.

2. The need for a moral code arises from the fact that other people exist.

3. Each of us has a unique subjective experience and viewpoint.

4. There is no objective way to judge any experience or viewpoint as more valid than any other.

5. We all want different things and sometimes we want the same thing.

6. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequenses of the action are qualified judges. This is what makes this moral code "objective" since your own subjective view is always wrong when confronted by a contrary moral opinion voiced by any other concerned party.

7. To do something that somebody, anybody, don't want us to do, is morally wrong.

Admittedly, this moral code renders most actions morally wrong, but that's the price you have to pay for making it bulletproof. However, it's worth considering seriously.

Some suggest that God could be used as a moral absolute, but a moral statement made by God would still be subjective. God might have a much better view than any human, but it's still a subjective view. Rather than trying to please God, we should try to please each other, since I think it boils down to the same thing. We are all sinners, not against some divine law, but against each other.

This moral code might appear inconsistent because it attempts to create some sort of absolute and objective standard where there can be none. The only obvious moral absolute is that other people exist. The point is to highlight what others want, as opposed to what you want yourself. It is consistent, in that it consistently takes the side of the other. It's really logical. If we disagree, we can't both be right, but we can both be wrong.

The problem with moral relativism is that everybody might think that they can decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong. I have turned the perspective around and claim that nobody is in such a position. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequences of the action are qualified judges.

The point of the rule is that almost every action is morally wrong to some extent, since somebody at least remotely affected by the action would probably see it as wrong. It forces us to think outside ourselves, to indeed put ourselves in the position of others. That's the whole point. If we realise that we are not in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, then we have to imagine how others would judge our actions, especially how those directly affected by our actions would judge them.

Only through empathy can we have any idea of what is right or wrong.

While I tend to agree with this methodology, it completely misses, by circumvention, the relecting subject. Typically, when we segregate existential categories, we are in effect defining how the problem should go and thus are situating the solution a priori.

So the question becomes: how have I situated ethics such that I have come upon the solution? That is, what ethics are informing my problem?

How am I situating the Other? What standards am I asserting upon that other which leaves myself a free agent, that I have been justified in situating the other against my scheme of ethics?

[SmitHalBeRto]

Having read through this about three times, I think I agree with just about all of it. Mind you it's 2.30 am, and I've necked an entire bottle of Cab Sauv, so I'll have another look tomorrow!
'Night!

[Notvacka]

'Beliefs' are about religion, 'critical thought' is philosophy.

Yes. And critical thought tells me that objective knowledge is impossible. Shared belief is as close as we can get. There is no inherent contradiction between critical thought and belief. In order to think at all, you must believe something.

For instance, critical thought tells me that free will is impossible. But without a belief in free will, any discussion about morality is pointless. So, in order to talk about morality in any meaningful way, we must suspend disbelief regarding at least one impossibility.

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging other people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

Yes. But that is useless, unless you judge yourself first. And even judging yourself is useless, unless you do it from the point of view of others, which is also impossible in a strict sense. Morality is about taking responsibility even though you really can't have any. A truly moral standpoint is achieved only when you find balance in the contradictions between objective reality (where things like the ego and free will don't exist) and subjective consciousness (where they do).

There are many definitions, though, of such value terms. All such 'values' are Perspectival; beauty, ugly, stupid, tall... Subjective Perspectives.

If you look at my definitions, you might notice that they take this into account. They are useful in every case because they define these value terms in a relative way.

Actually, from all your comments, I don't get the impression that we disagree at all, really.

[..nameless..]

'Beliefs' are about religion, 'critical thought' is philosophy.

Yes. And critical thought tells me that objective knowledge is impossible.

I can see that.
Do you think that the sum-total of all subjective (unique Perspective based) Knowledge could be considered 'objective'? I can hang with that if you like, but at that point it only seems to be a semantic game. Other than that, you are correct.

There is no inherent contradiction between critical thought and belief.

Spend a few moments listening to attempted 'critical' discussions between a 'non-believer' using logic with 'believers' and their faith, as happens ALL over the net! It will open your eyes! All the evidence is in front of you! Look around the world; 'believers' violently defending their 'beliefs'!
"A philosopher never killed a priest!"
You don't kill to defend critical thoughts, you do for your beliefs!
Think about it.

In order to think at all, you must believe something.

As I see it, 'beliefs' are (perceived) 'thoughts', but not all 'thoughts' are 'beliefs'! 'Feelings' are also thoughts. A 'feeling/thought' that it is true, and that you believe it, are all thoughts.
One can perceive a memory, and if it doesn't have that 'feeling', it need not be taken as 'true', believed.
I have no beliefs. (And no, I don't believe that!)
But thank Dog that others do! There has to be a balance! I probably account for about a dozen or so 'believers'! *__-

For instance, critical thought tells me that free will is impossible.

Tells me the same thing. The hypothesis always leads to paradox, a sure sign that your train of thought has gone rattling off down the 'wrong' siding!

But without a belief in free will, any discussion about morality is pointless. So,...

Woah there. That seems rather far fetched! Are all discussions pointless, as you see it? I may not believe in something, but I can surely discuss my perspective. I haven't taken cyanide, yet I can speak at length of my 'intellectual knowledge' of it's actions and effects in humans!
Perhaps you are speaking for yourself, is that it? You find such discussions pointless because you cannot perceive a point?
I have never believed in 'free-will/choice' yet have had many meaningful discussions on morality. There is the balance in the complete definition of 'free-will' requiring both the 'believer' perspective and thus, necessarily, the non-believer perspective.
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
What do you mean by 'point'? You mean 'agenda'? Is there another 'point' other than attempting to meaningfully share your perspective on things with another for mutual growth of Perspective, understanding?

in order to talk about morality in any meaningful way, we must suspend disbelief regarding at least one impossibility.

'Disbelief' is not, as is 'belief', a perceived thought. It is a default state for one not perceiving any 'beliefs' thoughts. That's all.
'Belief' is not a prerequisite for philosophy.

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging other people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

Yes. But that is useless, unless you judge yourself first. And even judging yourself is useless, unless you do it from the point of view of others, which is also impossible in a strict sense.

Oddly enough, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are people who who find (self) judgment quite useful!
What is 'self improvement' without 'self judgment? Please define what you mean by 'useless'? In what context? To what Perspective? When?
'Useful' is a very subjective term, so unless I know what you mean, I cannot respond.

Morality is about taking responsibility even though you really can't have any.

'Legal' responsibility does not necessarily involve notions of 'good' and 'bad' but paying for the window that you broke. No such judgment necessary.
The definition that I offered was from a dictionary.
I do respect your own definition and that is a feature of the 'complete' definition;

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein (such as 'morality'...), can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

A truly moral standpoint is achieved only when you find balance in the contradictions between objective reality (where things like the ego and free will don't exist) and subjective consciousness (where they do).

All 'moral standpoints' are true (to those who perceive them, and thus, true)!
I don't know what you mean by "objective Reality" or "subjective consciousness". Care to be specific?
I still say that morality is the sin of pride (the only sin), but so it the 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' the epitome of Pride!!

There are many definitions, though, of such value terms. All such 'values' are Perspectival; beauty, ugly, stupid, tall... Subjective Perspectives.

If you look at my definitions, you might notice that they take this into account. They are useful in every case because they define these value terms in a relative way.

You cannot have a 'relative' term be uselul in all cases. Universal Laws are true/useful in every case! Otherwise the 'laws' are quite local in ettect. Still true, but not universally.

Actually, from all your comments, I don't get the impression that we disagree at all, really. :D 8)

Not at all. We are just two Perspectives (features) of the same One Reality!
peace

[chaz wyman]

'Beliefs' are about religion, 'critical thought' is philosophy.

Yes. And critical thought tells me that objective knowledge is impossible.

I was just talking about this on another thread with Lance4K

He asked...
What kind of history is this:

In the 18th century, the USA became its own country. ?

And what about this: einstien came up with the theory of general relativity. ?

And this: the allies won WW2. ?

How about: stars existed before life sustaining planets. ?

Or, when Ronald Regan was president of the USA, Margret Thatcher was prime minister of England.

I am not being facetious, I honestly wish to know how you would classifiy these historical facts/events/statements .

I replied...

These are the basic facts.

However even the basic facts begins to set out your bias-stall...

The fact that you have selected these shows your Western-centred bias.

Let's take the first one. The USA was founded by a traitorous cabal of Revolutionaries. When you say "became its own country". this sounds like a justification, as if it was meant to be.

The Einstein comment might be "discovered", depending on how you see the Laws of Nature.

Next: How about The Axis forces lost WW2?

Implies there are more than one life sustaining planets. And can Planets be said to sustain life? Is it not a rather emotional and anthropocentric idea?

Why would you select those 2 particular leaders, if you were not claiming they had an undue influence on the world's economy, or similar. Why not mention that François Mitterrand and Thatcher were contemporaries?

I hope you can see that even the most banal factoid can be laced with bias.

[Notvacka]

Do you think that the sum-total of all subjective (unique Perspective based) Knowledge could be considered 'objective'?

Not really. The sum of subjective perspectives would be just that, a whole lot of subjective perspectives. And we can't practically get to the sum of it, anyway, even if we can talk about it. It would also be contradictory, obviously. And it would not equal the objective "reality" that most of us believe - but can't know for sure - is "out there".

Spend a few moments listening to attempted 'critical' discussions between a 'non-believer' using logic with 'believers' and their faith, as happens ALL over the net! It will open your eyes! All the evidence is in front of you! Look around the world; 'believers' violently defending their 'beliefs'!

I get it that you are talking about religious beliefs here. But everybody believes something, and nobody really knows anything. (I get into many "pointless" arguments when I say this, because people tend to define "belief" and "knowledge" in subtly different ways. My standpoint is Cartesian here.)

As I see it, 'beliefs' are (perceived) 'thoughts', but not all 'thoughts' are 'beliefs'! 'Feelings' are also thoughts. A 'feeling/thought' that it is true, and that you believe it, are all thoughts.

As I see it, feelings are not thoughts, as long as you just feel them. They generate thoughts as you think about them and try to articulate them, though. Thoughts are inherently divisive, slicing this from that, trying to make sense of the world.

A simple example: You experience pain in your stomach. At the bottom, the experience is a feeling. As you think about this feeling, trying to make sens of it, you start to believe things. You believe that you have a stomach for instance. That makes sense, though the pain you experience is not really proof of anything other than itself. Furthermore, you might believe that you have cancer, or an ulcer. Or perhaps it's just gas. These are more or less reasonable theories that your thoughts come up with to explain the pain.

I have no beliefs. (And no, I don't believe that!)

And I have nothing but beliefs. (And yes, I do believe that!)

I have never believed in 'free-will/choice' yet have had many meaningful discussions on morality.

Me too. But don't you agree, that in any discussion about morality, the existence of actual choice is understood and taken for granted? After all, what's the point of discussing right or wrong, if there is no choice?

What do you mean by 'point'?

A "point" makes a difference. Something that couldn't possibly make any difference can be deemed "pointless". But it of course depends on your perspective. Most human activity can be seen as pointless from some perspective.

I don't know what you mean by "objective Reality" or "subjective consciousness". Care to be specific?

I use these words in a general way. "Objective reality" is the physical universe, believed to exist on its own "out there" regardless of our perception. "Subjective consciousness" is what we percieve and imagine, think and feel.

I still say that morality is the sin of pride (the only sin), but so is the 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' the epitome of Pride!!

I agree. If you take that perspective. But it can also be a virtue.

[..nameless..]

Do you think that the sum-total of all subjective (unique Perspective based) Knowledge could be considered 'objective'?

Not really. The sum of subjective perspectives would be just that, a whole lot of subjective perspectives.

Then I'd have no idea of the existence of anything 'objective'. If all existence is perceived, subjectively, what can 'objective' be?
Quantum has finally put the nail in the coffin of the 'scientific' notion of an 'objective observer' because they have realized that there is no such thing! That the 'observer' is an integral feature of the observed!

And we can't practically get to the sum of it, anyway, even if we can talk about it.

Of course any particular telescope cannot perceive the entire cosmos, that is the inherent limitation of Perspectives (us). Not practically or otherwise. But any 'feature' (knowledge) of Reality/existence/the Universe is available to Consciousness (us), Now!

It would also be contradictory, obviously.

What would?

And it would not equal the objective "reality" that most of us believe - but can't know for sure - is "out there".

Nost believed that the earth was flat.
And there is no 'out there'! There is Here! and what we perceive. Whatever 'is', is perceived by some Perspective.
Just because you 'believe' in the FSM, that doesn't mean that it exists anywhere than your imagination, in your 'belief/thought'. Yet, nevertheless it exists, if only in your thoughts.

Spend a few moments listening to attempted 'critical' discussions between a 'non-believer' using logic with 'believers' and their faith, as happens ALL over the net! It will open your eyes! All the evidence is in front of you! Look around the world; 'believers' violently defending their 'beliefs'!

I get it that you are talking about religious beliefs here.

'Beliefs' retain their qualities no matter the subject of that belief. How many have died in support of the 'belief' in freedom? With no free-will or choice, what is 'freedom' (as commonly construed)?

But everybody believes something, and nobody really knows anything.

No, again, 'everyone' does not necessarily believe anything! I don't. I know someone else (only one as the 'malady' seems rare) who doesn't believe anything.

(I get into many "pointless" arguments when I say this, because people tend to define "belief" and "knowledge" in subtly different ways. My standpoint is Cartesian here.)

A 'belief' is a 'thought' with 'feelings' .
The new updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived"!

Thoughts are inherently divisive, slicing this from that, trying to make sense of the world.

It is as thought alone that subject/object distinctions are perceived. Like a particular lens on the telescope. Sans thought, all is perceived as integrally One.

A simple example: You experience pain in your stomach. At the bottom, the experience is a feeling. As you think about this feeling, trying to make sens of it, you start to believe things. You believe that you have a stomach for instance.

An alternative to 'belief' is tentative hypothesis, theory. It is so difficult to alter and ajust a 'belief'. The more so the stronger it is. Experimental evidence is often rejected and ignored when they 'threaten' a 'belief'.
Theories and hypoptheses are infinitely 'tweakable'.

I have no beliefs. (And no, I don't believe that!)

And I have nothing but beliefs. (And yes, I do believe that!) :)

Ahhh, an example of my;'
First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
What a refreshing response! most want to immediately argue!

But don't you agree, that in any discussion about morality, the existence of actual choice is understood and taken for granted? No! After all, what's the point of discussing right or wrong, if there is no choice?

Discussing 'right' and 'wrong', morality, in the light of knowing that there is no 'free-will/choice' puts the light on the vanity and futility of 'morality'. What is, Is! 'Right and wrong' are strictly in the eye (thoughts) of the beholder (perceiver).
Philosophy is 'critical thought', religion is 'belief'. Holding a 'belief' is unnecessary to philosophy.
Holding 'critical thought' is unnecessary to religion!

What do you mean by 'point'?

A "point" makes a difference.

See? A 'difference' in what way? Any 'difference' at all? By 'difference' I assume that you refer to 'meaning'. If something is 'meaningful' to 'you, it makes a 'difference' to 'you'!?

Something that couldn't possibly make any difference can be deemed "pointless". But it of course depends on your perspective.

Of coures it does! What is deemed pointless, meaningless, to one is perceived as the key to the understanding of life to another! There is no one-size-fits-all 'point/meaning' just as there is no one-size-fits-all morality (topic! *__- ).

Most human activity can be seen as pointless from some perspective.

First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

I don't know what you mean by "objective Reality" or "subjective consciousness". Care to be specific?

I use these words in a general way. "Objective reality" is the physical universe, believed to exist on its own "out there" regardless of our perception. "Subjective consciousness" is what we percieve and imagine, think and feel.

'Objective Reality'; We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived.
No perception = no existence! No evidence to the contrary. None.
The observer is One with the perceived.
Quantum physics and all mysticism throughout the millennia verifies this.
The common street (mis)understanding of 'Reality' is hardly worth bringing up in an intelligent discussion.

'Subjective Consciousness' is Perspective, what we perceive (we perceive 'thoughts/imagination/feelings).

I still say that morality is the sin of pride (the only sin), but so is the 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' the epitome of Pride!!

I agree. If you take that perspective. But it can also be a virtue.

Ach! Please tell me how the sin of pride can be considered a virtue? I do appreciate that it is gleefully practiced by the religious as if they thought it a virtue! Ahhh, denial, ego! *__-

[Arising_uk]

Then I'd have no idea of the existence of anything 'objective'. If all existence is perceived, subjectively, what can 'objective' be? Quantum has finally put the nail in the coffin of the 'scientific' notion of an 'objective observer' because they have realized that there is no such thing! That the 'observer' is an integral feature of the observed! ...

Just checking but by 'observer' you don't mean an actual living or conscious observer do you? As the experiments work well enough when done by machine.

[..nameless..]

Then I'd have no idea of the existence of anything 'objective'. If all existence is perceived, subjectively, what can 'objective' be? Quantum has finally put the nail in the coffin of the 'scientific' notion of an 'objective observer' because they have realized that there is no such thing! That the 'observer' is an integral feature of the observed! ...

Just checking but by 'observer' you don't mean an actual living or conscious observer do you? As the experiments work well enough when done by machine.

Not so. Who reads the 'machine' (assuming, for the moment, that machines are not 'Conscious')? Who deciphers the data? The Conscious perceiver?
It is the same if asked about the tree falling in the forest and sound. Someone said that if there were a recorder there to record the sound, then we know it makes a sound with no one there to hear it. The error is, again, that the ear must hear eventually, whether directly ('be there') or indirectly (recorder).
No 'machine' does experiments, people do, using 'machines/tools'.
All observers are actual living Conscious perceivers/Perspectives.
An 'observer' is a 'perceiver' without which, not anything would be known to exist!

[Notvacka]

If all existence is perceived, subjectively, what can 'objective' be?

Indeed. And again, I get the feeling that we are arguing from the same side here. Let me quote myself from another topic (regarding newly discovered writings by Wittgenstein):

...What other kind of significance is there to be had? Without consciousness, the universe would mean nothing to itself. If it would still exist, that "existence" could not be verified, and, essentially, it would be meaningless. You might as well say that it would not exist at all...
...It's like Schrödinger's cat. The scientists can't know if the cat is alive or dead in the box, but the cat would know...
...My point is that what matters is what is perceived; perception is more important than actuality. If something "actually" is something other than we perceive it to be, it does not matter until our perception changes. We don't live in reality, but in a perception of something that might be reality...

You can find the entire discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7663 It's quite amusing.

And there is no 'out there'! There is Here! and what we perceive. Whatever 'is', is perceived by some Perspective.

I tend to agree. But this is a minority view. Most people believe that the universe is "out there" existing independently from any perception.

A 'belief' is a 'thought' with 'feelings' .

But it's a mistake to think that you can separate your thoughts from your feelings. If a belief is a thought with feelings, then all your thoughts are beliefs, since you can't stop feeling. Nor can you stop thinking. (Not paying attention to your thoughts and feelings, as in meditation, doesn't actually make them stop.) Maybe this explains why I claim to have nothing but beliefs?

The new updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived"!

Using that definition, your view on belief makes some sense.

Discussing 'right' and 'wrong', morality, in the light of knowing that there is no 'free-will/choice' puts the light on the vanity and futility of 'morality'.

Yes. But there is quite a Quixotic nobility in doing something futile for its own sake, while knowing that it's futile, don't you think?

Philosophy is 'critical thought', religion is 'belief'. Holding a 'belief' is unnecessary to philosophy. Holding 'critical thought' is unnecessary to religion!

Unnecessary, perhaps. But religion can benefit from critical thought and philosophers have feelings too.

We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived.

No, we know no such thing. This is clearly a belief. How could you possibly know anything about something you can't perceive?

Please tell me how the sin of pride can be considered a virtue?

This is how: Knowing that what is, is, knowing that you have no actual free will or choice, you yet choose to do what is right. You don't judge others, because you know that they have no choice but to be what they are and do what they do. Yet you take it upon yourself to hold yourself responsible, to a higher (and quite impossible) standard. That is what it means to take a truly moral standpoint, and i find it both prideful and virtuous. But maybe I'm just a romantic, like Don Quixote.

[Arising_uk]

Not so. Who reads the 'machine' (assuming, for the moment, that machines are not 'Conscious')? Who deciphers the data? The Conscious perceiver?
It is the same if asked about the tree falling in the forest and sound. Someone said that if there were a recorder there to record the sound, then we know it makes a sound with no one there to hear it. The error is, again, that the ear must hear eventually, whether directly ('be there') or indirectly (recorder).
No 'machine' does experiments, people do, using 'machines/tools'.
All observers are actual living Conscious perceivers/Perspectives.
An 'observer' is a 'perceiver' without which, not anything would be known to exist!

I agree that in the long run for there to be meaning there must be us but when you use 'quantum' and 'observer' in your discussions I thought you referring to the idea that the waveform of an event collapses due to observation but we can collapse this with a mechanical detector, no living 'observer' necessary. In your tree example it will be a mechanical instrument that does the 'listening' and its an after event that we then hear the sound. Or are you saying that the tree is once again falling?

[chaz wyman]

Not so. Who reads the 'machine' (assuming, for the moment, that machines are not 'Conscious')? Who deciphers the data? The Conscious perceiver?

We are the conscious machine; the consciousness reading machine. Asking who reads the machine implies a dualism that is at question in the first place.

It is the same if asked about the tree falling in the forest and sound. Someone said that if there were a recorder there to record the sound, then we know it makes a sound with no one there to hear it. The error is, again, that the ear must hear eventually, whether directly ('be there') or indirectly (recorder).
No 'machine' does experiments,

Except the human machine. And to a lesser degree many of the higher mammals.

All observers are actual living Conscious perceivers/Perspectives.
An 'observer' is a 'perceiver' without which, not anything would be known to exist!

But that is what being a highly organised species is like!