Morality as Objective

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 am To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
Eodhnhoj7,

Moralities in general, are social constructs, there is no morality in nature except what has been developed by organisms trying to get along. Each organism's group, pack, community, society are all the same species with the abilities and limitations that belong to each said species. Saying things that are moral in one context and not in another is simply underlining the state of moral relativism or context defines. The different cultures have developed their moralities from superstitions, read religions, evil spirits ghosts and goblins. This is our heritage, and we are trying to order modern societies according to the blatant nonsense of the past. When you have a morality built upon the supernatural you gotta know it is going to be a little nutsy.

Morality is subjective, and from that subjectivity, it extends itself, a biological extension, this is where creation occurs in the outer world, thus the objective. Someone who doesn't practice morality could be said to be autonomous and not immoral, but amoral. Someone living alone in nature would have no need of morality, instead of living in a society he is living in nature and in nature there is no morality. That is not to say that animals don't have any sensitivities along these lines, but the harsh reality of nature dictates, life lives upon life, nature red in tooth and claw. We lose touch with such things when we buy our meat wrapped in plastic not even thinking of the life it represents. One thought, although context defines it is kind of reciprocal, for man tends to create his own contexts through the expression of his biological nature. Only creatures in societies large or small, have need of morality.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 am To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
Eodhnhoj7,

Moralities in general, are social constructs, there is no morality in nature except what has been developed by organisms trying to get along. Each organism's group, pack, community, society are all the same species with the abilities and limitations that belong to each said species. Saying things that are moral in one context and not in another is simply underlining the state of moral relativism or context defines. The different cultures have developed their moralities from superstitions, read religions, evil spirits ghosts and goblins. This is our heritage, and we are trying to order modern societies according to the blatant nonsense of the past. When you have a morality built upon the supernatural you gotta know it is going to be a little nutsy.

Morality is subjective, and from that subjectivity, it extends itself, a biological extension, this is where creation occurs in the outer world, thus the objective. Someone who doesn't practice morality could be said to be autonomous and not immoral, but amoral. Someone living alone in nature would have no need of morality, instead of living in a society he is living in nature, and in nature, there is no morality. That is not to say that animals don't have any sensitivities along these lines, but the harsh reality of nature dictates, life lives upon life, natural red in tooth and claw. We lose touch with such things when we buy our meat wrap in plastic not even thinking of the life it represents. One thought, although context defines it is kind of reciprocal, for man tends to create his own contexts through the expression of his biological nature. Only creatures in societies large or small, have need of morality.
Thus it is moral to create a social construct as the creation of social constructs is the proper way of being "ie moral". Given morality is a social construct, and the formation of constructs is moral, one cannot say which came first as to say which came first is a relative viewpoint.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 am To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
What's morality?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodhnhoj7,

Thus it is moral to create a social construct as the creation of social constructs is the proper way of being "ie moral". Given morality is a social construct, and the formation of constructs is moral, one cannot say which came first as to say which came first is a relative viewpoint.
[/quote]

All the human creations in the outer world, the physical world, are biological extensions of a given biology, whether it be a birds nest or a New York skyscraper. These creations come from the very natures of the given organisms, the beavers dam, for instinct is the nature of its being. All things are relative, for creation to happen with an organism it necessarily involves the world as object and the knowledge and concepts of that world in the conscious subject, the subject then bestows meaning upon a meaningless world in the form of his creations. So, your are kind of right, one needs both subject and object and seeing as they are inseparable, both are needed, but, experience/knowledge/meaning belongs only to the subject never the object, until thoughs things are bestowed onto the world in the form of the construct.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 am To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
What's morality?
The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:31 pm Eodhnhoj7,

Thus it is moral to create a social construct as the creation of social constructs is the proper way of being "ie moral". Given morality is a social construct, and the formation of constructs is moral, one cannot say which came first as to say which came first is a relative viewpoint.
All the human creations in the outer world, the physical world, are biological extensions of a given biology, whether it be a birds nest or a New York skyscraper. These creations come from the very natures of the given organisms, the beavers dam, for instinct is the nature of its being. All things are relative, for creation to happen with an organism it necessarily involves the world as object and the knowledge and concepts of that world in the conscious subject, the subject then bestows meaning upon a meaningless world in the form of his creations. So, your are kind of right, one needs both subject and object and seeing as they are inseparable, both are needed, but, experience/knowledge/meaning belongs only to the subject never the object, until thoughs things are bestowed onto the world in the form of the construct.
[/quote]

The object and the subject as intertwined necessitates one becoming another. If I observe a snowflake by touching it, the object (snowflake) changes according to my subjective experience of it. What was once objective changes because of subjectivity. This change of the object to a subjective state in turn alternates into an objective state of the observer because the once object (snowflake) in turn changes the original subject (me) into an object by exacting changes onto me (I pull my hand away).

I change the snowflake and the snowflake changes me thus both phenomena take the role of subject and object.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:32 am
What's morality?
The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.
I personally do no use the term, "morality," any longer, because it has been totally corrupted. But if morality were what was originally meant by ethical principles in philosopy, your definition is quite right. The only word I would change is, "activation," to, "achievement." I would also specify that the, "being," is a human being, because only human beings must consciously choose their behavior.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Dubious »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 am To say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
What's morality?
The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.

Sounds more like a Nietzschean morality than the usually understood Christian type and thus more individualistic than social.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7

The object and the subject as intertwined necessitates one becoming another. If I observe a snowflake by touching it, the object (snowflake) changes according to my subjective experience of it. What was once objective changes because of subjectivity. This change of the object to a subjective state in turn alternates into an objective state of the observer because the once object (snowflake) in turn changes the original subject (me) into an object by exacting changes onto me (I pull my hand away).

I change the snowflake and the snowflake changes me thus both phenomena take the role of subject and object.
[/quote]

Hi Eodnhoj7,
Actually, they are one another cognitively, because you experience something, your bodily reactions present a snowflake to you, the snowflake is your experience of unnamed stimulus. Actually after reading more carefully, I think we are saying the same thing a little differently. The snowflake can be generalized into object/s, thus, apparent reality is the product of biological life, read a conscious subject. All-knowing, all- meaning is the property of a conscious subject, never, the object. If something is thought cold, it is to the degree that you are warm/hot, it's all relative to your bodily reactions.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dubious wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:32 am
What's morality?
The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.

Sounds more like a Nietzschean morality than the usually understood Christian type and thus more individualistic than social.
To love is the fullest activation of potential.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:18 am Eodnhoj7

The object and the subject as intertwined necessitates one becoming another. If I observe a snowflake by touching it, the object (snowflake) changes according to my subjective experience of it. What was once objective changes because of subjectivity. This change of the object to a subjective state in turn alternates into an objective state of the observer because the once object (snowflake) in turn changes the original subject (me) into an object by exacting changes onto me (I pull my hand away).

I change the snowflake and the snowflake changes me thus both phenomena take the role of subject and object.
Hi Eodnhoj7,
Actually, they are one another cognitively, because you experience something, your bodily reactions present a snowflake to you, the snowflake is your experience of unnamed stimulus. Actually after reading more carefully, I think we are saying the same thing a little differently. The snowflake can be generalized into object/s, thus, apparent reality is the product of biological life, read a conscious subject. All-knowing, all- meaning is the property of a conscious subject, never, the object. If something is thought cold, it is to the degree that you are warm/hot, it's all relative to your bodily reactions.
[/quote]

Being exists through being thus being in its totality self reflects. If being self reflects it is self aware. Given being underlies all that is all that is has a degree of awareness. Consciousness is universal given being through being occurs.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 3:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:32 am
What's morality?
The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.
I personally do no use the term, "morality," any longer, because it has been totally corrupted. But if morality were what was originally meant by ethical principles in philosopy, your definition is quite right. The only word I would change is, "activation," to, "achievement." I would also specify that the, "being," is a human being, because only human beings must consciously choose their behavior.
Choice is freedom of action. All forms relative to nothingness are free to act given freedom is movement and movement does not occur in nothingness (therefore no freedom).
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by Dubious »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:22 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:01 am

The way of action which leads to the fullest activation of potential of said being.

Sounds more like a Nietzschean morality than the usually understood Christian type and thus more individualistic than social.
To love is the fullest activation of potential.
Love has a lot to do with it; I don't disagree.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by promethean75 »

What's 'love' got to do... got to do with it? What's 'love' but a second hand emotion?

Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?
Post Reply