Equity, morality

[Age]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

[bahman]

What evidence would you have that morality is something other than what I said?

Well, if morality is just about feeling then why bother and categorized it as a different thing. Just feeling. Where is the position of rational thinking in life? Nothing?

So no evidence then, right?

Of course, rational thinking has a contribution to the life of people, personal, social, political, etc. The point is that we are creatures equipped with feeling and rational thinking. These affect all aspects of our lives including most importantly morality which is about what is the right solution for a given situation.

[Terrapin Station]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

First, no moral stance is agreed on by everyone.

[bahman]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

The point is that all had never agreed with what is morally right because different people think and feel differently. The question is whether there is a principle that everybody can agree upon so we can have a common definition of morality and eventually find peace. What do you think that principle is that people should be agreed upon?

[Terrapin Station]

Well, if morality is just about feeling then why bother and categorized it as a different thing. Just feeling. Where is the position of rational thinking in life? Nothing?

So no evidence then, right?

Of course, rational thinking has a contribution to the life of people, personal, social, political, etc. The point is that we are creatures equipped with feeling and rational thinking. These affect all aspects of our lives including most importantly morality which is about what is the right solution for a given situation.

You're supposed to be either presenting evidence that moral stances are something other than dispositions that individuals have about interpersonal behavior or you're supposed to be conceding that you're incorrect that it's something other than that.

[Age]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

First, no moral stance is agreed on by everyone.

HOW do 'you' KNOW this "terrapin station"?

Do 'you' KNOW EVERY thing about what EVERY one thinks?

Also, IF you were Truly OPEN, then you would WONDER and CONSIDER 'is there ANY moral 'issue' that EVERY one could, or actually does, agree with'?

But, you apparently BELIEVE, 'without a shadow of a doubt', as some say, that there is NO moral 'stance', which is agreed on by everyone. So, you are CLOSED to ANY thing else opposing this BELIEF of yours.

Also, you use the word 'stance' here, which has a connotation of NOT being changeable anyway.

Now, IF you would like to LOOK AT and DISCUSS some moral 'stances' to ACTUALLY SEE if there are ANY, which could be agreed with by EVERY one, then I am more than willing to proceed. But, if you just want to REMAIN BELIEVING that there is NO moral stance that is agreed on by EVERY one, then I will just leave you be IN and with that BELIEF.

[Terrapin Station]

HOW do 'you' KNOW this "terrapin station"?

Do 'you' KNOW EVERY thing about what EVERY one thinks?

All you need to know is one person who disagrees with something.

I disagree with many conventional moral views.

I've known people who've disagreed with others.

And I know of people who disagree with yet more.

What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

The big screw-up here though is that I bothered responding to you. I temporarily blanked out on the fact that it's a waste of time. I temporarily forgot that you're that creation/evolution moron.

[bahman]

So no evidence then, right?

Of course, rational thinking has a contribution to the life of people, personal, social, political, etc. The point is that we are creatures equipped with feeling and rational thinking. These affect all aspects of our lives including most importantly morality which is about what is the right solution for a given situation.

You're supposed to be either presenting evidence that moral stances are something other than dispositions that individuals have about interpersonal behavior or you're supposed to be conceding that you're incorrect that it's something other than that.

I am saying that morality should be based on feeling and rationality.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, rational thinking has a contribution to the life of people, personal, social, political, etc. The point is that we are creatures equipped with feeling and rational thinking. These affect all aspects of our lives including most importantly morality which is about what is the right solution for a given situation.

You're supposed to be either presenting evidence that moral stances are something other than dispositions that individuals have about interpersonal behavior or you're supposed to be conceding that you're incorrect that it's something other than that.

I am saying that morality should be based on feeling and rationality.

People reason about it once they have their basic dispositions, but the basic ("foundational") dispositions can't be reasoned.

[bahman]

You're supposed to be either presenting evidence that moral stances are something other than dispositions that individuals have about interpersonal behavior or you're supposed to be conceding that you're incorrect that it's something other than that.

I am saying that morality should be based on feeling and rationality.

People reason about it once they have their basic dispositions, but the basic ("foundational") dispositions can't be reasoned.

Again, we are rational and emotional creatures. You cannot say that emotion is what all matters.

[Age]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

The point is that all had never agreed with what is morally right because different people think and feel differently.

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks and/or believes that they KNOW what EVERY one thinks.

It is hard enough to get 'you', human beings, to agree on what the VERY SIMPLE word 'morally' means, let alone to get 'you' to agree on and with what is 'morally right'.

But, this is NO WAY infers NOR means that 'you' ALL do NOT agree on what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'.

In fact, KNOWING what is 'morally right', which can be agreed with by ALL of 'you', is very simple and very easy to do. You just have to KNOW-HOW.

The question is whether there is a principle that everybody can agree upon so we can have a common definition of morality and eventually find peace.

Well the answer to this is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to reach and KNOW as well.

Now, if you would like to begin with A PRINCIPLE, so that we can 'kick this off', as they say, then let us begin.

What do you think that principle is that people should be agreed upon?

First of you just RUINED the WHOLE discussion by SAYING and STATING; "that people SHOULD agree upon".

There is NO "should" in relation to 'what is morally right' and 'what is morally wrong'. Either there is a position, stance, or principle that ALL can agree with or there is NOT.

I KNOW there IS.

[Terrapin Station]

I am saying that morality should be based on feeling and rationality.

People reason about it once they have their basic dispositions, but the basic ("foundational") dispositions can't be reasoned.

Again, we are rational and emotional creatures. You cannot say that emotion is what all matters.

And there goes any claim of basic reading comprehension skills.

[bahman]

'Morality', like 'Truth', is just 'that', which we ALL agree with and accept.

If a behavior is an all right behavior or not depends upon what behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL.

If a behavior is agreed with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, an all right behavior, and thus is moral.

And, conversely, if a behavior is not agree with and accepted by ALL as being a right (or good) behavior, then it is, literally, NOT an all right behavior, and thus is immoral.

Which is REALLY very simple and easy indeed.

The point is that all had never agreed with what is morally right because different people think and feel differently.

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks and/or believes that they KNOW what EVERY one thinks.

It is hard enough to get 'you', human beings, to agree on what the VERY SIMPLE word 'morally' means, let alone to get 'you' to agree on and with what is 'morally right'.

But, this is NO WAY infers NOR means that 'you' ALL do NOT agree on what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'.

In fact, KNOWING what is 'morally right', which can be agreed with by ALL of 'you', is very simple and very easy to do. You just have to KNOW-HOW.

The question is whether there is a principle that everybody can agree upon so we can have a common definition of morality and eventually find peace.

Well the answer to this is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to reach and KNOW as well.

Now, if you would like to begin with A PRINCIPLE, so that we can 'kick this off', as they say, then let us begin.

What do you think that principle is that people should be agreed upon?

First of you just RUINED the WHOLE discussion by SAYING and STATING; "that people SHOULD agree upon".

There is NO "should" in relation to 'what is morally right' and 'what is morally wrong'. Either there is a position, stance, or principle that ALL can agree with or there is NOT.

I KNOW there IS.

What is it?

[bahman]

People reason about it once they have their basic dispositions, but the basic ("foundational") dispositions can't be reasoned.

Again, we are rational and emotional creatures. You cannot say that emotion is what all matters.

And there goes any claim of basic reading comprehension skills.

Why?

[Terrapin Station]

Again, we are rational and emotional creatures. You cannot say that emotion is what all matters.

And there goes any claim of basic reading comprehension skills.

Why?

Did I say anything like "emotion is 'what all matters'"?