When putting words in the mouth of the Buddha, it is good practice to quote the suttas attributed to him. Lest we arrive at the conclusions you’re pushing.
Which supports the premise that relieving the suffering of another “being” (if you like) is “moral”.
Poor ratty: He has no comprehension of the bullshit emanating from his entitled sense of enlightenment. I have heard it said, The Buddha never wrote a book. In fact the first sutras were written several hundred years after the supposed death of this master who has little more supporting his existence than the great late Jesus. Can you hear Bullshit when you say it or are you actually oblivious?
1 Like
And here you are quoting a nice little abomination of the four noble truths. How hypocritical of you. You can post bogus interpretations of the words ascribed to the Buddha, while telling me I am naive for quoting suttas passed down by an oral tradition dating back to the life of the Buddha.
You may be right. We may never know if the Pali canon represents anything the Buddha ever said. One thing is certain however; the contents of the Pali Canon are remarkable. And one other thing is certain; imposters like you don’t having a clue what they’re about.
Well, you are beginning to see the light.
You really think so?
The very best evidence you have for the Buddha is a 6th century shrine. That means Buddhists were doing their thing in the 6th century. It is no confirmation at all that anyone called Buddha ever existed. Prior to the discovery of this shrine, Buddhism was thought to be a 3ed Century creation. Please, what actual evidence aside from the mortal remains do you think you have?
“Mortal remains of the Buddha belonging to the third or fourth century were found during an excavation in 1962–1963 at Devni Mori which is a Buddhist archaeological site near Shamalaji in Gujarat. Ashes of Buddha were found in a gold bottle wrapped in silk cloth within a copper bowl that was kept in a casket.” (Now we know this is a lie because we discovered a 6th Century BC temple.) You can erase all supposed evidence that does not date to before the 6th century. Silly silly ratty… Stick with 'We don’t know." and you will be ahead of the game.
Oh! And where is my 'Thank You" for showing you the way out of the paper sack you found yourself in?
Thank you, oh Enlightened One.
Do schizophrenic hallucinations of the Buddha, Ananda, and Sariputta count as evidence for his existence? Or is this mere “anecdotal” subjective experience?
Archaeologists working in Nepal have uncovered evidence of a structure at the birthplace of the Buddha dating to the sixth century B.C. This is the first archaeological material linking the life of the Buddha — and thus the first flowering of Buddhism — to a specific century.
https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=19400
Good night! (Old curmudgeon! Crotchety old man!) take my fucking money ya bastard. 
Franly that is about all anyone has. All experience is subjective, that’s why we have the scientific method. As long as you understand, ‘This is all you have.’ you’re on solid metaphysical ground. Have fun with your daydreams.’
I’ll take that as point finely understood.
Here is your claim:
It is a subjective opinion that this is a moral act, it cannot be otherwise. It is not an example of objective morality, why would it be? It is of course also a subjective opinion that morality is derived from love and compassion.
NB I am not offering my own subjective moral opinion, merely pointing out that this opinion is subjective. It is correct for those who hold the same subjective opinion, and incorrect for those who do not.
Nope, that is again just a subjective opinion. Plenty of people who are perfectly normal get sexual gratification from masochism.
Sigh, which part of “I agree” confused you into claiming I am saying the opposite? FYI, I have never ever claimed that killing old ladies is not a bad thing? Only that the opinion it is or is not, are both subjective. It seems you can’t grasp the difference.
Are you under the impression subjective opinions are either right or wrong? If I said I prefer vanilla ice cream, and you said you prefer chocolate, neither of us would be wrong in any objective sense, we’d simply be offering a subjective opinion.
An hallucination is defined as a sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch that a person believes to be real but is not real. So they cannot be objective evidence for what is perceived, by definition.
1 Like
So, some people would consider it “immoral” to feed a hungry, destitute man? Do you hear how fucked up that sounds.
Having experienced love and compassion in their purest forms, I find them to be very good sources of moral motivation.
Having experienced hatred and indifference in fairly extreme ways, I find them to be very poor sources of moral motivation.
When has hatred or indifference ever benefited man kind?
Masochism is defined as a sexual perversion. Thank you for making my point.
No. I’m simply explaining that the section of the population who don’t have a problem with killing old ladies are ascribing to a fucked up set of values. “Fucked up values” is deficient, not “subjective”.
For example. We have two men standing twenty feet from an elephant. One has 20-20 vision and the other is near-sighted. Each are asked to identify the object.
The near sighted man claims it is “a boulder”. The man with good eye sight correctly identifies the elephant.
It is possible to hold a subjective opinion which is both wrong and wrong on the basis of stemming from a deficient method of measuring things.
It is possible to hold an objective opinion which is right and is right on the basis of having a well calibrated measuring system.
In all of these ethical scenarios (Hitler, ISIS, killing old women) … the actions are immoral on the basis of fucked up value systems (hatred, greed, indifference).
In other examples (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless) … the actions are moral on the basis of a value system founded on universal values of love, compassion, and equanimity.
If you can’t accept that, I don’t feel like we have much left to say to each other.
I am not commenting on its moral value, only on its subjective nature. This is an error you have made throughout this discourse.
And others do not, is it possible you still don’t see that you’re offering a subjective opinion, again? NB See the emboldened part of your claim?
Indeed, but again this is a subjective opinion, as the emboldened part amply demonstrates.
Who says they should? Oh, and mankind is one word. Now tell me does everyone agree which subjective morality best benefits mankind? Nazis for example, whose plan for mankind seemed ok with hatred and indifference to suffering when they thought it benefitted mankind, or their version of mankind anyway.
noun
the tendency to derive sexual gratification from one’s own pain or humiliation.
I don’t see any mention of perversion, however you said “mentally fucked up” to justify your claim that “no one wants pain” you were wrong on both counts, and the evidence suggests you’re wrong here as well. Since the dictionary doesn’t support this assertion anymore than the other two.
I’d agree, but this remains a subjective claim though, and the claim it is (morally) deficient is of course subjective. Ever heard of Nietzsche, he maintained that morality was a trick the weak play on the strong, now of course I don’t agree with him, but we are both offering subjective opinions.
That’s just a subjective opinion. You’re merely objecting to what you view as moral turpitude, but this doesn’t make your revulsion objective, anymore than their lack of revulsion at such acts would be objective.
A subjective value system obviously.
They’re not universal, as the examples amply demonstrate.
Morality is subjective, it cannot be otherwise, offering endless examples of what in your subjective opinion is moral turpitude, simply shows you’ve not grasped the point, since I am not endorsing such acts, merely acknowledging that my morality is no less subjective than a Nazis or ISIS, just because the basis for my morality cares primarily about preventing unnecessary suffering, doesn’t make it objective, anymore than anyone else’s. Again no one’s revulsion of what they view as moral turpitude is objective nor is it universal.
You may continue or not of course that is your choice, people who deal in the errant notion of moral absolutes are rarely in my experience open minded to the notion we live in a morally relative universe. Like you they seem to fear moral relativism, as if simply acknowledging it’s existence will somehow remove any basis for morality, but it clearly doesn’t, as we know atheists (for example) are at least as moral as theists.
For myself I will shift my position when someone can demonstrate something beyond subjective opinion, or offer a single moral absolute, thus far they have all failed, you included.
“Subject” to what, Sheldon?
Because I have found them. Those who act out of hatred have not. This my point about learning. Knowledge is learned. Values are acquired through experience. Love and compassion are the goals of all human development. It is what binds us to each other.
Oh. And “gerbally” isn’t a word at all! Lol.
The Nazis were evil and had hatred as their motive.
Fun game.
How’d that work out for him. Died of a syphillitic infection; went crazy at the sight of a horse being beat!!! Lmao
Demonstrate it for yourself, Sheldon. Love and compassion are infinite and universal values for you to find in your heart. All of this banter just goes to show that you have yet to find these immutable values in your 58 years of life (you were born in ‘65 after all. Lol).
I have no idea what your referring to, or in what context. As it seems to have no relevance to the part of my post you quoted, here:
The word subject isn’t used at all?
Found what? Again I don’t see what relevance this vague assertion has to the part of my post you quoted:
No they’re not, don’t be absurd. I have offered multiple examples that demonstrate this to be false, do you think ignoring them and repeating your claim is a compelling argument? Nazism, Taliban, ISIS etc etc…
Why are you repeating my point back to me? I already said this, because it demonstrates that the Nazis held a subjective morality that thought hatred would benefit mankind? Here is the exchange again then, as you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying or why:
Disproving your original claim that no one wants pain.
Relevance?
I just said that no one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence that morality is objective, so your assertion makes no sense? Least of all because it is your claim that morality can be objective, not mine?
They are neither infinite nor universal, nor do these emotions derive remotely from anyone’s heart. Nor has your claim any relevance to morality being subjective that I can see?
I want pain. That’s one of the reasons I continue to get tattooed, it make the chronic nerve pain in my legs and feet disappear for 3 or 4 days.
Hey rat spit, you have no idea how good it feels to be able to walk like a normal person without the pain. The tattooed area stings for a couple of days, but I’ll gladly accept that pain for the other.
1 Like
I’m afriad he makes sweeping claims like this and doesn’t really think them through. We can come up with many examples of deliberately seeking pain, for example osteopathic treatment, as the temporary pain will alleviate the long term, or dental treatment, or surgery, how about physical exercise, weight training we could go on all day. The point is that not everyone basis their morality on the things he is trying to claim are universally accepted as a sound basis for morality, and this is because morality is subjective. Our morality is also complex and often nuanced according to context.
I don’t fear subjective morality, it is when people try to deal in moral absolutes I get worried. The more we question and examine our morality the better, that is why it has evolved continuously, and that is also compelling evidence it is subjective, if we had objective morals why would they ever change, how on earth could they improve?
2 Likes
You’re claiming that morality (and value systems) are subjective. What are they “subject” too. I’ve clearly named my conditions for an objective morality (universal; unchanging love and compassion).
What are your conditions for “subjective” morality. Level the playing field.
Anything subjective is subject to interpretation. So you’ve used the word “subject” implicitly. Everyone experiences compassion the same way. It is not open to “interpretation”; thus is it is not “subjective”. On the other hand, not everyone will experience compassion in their life time. It is not gained by happenstance.
OMG. And they were WRONG. CATEGORICALLY WRONG. MISTAKEN. FUCKING MAD. OBJECTIVELY STUPID. WITHOUT A DOUBT. NO IF ANDS OR BUTS.
Ugh. No. People with sexual “disorders” (Encyclopedia Brittanica’s definition) desire pain to achieve sexual gratification.
What is a “disorder” Sheldon? Something “subjective” I’m assuming you’ll say.
Oh God. You know you can still investigate the mysteries of the heart and remain secular, you know. Having an understanding of the human heart 🫀 isn’t going to convert you into a theist. Remaining ignorant to it will rob you of your most basic drives, however.
The only thing you will find in anyones heart is blood.
3 Likes
And muscle. Oh! And some nerves. And some grizzle. I once ate a chicken heart and it tasted like love.
1 Like