Fucking brilliant…
On the contrary, I can defend my family’s safety and fall short of objective moral standards. It’s just a cowardly thing to do. The purest action would be to let the culprit makes his own evil decisions and wreak whatever havoc he wants on me and my family. I’m not willing to do that, however. My immoral nature compels me to violence.
Regard Nyarlathotep, i pointed out the weakness of his immortality. Viz. a willingness to commit violence on one’s property where one is protected by law, but not elsewhere; where one is not. I find that to be a poor justification for violence.
It’s a bit like saying, “I’ll fight this guy … but only if I have a crow bar.”
As I said, for myself, regarding my own violent, immoral tendencies, I would entice a mutherfucker into an agreed fist fight - and then proceed from there.
Given that the suffering endowed upon your mouth by the dentist saves you a life time of future tooth pains, I would say the *ends justify the *means.
Up until now, we’ve said nothing of intention. A certain amount of suffering should be allowed if the long term effects are beneficial.
Should someone have murdered Hitler. Probably? Wouldn’t have been objectively righ. But That would have saved a lot of long term cumulative suffering. But who is the judge of that. Let whomever chooses to take life do so at the risk of having to live with that choice in one’s conscience for the remainder of their days.
Nope. I’ve already stated that two wrongs don’t make a right. But I’m human. I’m immoral.
This whole moral relativism makes it extremely easy to justify whatever fucked up actions we commit under the guise of a “subjective” moral standard. It’s fucking slippery.
Edit: I mean “ends”. It ended mean.
Then it is not an objective moral standard, if one can subjectively set it aside.
I don’t agree, so you see my (subjective) moral opinion differs to yours, as my (subjective) basis for morality is to avoid and where possible prevent unnecessary suffering, so there clearly would be a context where causing suffering might be necessary.
It wasn’t a justification for violence, it was an explanation of how context makes morality relative, and you insulted him, no one has insulted you about your subjective moral choices. Also insulting people can cause them to suffer, so you set aside what you claimed was an objective standard. Food for thought…
Not sure why you’re telling me when that was precisely my point? It was you who claimed not causing suffering to be a standard for morality, here:
You are now contradicting that absolute claim, this presents a pretty obvious inference.
That’s a given, since morality is subjective and contextual. However you claimed it was an objective moral standard, now you’re claiming you can set it aside, that suggests it is not, but rather that morality is relative and context matters. Murdering Hitler might be moral, or not, if did it before he himself had caused any unnecessary suffering I’d have to say it would be immoral, but afterwards my subjective opinion is it would not be.
As opposed to (subjectively) claiming an objective moral standard, then simply setting it aside you mean, as you claimed you would do? I see no difference there at all, other than you kidding yourself it’s an objective moral standard, when you have since made it clear you believe no such thing in reality. This isn’t slippery, it’s a slippery slope fallacy, if one allows x then how long before z etc etc, a flawed theistic argument we have seen refuted here many times.
If as you claim there is an objective moral standard, where does it come from? It necessarily has to be based on something other then your opinion, and that’s all we have seen so far.
It’s a matter of choice. Morality has no imperative without “choice”.
Well, perhaps it’s a “grey area”. Your disagreement doesn’t subjective all morals. IT’s unequivocally immoral to kill an innocent old women for her purse.
You think it’s moral to defend your family against threats with violence (if need be). Your set of moral standards are generally going to fall inside the scope of mine for a large number of examples.
In this case, you don’t agree that pacifism is the right course of action. I don’t blame you. Nor do I judge you or hold you in contempt.
This example can be both black and white. It can be immoral in some sense and moral in another.
Water can be extremely hot or cold or somewhere in between.
Well. Caveat … if the suffering inflicted on another human is done with goof intentions and leads to long term happiness which, had the action not been done, would lead to greater amounts of suffering, then it has a degree of morality to it.
Morality is relative to immorality. I haven’t claimed that I can set aside these objective realities. I’m claiming that I don’t always make the right choice. The context will help me decide if I’m going to make an extreme moral decision at the sacrifice of things I hold dear. Would I kill for my family? Yeah. Does that make it right? Not anymore than the target intending to harm my family. To wrongs don’t make a right. I can’t live without my family. So, I’ll commit evils for the sake of those I love.
My ability to consciously inflict suffering on another human being is not an “opinion”. My actions and words towards others will or will not cause them suffering regardless of how I interpre The outcome. That is the objectivity of it.
Exactly my point, you’re making a subjective call on what is and is not acceptable behaviour based on context, so it is not an objective moral standard, merely one we either choose or not to hold ourselves to, depending on context and our subjective opinions.
Give me an example of an objective moral, with objective evidence for it.
No that’s just an opinion, one I share obviously, but obviously innocent old women have been killed for the contents of their purse, and merely for kicks, so again there are those who don’t share our subjective opinion. Why do you find the notion that morals are subjective so disconcerting?
I stated unequivocally at the very start a “broad consensus” is the best we can cite, this does not make those morals objective though.
Not sure which case, but I definitely believe that there will be context where pacifism would not be the strongest moral choice.
Almost as if there is no objective standard, 
and we have to use our reason as best we can.
Thus not causing suffering is not an objective moral imperative, quod erat demonstrandum.
Ahem, think about that simple statement for a minute, and see if you can see what this means for moral context?
Precisely, your morals are subjective, and open to the same influences of context an anyone else’s.
The correct answer is there is no right, that is a subjective opinion we hold, which can vary according to context NB
If you consider it the right decision, why label it evil? Evil is a subjective term as well remember. I might do it and have reservations or regrets, but I wouldn’t call it evil to defend innocent people from violence, even with violence or if necessary lethal violence. Do you geberally think SWAT teams and anti-terrorist soldiers are evil when they kill violent criminal and terrorists, of course you don’t. Though the context is all important of course.
I disagree, all choices are based on subjective opinions and beliefs we hold. However I asked where can an objective moral standard come from? We can make objective choices about how best to adhere to the standards we set, but the moral standards are necessarily subjective, they cannot be otherwise.
That’s a subjective opinion, I see no objective evidence there for an objective moral standard? Your actions don’t happen in the absence of your subjective views on what is moral, you said so yourself, you are faced with or at least perceive moral choices. If there were an objective moral standard it could not come from the opinions of humans could it, so where could it come from?
Wasn’t it Hannah Arendt who described the planning for the Holocaust as “The Great Deception”?
I’m not the right person to answer this question, because I know my morality is wonton. I know that I could love more. I know that I could have more compassion. With those things, I would make better choices. My “subjective” preference for immorality as “acceptable” would be modified. But to achieve moral perfection, the emotions of love and compassion must be limitless and uncompromising. I am not at that state. I will likely never achieve that goal. I am human.
With that said. Objective moral # 1.
Giving food to a hungry man. It is moral because the consequences of the action are relief from affliction. I don’t think I need to provide any more “objective” evidence for why food relieves hunger. Or that hunger is painful.
Now, you might say, “what if the man goes on to murder an old lady with his renewed strength?”
That’s his choice. Murdering the innocent old lady is wrong, immoral. Imposing death and suffering on a sentient being is “immoral”. Suffering is painful. People don’t want pain (unless they have a distorted view on reality). What the man does with his satiated hunger is not my choice or consequence. What I did by giving him food was alleviate his suffering. It was “right”. Not “wrong”. Not somewhere “in between”.
I don’t find it disconcerting. I know people make bad decisions all the time. It’s exactly because their view of action, deed, and word is relative that people are able to make “bad choices”.
They’re “bad people” lol. Bad people doing bad things. Murdering an old lady for kicks is “bad” B-A-D. their subjective choice making brain is distorted. The fact that they would a) consider harming the old lady and b) go through with it speaks to their corruption. Their moral standard is “false”. I’m not saying that mine is “perfect” - but at least I’ve got the “thall shalt not murder old ladies” part figured out! Their corrupt! So am I, just in more forgiving ways. And there’s no one out there who isn’t. Well, maybe some naked Indian fellow with a long white beard, walking around while avoiding grass on the earth so as not to harm a living creature. If, for example, a person does this out of compassion for life, he is living the moral life.
That’s because you think death is the end of things. If you thought that you might live beyond the grave, you’d approach things like “being murdered by a gang of bandits” differently. You’d see an “attack” on them to save your life as repugnant to the moral standard. But you don’t think that we survive death, so you cling to “how can I survive as long as possible.”
There’s exceptions to every rule.
Open to the same influence of context, and yet the path of love and compassion is always clear and always the best. As humans we always fall short of the ideal.
“Gerbally”? Like a gerbil 
lol. I think you mean “generally”.
Uh. You’re wrong. I don’t excuse war or the idea that alls fair in love and war. War is a disease. Terrorism is a disease.
I’ve given you the example of offering food to a hungry, destitute man.
The objective fact is that by sacrificing a portion of my gains out of compassion for another human being I lessen his suffering. There should be no doubt that this is the case and will always be the case.
“What if the foods poisoned!”
“What if he’s allergic to walnuts!”
Uhh lol … let me get back to you on “that* one.
I’m pretty sure the majority of Nazi soldiers placed in positions where they would have to kill masses of people, all went insane very quickly.
They started with mass shooting, but because of the mental health effects, they switched to gas chambers.
Eventually, Methamphetamine use became prevalent likely as a coping mechanism. (I have no idea if they knew the long term effects.)
The point I’m trying to make, they knew full well they weren’t doing ‘the right thing.’
1 Like
Obviously you have not yet learned of the Buddhist teaching known as “idiot compassion.” Enlightened self-interest means recognizing that acting in generous and altruistic ways makes you happier. If you feel that you have done a good deed, or that the world is a better place, or even that you helped someone and are patting yourself on the back in any way. You are practicing ‘idiot compassion.’ Not only have you harmed yourself, but you have probably harmed the person you intended to help. Not all compassion is helpful and not all anger harmful. Your black and white way of perceiving Buddhist teachings is utterly and completely moronic. You miss the mark on every turn.
Is there such a thing as an altruistic act? It can be argued, that even a man taking the sword for another does so to protect his own sense of self-worth and attachment to self identity. It’s a virtuous spiral: Being kind to others makes happy, which makes you nicer, which makes you even happier, and you become nicer, and now you are a compassion junkie with glassy eyes, no belongings, and a belief that you are somehow on a righteous path to Nirvana. Shave your head, don your robes, live this way, follow the path, hold tight to Buddhist teachings, but always remember non-attachment. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …
1 Like
I’m already “happy”. If you knew the first thing about the Buddhist teaching of “noble compassion”, you’d understand that one develops it for one’s self first.
Extending compassion towards others, makes other’s happier. I’ve already extended it towards myself enough.
I feel it in my heart, mind, body, and soul. And the same for the other Brahma Vihara.
Oh. Pop quiz! As an expert on Buddhism, Cog … what are the other three Brahma Viharas?
All expressions of my compassion are emanations of the happiness I already feel. I do not gain more happiness by giving. I am already suffused in it. I give it out of the goodness in my heart.
In my “black and white” understanding of Buddhism good deeds follow good intentions and good intentions follow good feelings.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Oh poor poor ratty… “One’s self?” Where is the self in Buddhism? One of the main themes in Buddhism is the extinguishing of self through enlightenment. You poor sod. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Buddha’s Second Noble Truth states, “The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things” . His Third and Fourth Truth go on to say that “conquering self” and “whose self disappears before truth” will end suffering. Finally, Buddha’s Eight Fold Path offers a means to accomplish this task.
Silly silly ratty… destroyed by his own words…
Oh poor Cog. I do not laugh. But, shake my head. Your superficial understanding of the dharma and your lack of sutta knowledge should embarrass you. Attend to the following that you might grow in the dharma.
Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn’t hurt others
if you love yourself.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.01.than.html
A very awkward translation.
The rest of your “Tao” inspired translations regarding the self (or lack thereof) are superficial at best. Try this. It’s the original Pali (not stained by Taoist influence).
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
You actually think you have something to teach me ahahahahahahaha 
that’s rich
I’ll address your glaring misconception of anatta in another post. I have a weekend to enjoy. I’m not going to spend it updating your amateur understanding of Theravada Buddhism.
How can you claim something exists, yet not be able to provide a single example?
This is just a subjective opinion again though?
It’s another subjective opinion that this is moral though.
Again subjective, since old ladies do get murdered.
Actually that’s not always the case, but again how we arrive at what best actions achieve our morality is irrelevant to the fact that this morality is subjective.
This isn’t really relevant to the way we subjectively view what is “bad” or “good” though.
I don’t believe that, could you offer any objective evidence to support it?
I agree, that doesn’t make it an objective belief though.
Another subjective opinion though. The point is not how you or I feel about the actions of others, it is that how we feel is based on subjective beliefs we hold about what is moral turpitude.
This again supports the notion our morals are relative and subjective.
Nope, the fact there is no objective evidence we survive our own deaths is not relevant to my subjective opinion that pacifism is not always the best moral choice.
No I wouldn’t, but since I don’t believe we survive our physical death in any meaningful way the scenario is not relevant to my subjective morality.
None of that is correct except that I don’t believe we can survive our own physical deaths in any meaningful way, so if you want me to repeat the subjective basis for my morality I can do so, but please don’t make things up like this. However my subjective moral rationale is necessarily driven by my perception of reality and not by subjective religious superstitions I don’t believe. I doubt anyone basis moral decisions on what they don’t believe.
This doesn’t address the contradiction in your post.
People’s idea of what is a moral ideal is subjective, this is not about the fact we often fall short of our subjective morality, but that it is subjective.
Yes I meant generally, it’s a typo obviously, and as I was away yesterday I haven’t had a chance to correct it. So you think killing a terrorist t prevent an act of terrorism is evil then? interesting notion, can’t say I share this view, but it is still subjective.
That’s not objective, it’s a subjective opinion.
Indeed, but is a subjective opinion that relieving suffering is moral.
I know this wasn’t the case in every instance, though you’re right that there is objective evidence the gassing was to spare the trauma of the soldiers who were traumatised at shooting women and children, though it’s an assumption this was because they believed it to be wrong, also the fact they simply changed the method suggests some of them did not believe killing unarmed civilians was wrong.
“Buddha said that the greatest source of true happiness is to cherish others”
Ratty, I’d far rather have compassion for a being, than compassion for life. Killing can, in some cases, be an act of compassion.
5 Likes
LOL… I am not the one being contradictory. LOL Poor poor Ratty. Do you know how sad it is that you need to resort to quoting others? Teach? LOL… Ratty, you have long ago shown you are incapable of gasping anything beyond that which you already know for sure.
I don’t know. I had to Google that person.
Hey guys, I just found this site and platform a few hours ago and briefly went over the different forums, I’m Israeli and grew up in a religious family. I studied our conflict (Not school and stuff) since childhood and it was probably what kickstarted my journey of exploring and questioning religion ending up an atheist.
I’ve always noticed how people around the world oversimplify the Israeli-Arab conflict for political use but living it and digging into it as much as I have, I’ve learned how impossible it is to learn anything from it without seeing the whole picture. From knowing the origin of both sides to knowing the ‘level of religiousness’ of the populations in both sides and taking all of that into consideration. For example one of the common things I hear from 90% of people speaking about it is was faced the misconception that “Israelis are white europeans” even though a short Google search can tell them that about 75% Of Israelis are either Mizrahi-Middle eastern Jews or Arab/Druze citizens.
The religious aspect of this conflict is super rich and this conflict would have never been this bloody and last that many decades without it.
Anyway would love to have a conversation about it if someone is interested.
1 Like
Would enjoy chatting with you about it. Have started a new thread over in the Atheist Hub.
Anyone can have a personal experience and claim they saw this or they saw that.
1 Like
I did. You haven’t even remotely addressed the hypothetical situation.
I said that giving a hungry, destitute man is a moral act out of love, and compassion.
Address this please.
Are love and compassion subjective realties?
There was a condition there. They may desire pain if they are mentally fucked up.
In what universe is killing an old lady not a bad thing?
Relative and deficient in relationship to the “gold” standard.
My apologies. Let’s leave death and the possibility of life after for another discussion.
People are motivated by a lot of “good” and “evil” factors. They form good and evil intentions on the basis of those good and evil motivations (namely greed, hatred, and indifference for the “evil” and love, compassion, and equanimity for the “good”)
I know Sheldon. Relax. I like gerbils lol.
In what universe is it not good to give a hungry, destitute man some of your own food?
What about acting out of love or compassion?
What about not acting out of indifference or hatred?
Are we not morally obligated to feed the hungry?
According to who? What is that person’s source? What sutta does it originate from?