The Limits of Morality

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:17 pm

1) All morality is the means to fullying being; hence exists as a limit which forms being as being itself.

2) All being exists through consciousness, as varying degrees of measurements, as the creation, maintainance and destruction of limits through these limits which form being.

3) All limit is premised in a circular self-reflective nature as self maintaining in the respect it is circular. In these respects what we do too ourselves we do under other's and what we do to other's we do to other's as the "I" cycles through itself through other's and vice versa under an absolute unified and absolute "I AM". In these respects morality is maintained as absolute.

4) All limit is premised in a linear projective nature as projecting past the self. In these respects we project past ourselves by directed ourselves toward other's. Other's project past themselves towards us. In these respects the act of projecting is an actualization of the self, with the reception of the projection being a potential self. In these respect morality changes as relativistic.

5) All morality, as founded in limit through limit as limit, maintains a dual circular and linear quality as an expanding/contracting circle which observes the circle as constant (considering infinite expansion and contraction observes the circle as infinitely moving hence not moving) and the nature of all morality as an embracement of all being and the rejection of all evil as the deficiency of being.

6) Morality and being, premised in the limit, exists as what it is as all existence observes a degree of truth relative to other existences and is perfect relative to nothingness.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:58 am

I wouldn't read too much into morality... Yes; it is essential for society, but if people had to figure out how it works to make it work they would remain immoral..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:55 pm

Charm wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:58 am
I wouldn't read too much into morality... Yes; it is essential for society, but if people had to figure out how it works to make it work they would remain immoral..
That golden rule provides the foundation for how we interact both with ourselves and other's and in these respects acts as a form of structuring both ourselves and other's by allowing us to do whatever we want. We are judged by the judgement's we apply, the structures we build are the structures that contain us.

In these respects all morality is dependent upon a form of self-reflection as an act of self-structuring. The void of silence acts as a mediator in which the individual changes nothingness into the being of oneself with this nothingness merely being an inversion of oneself into a state of continual change.

In simpler terms in the present of percieved nothingness the individual is force to reflect upon his/her actions and effectively localize these thoughts, by multiplying or dividing them, into further thoughts that give premise to further action.

The continual changing of oneself, acts as the means through which one enables a sense of meaning in the respect how we change acts as the boundary which gives us identity. One may commit "x" action and upon further reflection individuate this action into further thoughts upon which "x" action as "x" thought may change into "x1" thought and action through x.

In practical terms, I may reflect upon a conversation I had with someone about "x" subject and upon further thought structure this thought through dividing or multiplying it into further parts to observation the means in which aspects of it relate. Upon this act of reflection I effectively observe the connection of certain parts within it and basically reform "x" into "x1" through "x" and from this am able to both give structure to my own understanding while simultaneously expanding upon the conversation at a further time.

It is this ability to structure one's actions through thought and thought through action, that observes the means of my being effectively existing under an inherent cycling through self-reflection where the act of reflection observes an inherent repitition of thought/action that results in a structure itself (as all structure exists through the repitition of limits of thought/action). In these respects, the act of silence enables a structuring of thought/action that we cannot observe today.

A society which cannot remain moral, practically speaking in a technocratic era, as the continual distractions do not allow for a means of self-reflection or the critical thinking necessary to structure one's self; hence an inherent form of moral entropy occurs.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Golden rules, and all rule are pointless to the understanding of morality, and all moral forms which are properly called transcendent concepts are not concepts at all.. Concepts stand for knowledge, and literally are the knowledge we possess about what is conceived.. All true concepts are finite, physical, conserved, and stable over time... True concepts a being with a meaning, and that being is physical.. We cannot say this of moral forms.. Justice, Virtue, Love, Liberty, God; what ever your moral conception is only so much meaning with no being.. Such spiritual meaning may motivate us, but it does not count as knowledge.. One thing is true, that of the qualities that most make people human: Ethos and Pathos instinctual and are emotional in nature, while reason can be taught to computers, and because people most often use reason to evade moral responsibility it is antagonistic to moral behavior.. Injustice, a form of immorality is always justified, and no one ever needs to justify moral behavior because it is just on its face.. I am not saying you cannot ask rational questions of moral behavior to increase your understanding, but that you know little after than before.. One a priori question that can be asked considering that all exists with a cause: For what cause do we consider morality the result.. Where we can find people behaving morally they are happier.. I think this is evident, but why??? For moral forms to exist the humans who give them value must exist.. Like cultural generally, morals exist because they make survival more rather than less likely.. The mother has no choice but to bond with and care for her young.. It can be grasped intellectually, but this is instinctual and emotional.. Morality is not an abstraction, but a reality or nothing.. So, faced with a burning building and people asking for help to escape a man might think of a hundred hypothetical excuses to evade helping, and only one for helping.. Where helping is a risk to life, it is rational to think rather than act because all of reason is predicated on the reasoner who must be alive to reason.. Moral is moral whether one is alive or dead because to help one must be aware of the spiritual oneness of life, that we are connected, and also have the sense that our spiritual well being is not found in the self, but outside of the self.. All we can say with some certainty is that morality exist for a reason and that morality is the result of moral people, as what moral people do.. I would point to the common use of the word in Morale as the spiritual health of a body of people as opposed to Physic, which points to their physical condition ... We need both conditions met to be at our peak..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:49 pm

Charm wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:56 pm
Golden rules, and all rule are pointless to the understanding of morality, and all moral forms which are properly called transcendent concepts are not concepts at all.. Concepts stand for knowledge, and literally are the knowledge we possess about what is conceived.. All true concepts are finite, physical, conserved, and stable over time... True concepts a being with a meaning, and that being is physical.. We cannot say this of moral forms.. Justice, Virtue, Love, Liberty, God; what ever your moral conception is only so much meaning with no being.. Such spiritual meaning may motivate us, but it does not count as knowledge.. One thing is true, that of the qualities that most make people human: Ethos and Pathos instinctual and are emotional in nature, while reason can be taught to computers, and because people most often use reason to evade moral responsibility it is antagonistic to moral behavior.. Injustice, a form of immorality is always justified, and no one ever needs to justify moral behavior because it is just on its face.. I am not saying you cannot ask rational questions of moral behavior to increase your understanding, but that you know little after than before.. One a priori question that can be asked considering that all exists with a cause: For what cause do we consider morality the result.. Where we can find people behaving morally they are happier.. I think this is evident, but why??? For moral forms to exist the humans who give them value must exist.. Like cultural generally, morals exist because they make survival more rather than less likely.. The mother has no choice but to bond with and care for her young.. It can be grasped intellectually, but this is instinctual and emotional.. Morality is not an abstraction, but a reality or nothing.. So, faced with a burning building and people asking for help to escape a man might think of a hundred hypothetical excuses to evade helping, and only one for helping.. Where helping is a risk to life, it is rational to think rather than act because all of reason is predicated on the reasoner who must be alive to reason.. Moral is moral whether one is alive or dead because to help one must be aware of the spiritual oneness of life, that we are connected, and also have the sense that our spiritual well being is not found in the self, but outside of the self.. All we can say with some certainty is that morality exist for a reason and that morality is the result of moral people, as what moral people do.. I would point to the common use of the word in Morale as the spiritual health of a body of people as opposed to Physic, which points to their physical condition ... We need both conditions met to be at our peak..
A transcendent concept is a concept that goes beyond the concept as a concept itself. Considering all concepts, including the golden rule, subject to limits these limits exist as infinite in themselves (as evidence in the line )

The nature of morality as subject to the golden rule as the premise observes that value is subject to creation, maintainance and destruction where value itself is a premise axiom from which we measure reality. This problem of value, is less of a problem, but rather an observation of freedom of choice in the respect one reaps what they sow and are judged by the judgements they make, constructed according to the structures (physical/abstract) they form, maintained by what they maintained, and destroyed by what they destroy.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:49 pm
Charm wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:56 pm
Golden rules, and all rule are pointless to the understanding of morality, and all moral forms which are properly called transcendent concepts are not concepts at all.. Concepts stand for knowledge, and literally are the knowledge we possess about what is conceived.. All true concepts are finite, physical, conserved, and stable over time... True concepts a being with a meaning, and that being is physical.. We cannot say this of moral forms.. Justice, Virtue, Love, Liberty, God; what ever your moral conception is only so much meaning with no being.. Such spiritual meaning may motivate us, but it does not count as knowledge.. One thing is true, that of the qualities that most make people human: Ethos and Pathos instinctual and are emotional in nature, while reason can be taught to computers, and because people most often use reason to evade moral responsibility it is antagonistic to moral behavior.. Injustice, a form of immorality is always justified, and no one ever needs to justify moral behavior because it is just on its face.. I am not saying you cannot ask rational questions of moral behavior to increase your understanding, but that you know little after than before.. One a priori question that can be asked considering that all exists with a cause: For what cause do we consider morality the result.. Where we can find people behaving morally they are happier.. I think this is evident, but why??? For moral forms to exist the humans who give them value must exist.. Like cultural generally, morals exist because they make survival more rather than less likely.. The mother has no choice but to bond with and care for her young.. It can be grasped intellectually, but this is instinctual and emotional.. Morality is not an abstraction, but a reality or nothing.. So, faced with a burning building and people asking for help to escape a man might think of a hundred hypothetical excuses to evade helping, and only one for helping.. Where helping is a risk to life, it is rational to think rather than act because all of reason is predicated on the reasoner who must be alive to reason.. Moral is moral whether one is alive or dead because to help one must be aware of the spiritual oneness of life, that we are connected, and also have the sense that our spiritual well being is not found in the self, but outside of the self.. All we can say with some certainty is that morality exist for a reason and that morality is the result of moral people, as what moral people do.. I would point to the common use of the word in Morale as the spiritual health of a body of people as opposed to Physic, which points to their physical condition ... We need both conditions met to be at our peak..
A transcendent concept is a concept that goes beyond the concept as a concept itself. Considering all concepts, including the golden rule, subject to limits these limits exist as infinite in themselves (as evidence in the line )

The nature of morality as subject to the golden rule as the premise observes that value is subject to creation, maintainance and destruction where value itself is a premise axiom from which we measure reality. This problem of value, is less of a problem, but rather an observation of freedom of choice in the respect one reaps what they sow and are judged by the judgements they make, constructed according to the structures (physical/abstract) they form, maintained by what they maintained, and destroyed by what they destroy.


I don't disagree with your definition exactly, but what transcendent concepts have in common is that they are not true concept.. They are meanings only without any actual being as opposed to true concept which have meaning and being.. They are infinites.. If you say Justice, then there is no justice to point to.. There are examples of justice, but no pure examples of Justice, and no reality, but only a spiritual, or moral form.. Justice is infinite in its expression, but empty of definition.. You cannot define an infinite.. It is a primitive thought that in having the name, you have the thing.. That is where we get characters in myth like Isantha, and rumple stilts skin.. The name is nothing.. It points at smoke..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:24 pm

Charm wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:49 pm
Charm wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:56 pm
Golden rules, and all rule are pointless to the understanding of morality, and all moral forms which are properly called transcendent concepts are not concepts at all.. Concepts stand for knowledge, and literally are the knowledge we possess about what is conceived.. All true concepts are finite, physical, conserved, and stable over time... True concepts a being with a meaning, and that being is physical.. We cannot say this of moral forms.. Justice, Virtue, Love, Liberty, God; what ever your moral conception is only so much meaning with no being.. Such spiritual meaning may motivate us, but it does not count as knowledge.. One thing is true, that of the qualities that most make people human: Ethos and Pathos instinctual and are emotional in nature, while reason can be taught to computers, and because people most often use reason to evade moral responsibility it is antagonistic to moral behavior.. Injustice, a form of immorality is always justified, and no one ever needs to justify moral behavior because it is just on its face.. I am not saying you cannot ask rational questions of moral behavior to increase your understanding, but that you know little after than before.. One a priori question that can be asked considering that all exists with a cause: For what cause do we consider morality the result.. Where we can find people behaving morally they are happier.. I think this is evident, but why??? For moral forms to exist the humans who give them value must exist.. Like cultural generally, morals exist because they make survival more rather than less likely.. The mother has no choice but to bond with and care for her young.. It can be grasped intellectually, but this is instinctual and emotional.. Morality is not an abstraction, but a reality or nothing.. So, faced with a burning building and people asking for help to escape a man might think of a hundred hypothetical excuses to evade helping, and only one for helping.. Where helping is a risk to life, it is rational to think rather than act because all of reason is predicated on the reasoner who must be alive to reason.. Moral is moral whether one is alive or dead because to help one must be aware of the spiritual oneness of life, that we are connected, and also have the sense that our spiritual well being is not found in the self, but outside of the self.. All we can say with some certainty is that morality exist for a reason and that morality is the result of moral people, as what moral people do.. I would point to the common use of the word in Morale as the spiritual health of a body of people as opposed to Physic, which points to their physical condition ... We need both conditions met to be at our peak..
A transcendent concept is a concept that goes beyond the concept as a concept itself. Considering all concepts, including the golden rule, subject to limits these limits exist as infinite in themselves (as evidence in the line )

The nature of morality as subject to the golden rule as the premise observes that value is subject to creation, maintainance and destruction where value itself is a premise axiom from which we measure reality. This problem of value, is less of a problem, but rather an observation of freedom of choice in the respect one reaps what they sow and are judged by the judgements they make, constructed according to the structures (physical/abstract) they form, maintained by what they maintained, and destroyed by what they destroy.


I don't disagree with your definition exactly, but what transcendent concepts have in common is that they are not true concept.. They are meanings only without any actual being as opposed to true concept which have meaning and being.. They are infinites.. If you say Justice, then there is no justice to point to.. There are examples of justice, but no pure examples of Justice, and no reality, but only a spiritual, or moral form.. Justice is infinite in its expression, but empty of definition.. You cannot define an infinite.. It is a primitive thought that in having the name, you have the thing.. That is where we get characters in myth like Isantha, and rumple stilts skin.. The name is nothing.. It points at smoke..


If transcendent concepts are not true because:

1) They are infinite, then by default we are stuck with a problem as consistency is necessary for truth; hence finite truth cannot be truth and transcendent truth is necessitated by is consistency as continual.

2) They are infinite, they by default we are stuck with a problem as finiteness cancels itself under further finiteness; hence finite truth cancels itself ad-finitum and this is continual and transcendent.

3) All finiteness is an approximation of the infinite, hence exist as multiple infinities in themselves. In simpler terms, all finite truth is merely the relation of multiple infinities.


Actually an infinite can be defined:

1) There is 1 infinity.
2) From this 1 infinity, there are multiple infinities as "1 infinity" is a dualistic statement. Multiplicity is 1 relative to 1 where 1 infinity as infinite 1's observes infinity as 1.
3) These multiple infinities exist ad-infinitum as one infinity
4) Points 1 through 3 observe an inherent Cycle of reason which gives boundary to that reason as 1 Continuous cycle.
5) This continuous cycle, as evidence through points 1 through 4, progresses linearly and projects away from point 1.
6) This projection away from point 1 observes point 1 as the foundation considering this argument is infinite and we go back to point 5.
7) Point 6 observes a continual expansion of definition in linear terms.
8) This argument circulates and extends ad-infinitum with "infinity" acting as a negative boundary where the argument ends through lack of definition (ie here) while continuing further.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:24 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:49 pm


A transcendent concept is a concept that goes beyond the concept as a concept itself. Considering all concepts, including the golden rule, subject to limits these limits exist as infinite in themselves (as evidence in the line )

The nature of morality as subject to the golden rule as the premise observes that value is subject to creation, maintainance and destruction where value itself is a premise axiom from which we measure reality. This problem of value, is less of a problem, but rather an observation of freedom of choice in the respect one reaps what they sow and are judged by the judgements they make, constructed according to the structures (physical/abstract) they form, maintained by what they maintained, and destroyed by what they destroy.


I don't disagree with your definition exactly, but what transcendent concepts have in common is that they are not true concept.. They are meanings only without any actual being as opposed to true concept which have meaning and being.. They are infinites.. If you say Justice, then there is no justice to point to.. There are examples of justice, but no pure examples of Justice, and no reality, but only a spiritual, or moral form.. Justice is infinite in its expression, but empty of definition.. You cannot define an infinite.. It is a primitive thought that in having the name, you have the thing.. That is where we get characters in myth like Isantha, and rumple stilts skin.. The name is nothing.. It points at smoke..


If transcendent concepts are not true because:

1) They are infinite, then by default we are stuck with a problem as consistency is necessary for truth; hence finite truth cannot be truth and transcendent truth is necessitated by is consistency as continual.

2) They are infinite, they by default we are stuck with a problem as finiteness cancels itself under further finiteness; hence finite truth cancels itself ad-finitum and this is continual and transcendent.

3) All finiteness is an approximation of the infinite, hence exist as multiple infinities in themselves. In simpler terms, all finite truth is merely the relation of multiple infinities.


Actually an infinite can be defined:

1) There is 1 infinity.
2) From this 1 infinity, there are multiple infinities as "1 infinity" is a dualistic statement. Multiplicity is 1 relative to 1 where 1 infinity as infinite 1's observes infinity as 1.
3) These multiple infinities exist ad-infinitum as one infinity
4) Points 1 through 3 observe an inherent Cycle of reason which gives boundary to that reason as 1 Continuous cycle.
5) This continuous cycle, as evidence through points 1 through 4, progresses linearly and projects away from point 1.
6) This projection away from point 1 observes point 1 as the foundation considering this argument is infinite and we go back to point 5.
7) Point 6 observes a continual expansion of definition in linear terms.
8) This argument circulates and extends ad-infinitum with "infinity" acting as a negative boundary where the argument ends through lack of definition (ie here) while continuing further.


I don't know what name they hang on those who like to complicate things, but i think it is "those who like to complicate things', and not "Philospher".. Have you seen any where were moral philosophers muddied up their notions to much to be understood??? If you hold to the opinion that morals can be taught as I do not, it is certain to be a long process with a complicated subject.. Imagine if everyone had to read a book about riding a bicycle before riding one.. You cannot explain as easily as you can do it, and there must be something that is natural or becomes natural in riding a bike, or in morality..
I would point to your statement, false on its face that an infinite can be defined.. You do realize that defined, and infinate have some word elements in common.. You can define a dog because even though we cannot examine all dogs in detail, and dissect them; we can reasonably presume a limit, and an end to the category... Consider in this case that we have many examples of justice, with each having some element of justice that can be recognized as such.. We cannot with any sense of truth say what justice is from many examples all different in detail, and since justice is natural in human relations, and often common, we can say something of it, but we cannot define it any more than ether.. Even though we see justice in our reality, every example is different.. To give it a name gives it nothing.. The sense that it is there is as easy as the sense that God is there, but impossible to prove.. There is a reason we can safely avoid talking about God, but must talk about Justice.. Justice is one of those virtues for which governments are formed to achieve, and this is so because it is essential to life, and when people are caught in situation with no justice, the are soon dead.. People ask after the meaning of life... Life is the meaning of all, the meaning of all meanings.. If we then define justice in terms of our own lives, then we have not failed.. Who better is there to decide.. Justice, if we say is a coin, and two people are fighting over the possession of that coin, Then who better than they to decide what Justice is.. All moral forms are situational, and subjective.. We can reach for a sense of objectivity, but in every situation, we cannot define what is just in advance of the question which is asked in regard to every possible situation.. As one English Jurist told a Lawyer: There are no imaginary cases.. There is also no hypothetical morality.. People who are moral do moral.. So; to define an infinite is not necessary no practical.. It is enough to be aware, that of all examples of transcendent concepts, each has been different in time and in situation.. Life is a river we cannot step into twice, even when we do not step out of it, it changes before our eyes.. I think we can say we know something of moral forms/transcendent concept.. We simple have too little information, and are dealing with moral states in flux, and cannot define what is not real as a physical body is real..

Tell me all you know about a moral form.. Take Justice, for example.. You can know nothing, for knowledge is of the physical world.. But if you stack every example of justice as you have seen it, what you have cannot be conserved.. Conservation, what Aristotle called Identity I believe, cannot be applied to transcendent concepts.. The definition of a pyramid has not change in 2400 years give or take a hundred..That means its identity is conserved.. For children, the only practical time to be able to teach them reason is when they understand conservation.. All definitions in the dictionary can exist because they represent conservation.. We can still reason with transcendent concepts if we understand one fact.. These definitions are axiomatic.. While they work, while they inform us, while they give us relevant information to guide our behavior then the axiom gains in reliability.. If our axiom is once proved wrong, it is wrong forever.. Like scientific theories that cannot be proved, but only disproved..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:43 pm

Charm wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:24 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:50 am


I don't disagree with your definition exactly, but what transcendent concepts have in common is that they are not true concept.. They are meanings only without any actual being as opposed to true concept which have meaning and being.. They are infinites.. If you say Justice, then there is no justice to point to.. There are examples of justice, but no pure examples of Justice, and no reality, but only a spiritual, or moral form.. Justice is infinite in its expression, but empty of definition.. You cannot define an infinite.. It is a primitive thought that in having the name, you have the thing.. That is where we get characters in myth like Isantha, and rumple stilts skin.. The name is nothing.. It points at smoke..
If transcendent concepts are not true because:

1) They are infinite, then by default we are stuck with a problem as consistency is necessary for truth; hence finite truth cannot be truth and transcendent truth is necessitated by is consistency as continual.

2) They are infinite, they by default we are stuck with a problem as finiteness cancels itself under further finiteness; hence finite truth cancels itself ad-finitum and this is continual and transcendent.

3) All finiteness is an approximation of the infinite, hence exist as multiple infinities in themselves. In simpler terms, all finite truth is merely the relation of multiple infinities.


Actually an infinite can be defined:

1) There is 1 infinity.
2) From this 1 infinity, there are multiple infinities as "1 infinity" is a dualistic statement. Multiplicity is 1 relative to 1 where 1 infinity as infinite 1's observes infinity as 1.
3) These multiple infinities exist ad-infinitum as one infinity
4) Points 1 through 3 observe an inherent Cycle of reason which gives boundary to that reason as 1 Continuous cycle.
5) This continuous cycle, as evidence through points 1 through 4, progresses linearly and projects away from point 1.
6) This projection away from point 1 observes point 1 as the foundation considering this argument is infinite and we go back to point 5.
7) Point 6 observes a continual expansion of definition in linear terms.
8) This argument circulates and extends ad-infinitum with "infinity" acting as a negative boundary where the argument ends through lack of definition (ie here) while continuing further.
I don't know what name they hang on those who like to complicate things, but i think it is "those who like to complicate things', and not "Philospher".. Have you seen any where were moral philosophers muddied up their notions to much to be understood??? If you hold to the opinion that morals can be taught as I do not, it is certain to be a long process with a complicated subject.. Imagine if everyone had to read a book about riding a bicycle before riding one.. You cannot explain as easily as you can do it, and there must be something that is natural or becomes natural in riding a bike, or in morality..

Morality can be taught as morality is objective. Morality is objective in the respect is observes the limits of actions which in turn form the limits through which further actions exist. This nature of Morality as objective effectively observes not just the limits of human condition but the inherent elements which form it as the human condition is observed as a summation of parts premised in the Mind, Body and Spirit where any percievable dualism (such as Cartesian duality through Descartes Mind/Body) effectively synthesizes into a third medial point (spirit) from which this dualism of parts exists.

This particulate nature of the human condition, with this particulate nature observing the relations, effectively observes specific limits which give structure to the human condition and that this human condition is a structure.

This maintanance of the limits of the human condition where the body forms both the mind and spirit, the mind forms the spirit and body, and the spirit forms the body and mind (effectively observes within the natural division of the human condition) shows a circulating symmetry where one foundation acts as a perpetual medial point from which the other two limits exists. This circulation through mediation effectively observes the moral condition premised in the human condition as one of balance through extremes as observed by the mediation of these extremes being a third element in itself.

In these respects, morality as a way of being is premised in:

1) Balance
2) Mediation
3) Circulation as a means of change giving both form and function.

Furthermore, considering the question of morality as action, observes these actions stemming from the trifold form and function of the human constitution through which the question of morality is made evident, it can be further observed that morality has objective limits in the respect the human constitution has objective limits with these objective limits being the neutral means in which we not just define humanity but the actions which exist through it.

In these respects morality observes the inherent structuring of actions which stem from these structures where:

1) The structure of thoughts contains within it an inherent moral system.
2) The structure of emotion contains within it an inherent moral system.
3) The structure of physical act contains within it an inherent moral system.

These structures inevitably are formed according to the movements or actions through which they exist and in these respects are subject to various grades of relations between extremes:

1) The morality of thought and no-thought.
2) The morality of feeling and no-thinking.
3) The morality of action and no-action.

Where the relations of these structures, through their polar extremes, gives precedence to a nature of good (being) and evil (absence of being) relative to each "part" of the human condition where this morality effectively is founded in the maintenance of life itself through the human condition as the human condition is subject to life and in these respects the question of morality is the maintenance of the human condition.

Considering this nature of morality, as means of being, effectively observes the maintanence of the human condition, through its creation and destruction in accordance with time, all morality is an observation of mediation where:

1) The act of reflection upon the rational faculties of man necessitates a form of reverance as a form of "guarding" and "remembering" the foundations of the human condition as one of measurer by acknowledging the unity of this measurement as Divine in the respect it is continual through the one limit through which it extends.

2) The act of negation of any falsity which takes away from this rational faculty where illusion is given prequesite by giving emphasis to multiplicity through extremes rather than a unification through balance and mediation.

3) The guarding and rememberance of the human condition and the source of unity from which it extends.

4) The balance of action and no-action in regards to the movements of the mind, body and spirit.

5) The guarding and rememberance of the human condition as it extends through the human condition, through reproduction, across time and space as an act of time and space in itself.

6) The preservation of life through the proper execution of destruction in accords with natural law.

7) The preservation of life through the proper act of creation through reproduction in accords with natural law.

8) The preservation of life through the proper act of maintenance of property in accords with natural law.

9) The preservation of life through the maintenance of reason as truth through natural law.

10) The preservation of life through the acceptance of reality as self-evident and good in itself.


****With all natural law being an observation of inherent cycles as limits which form reality commonly observed under the golden rule or the common phrase: "you reap what you sow".




I would point to your statement, false on its face that an infinite can be defined.. You do realize that defined, and infinate have some word elements in common.. You can define a dog because even though we cannot examine all dogs in detail, and dissect them; we can reasonably presume a limit, and an end to the category... Consider in this case that we have many examples of justice, with each having some element of justice that can be recognized as such.. We cannot with any sense of truth say what justice is from many examples all different in detail, and since justice is natural in human relations, and often common, we can say something of it, but we cannot define it any more than ether.. Even though we see justice in our reality, every example is different.. To give it a name gives it nothing.. The sense that it is there is as easy as the sense that God is there, but impossible to prove.. There is a reason we can safely avoid talking about God, but must talk about Justice.. Justice is one of those virtues for which governments are formed to achieve, and this is so because it is essential to life, and when people are caught in situation with no justice, the are soon dead.. People ask after the meaning of life... Life is the meaning of all, the meaning of all meanings.. If we then define justice in terms of our own lives, then we have not failed.. Who better is there to decide.. Justice, if we say is a coin, and two people are fighting over the possession of that coin, Then who better than they to decide what Justice is.. All moral forms are situational, and subjective.. We can reach for a sense of objectivity, but in every situation, we cannot define what is just in advance of the question which is asked in regard to every possible situation.. As one English Jurist told a Lawyer: There are no imaginary cases.. There is also no hypothetical morality.. People who are moral do moral.. So; to define an infinite is not necessary no practical.. It is enough to be aware, that of all examples of transcendent concepts, each has been different in time and in situation.. Life is a river we cannot step into twice, even when we do not step out of it, it changes before our eyes.. I think we can say we know something of moral forms/transcendent concept.. We simple have too little information, and are dealing with moral states in flux, and cannot define what is not real as a physical body is real..

Tell me all you know about a moral form.. Take Justice, for example.. You can know nothing, for knowledge is of the physical world.. But if you stack every example of justice as you have seen it, what you have cannot be conserved.. Conservation, what Aristotle called Identity I believe, cannot be applied to transcendent concepts.. The definition of a pyramid has not change in 2400 years give or take a hundred..That means its identity is conserved.. For children, the only practical time to be able to teach them reason is when they understand conservation.. All definitions in the dictionary can exist because they represent conservation.. We can still reason with transcendent concepts if we understand one fact.. These definitions are axiomatic.. While they work, while they inform us, while they give us relevant information to guide our behavior then the axiom gains in reliability.. If our axiom is once proved wrong, it is wrong forever.. Like scientific theories that cannot be proved, but only disproved..
If knowledge is of the physical world, why do people revert to abstract definitions to form the physical world?

TryingMyBest
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:58 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by TryingMyBest » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:39 am

@Eodnhoj7 I agree with your post. Do you think that #6 can happen right now or does it not happen until humans stop harming each other? Also, is this the type of idea that if all humans understood it, then there would be no more evil? It kind of sounds like it; I'm trying to keep an index of those.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:17 am

TryingMyBest wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:39 am
@Eodnhoj7 I agree with your post. Do you think that #6 can happen right now or does it not happen until humans stop harming each other? Also, is this the type of idea that if all humans understood it, then there would be no more evil? It kind of sounds like it; I'm trying to keep an index of those.
People do not change unless face with some extreme. Either a deep good or deep evil. Comsidering "knowing" is less about harboring a vast amount of information and more about how one see reality, for people to know this truth would require some form of extreme duress considering people would have to "choose" this perspective.

Choice and knowledge are interlinked and choice manifest fully in the face of the unknown.

If everything is viewed as perfect already, with no need for improvement, our progressive cultural values would disintegrate and there could be no evil considering evil is separation and separation is disunity as an absence of structure.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:35 am

I rarely take any interest in your posts Eodnhoj because as Charm said, it seems like you are more interested in overcomplicating things than actual philosophy. However, I will try to bring you back down to Earth, by presenting to you the limitations of humans instead of the limitations of morality. It is far more pertinent to this idea of reconstructing morality, the limitation of humans than is the actual theory being talked about. So consider these two things:

1. The less unique something is - the less likely it's a result of nurture.

This isn't a universal truth because plenty of things are fairly common and are still the result of nurture but when you have something like morality which is universally recognisable in the modern day and historically, it presents a big problem for any kind of nurture argument. Simply because for it to be nurtured, we need similar conditions that will nurture it in the correct way for us to see the outcome.

How then can we have morality being prevalent in nearly every human being on the planet irrespective of class, race, geography, education, gender and so on? The only question then is since morality is nature, to what extent? We know morality comes to us naturally but that doesn't mean it can't be moulded.

2. People are lazy and stupid.

People are lazy, stupidly lazy and stupidly stupid. The majority of people on Earth, know nothing about the geography of other countries (or most likely their own), they don't know anything about almost anything remotely complicated (though they think they do), they are bad at most things they do (but think they aren't) and there's no hope of teaching them remotely complicated philosophy.

Super esoteric and overly complicated philosophy is completely off the table, don't hate humanity, it's not their fault.

Now actually understanding your ideas is something I can't do because my time is worth more (even when I'm wasting it) than it would take to read through your painfully worded arguments but I can tell you that the limitations of humans deny any practicality for redesigning morality, even for something far, far, far, far less complicated and difficult to understand.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:36 pm

Judaka wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:35 am
I rarely take any interest in your posts Eodnhoj because as Charm said, it seems like you are more interested in overcomplicating things than actual philosophy. However, I will try to bring you back down to Earth, by presenting to you the limitations of humans instead of the limitations of morality. It is far more pertinent to this idea of reconstructing morality, the limitation of humans than is the actual theory being talked about. So consider these two things:

1. The less unique something is - the less likely it's a result of nurture.

This isn't a universal truth because plenty of things are fairly common and are still the result of nurture but when you have something like morality which is universally recognisable in the modern day and historically, it presents a big problem for any kind of nurture argument. Simply because for it to be nurtured, we need similar conditions that will nurture it in the correct way for us to see the outcome.

How then can we have morality being prevalent in nearly every human being on the planet irrespective of class, race, geography, education, gender and so on? The only question then is since morality is nature, to what extent? We know morality comes to us naturally but that doesn't mean it can't be moulded.

2. People are lazy and stupid.

People are lazy, stupidly lazy and stupidly stupid. The majority of people on Earth, know nothing about the geography of other countries (or most likely their own), they don't know anything about almost anything remotely complicated (though they think they do), they are bad at most things they do (but think they aren't) and there's no hope of teaching them remotely complicated philosophy.

Super esoteric and overly complicated philosophy is completely off the table, don't hate humanity, it's not their fault.

Now actually understanding your ideas is something I can't do because my time is worth more (even when I'm wasting it) than it would take to read through your painfully worded arguments but I can tell you that the limitations of humans deny any practicality for redesigning morality, even for something far, far, far, far less complicated and difficult to understand.
Over complicate things is a relative term to the reader. "Tryingmybest" gets the generalities of it.

Statistically others won't. Some people understand, others don't, it is a mix.

Understanding or not understanding things, does not make something right or wrong...just understood or not understood.

1. Morality is a means of being which creates the self, the group, and environment. All moral actions, actions which are premised on directing ourselves based on certain values, act as boundaries which form reality.

Any moral action, no matter how "unique", is an extension of one source and follows the nature of the above point. For example the moral law of property ownership, forms not just economic policies at the national or international level, but forms basic relationships as well.

This nature of morality, as a "limit", observes all moral situations as stemming from a common source.

2. Not knowing something does not mean they are lazy or stupid...it could mean they where not taught correctly, are focusing there attentions elsewhere, etc. To say people are generally lazy and stupid...is lazy and stupid.



You claim trying to understand my ideas, which really aren't even mine, is a waste of your time...but then you just wasted your time proposing a counter argument.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Tue Dec 25, 2018 2:18 am

I have presented no counter-argument to your ideas because when you say something like "morality is a means of being" it's just too stupid to listen to. You're talking about something biologically hardwired into humans through evolution and calling it a "means of being". Moral actions "act as boundaries which form reality". Can you understand that what you're saying makes no sense? It may be possible that you're actually trying to say something sensible but I can't tell because either you're talking complete nonsense or it's so esoteric that one can't take anything you say at face value.

I would be surprised if Tryingmybest can paraphrase your argument correctly because honestly, whenever I read even one sentence from a post of yours, I find confusing language being used inappropriately and misleadingly.

Whether you've willfully misread what I've said or not, I can't tell, however, to say people are generally intelligent and industrious enough to understand whatever they're taught well is not an argument you have any evidence to support. You are perhaps out of touch with what the average working person is capable of doing and what they are not.

I think my hope is that in a moment of lucidity you may respond in a way that helps me to understand you and I might learn something interesting but it does not even appear you're aware that you're different and I find lack of self-awareness makes for dull conversation.
Last edited by Judaka on Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by -1- » Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:21 am

Charm wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:58 am
I wouldn't read too much into morality... Yes; it is essential for society, but if people had to figure out how it works to make it work they would remain immoral..
I have edited a paper on morality that someone wrote and it made sense to me. Maybe someday some publisher will help the writer to get it into print. Unfortunately for the writer, the writer is not a professor of philosophy, so publishers either jeer at his work, or else are scared to downgrade their paper's reputation and respectability by publishing a piece of work without a Ph.D. behind it.

For me, it made sense, I'd even say it was brilliant. But hey, I'm just another poster on philosophy boards; I don't write history.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest