Let’s not start sharing the things you have eaten. You will embarrass Tin Man.
2 Likes
Are you trying to claim NOW that you don’t know what subjective means?
Your conditions? Is it really possible you don’t know what subjective means, and have been arguing out of ignorance of a simple word definition? Your conditions (for the basis of morality) are not shared by everyone, ipso facto they are neither objective, nor are they universal.
I have done so innumerable times on here, and even in this discourse, where I explained my morality necessarily must seek to try and avoid unecessary suffering as one example. However this is irrelevant to the discourse, as I have explained innumerable times, the fact that morals are subjective is not a statement about what I consider to be moral or not, but about the nature of human morality.
Then why ask what it is subject to? Something is subjective if it is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. You just said it’s “your conditions for…” and I have demonstrated countless examples of others who have different conditions for what they consider to be right and wrong behaviours. Your conditions are not universal they are personal and subjective, as are all morals.
You mean like Hitler and Gandhi? What a spectacularly stupid claim. Again I have given you countless examples of people who don’t apply compassion in the same way, the KKK, ISIS, the Westborough Baptist church etc etc etc…
If it is applied universally as a criteria for objective morality as you claim, then the only way this could be true is if such a person never met another living soul. Otherwise it is yet again evidence that it is not a universal criteria for morality, and morals are subjective not objective.
OMG and that is subjective, what you and I think is wrong or right differs from Nazis.
Now that is shifting the goal posts, first it was no one, then only the mentally fucked up, now only with sexual disorders. I have sought out pain, I have tattoos, I visits an osteopath, the dentist, I have had painful surgeries deliberately knowing they would all involve pain. These are evidence that your sweeping claim was wrong, poorly reasoned, as I suspect are all absolutes.
The heart is a pump made of muscle, the emotions you described do not reside in the heart, such sloppy vapid sentimentality has no place in well reasoned debate.
Just as well as you seem to think emotions reside in a pump made of muscle.
The ignorance here is not mine, clearly. Though I am no doubt ignorant of a great many things, I don’t revel in that ignorance, or cling to it if I can help it, but then I try not to let my rationale be determined by dogma and doctrine.
Love is a word used to describe a range of complex human emotions, compassion and love are far from universal, how much compassion did the Nazis show victims of the Holocaust, yet they were capable of it to those they loved, so no, these are far from universal emotions, both in the way we understand and interpret them, and more importantly for this discourse in the way they are or are not applied as a basis for morality.
And heartworms. Don’t forget about heartworms. God’s loving gift to Man and animals, because God loves us all. 
1 Like
@rat_spit Don’t listen to him, Ratty. What other culinary treats have you devoured?
(Edit to blush.)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … So you can detect the undetectable? What methodology are you using to detect that which can not currently be detected. The world wants to know.
2 Likes
Well. The meaning is subjective, isn’t it?
So people construct moral values on subjective principles?
So all values are subjective?
So everyone has some idea of what love and compassion are (in their own subjective ways)?
So the values held by the Nazis were justified at least among their “tribe”?
So there are no absolutes? All values are subjective?
So the heart is without feeling and isn’t perceptive to anything beyond what the brain tells it?
So my understanding of morality (objective morality) is a subjective nuance of my indoctrination into Buddhism later in life and Christianity earlier in life? My values are subjective? Thus my morality is subjective?
You’ve made this point already, but to be clear; the heart does not feel or process emotion or values? The brain does?
So, in order for something to be universal it must apply to all people all of the time? The Nazis loved their own “tribe”? But they did not “love” other tribes? And yet the love they had is comparable to the love I have for all people, in the sense that “love” is a subjective term?
Aw, shit, Ratty! You almost made me shoot my bite of baloney sandwich out my nose! 
3 Likes
well duh, that is exactly what happens.
1 Like
And so the expression “heart break hotel” refers to a brain state?
Well, the meaning is subjective, but the definition is “objective*; whereas the spelling is also “objective”. And by that I mean the spelling is “subjective” but in an objective sense, not to be confused with the meaning which is objective; or rather “subjective” - contrary to the definition which is objective, but not as objective as the spelling which is “subjective”.
Oh dear. I seem to have existentially shit my pants again. 
1 Like
No, It is the name of a hotel in Kenansville, Florida.
It’s also the name of a popular Elvis song.
1 Like
Hold on I will ask this bunch of rocks over here. Nope, no answer. Let’s try and google it shall we…being smarter than a bunch of rocks…but then they have never even heard of a strawman argument …
12 Feb 2021 — The “Heartbreak Hotel” Elvis Presley sings about is the place where those who have been jilted by their lovers, like himself, congregate. It is called artistic licence.
1 Like
I see. So, if I feel pain or pleasure in my heart, it’s actually occurring in my brain? Which also means that when I look at skyscrapers in the distance, that is in my brain too! When I look at you, you are in my brain! What happens when you look at me?
Oh dear. I feel another existential shit coming on!
So, google is like the brain of the internet?
Well then, what’s all this talk about “blue suede shoes” and “I’ll have a blue Christmas”? What is a blue Christmas?
Yep. When you look at skyscrapers in the distance, they are in your brain. We generally only accept them as real with independent verification. (Hey! Do you see those skyscrapers?) Yes, when you look at me, you see me in your brain and I may or may not be real. Again, you accept the surrounding reality based on independent verification to some degree.
2 Likes
Isn’t there a “part” of the skyscraper which I can’t know that isn’t in my brain? After all, I am looking at something - just not what my brain tells me it is.
Common usage is not subjective no, if it were a dictionary would as useless as the words in it, dictionaries are compiled from objective data, and reflect what most people understand a word to mean. However words are made up, and change as does language, for it to be of any use though others must understand what you mean, so if one decides to subjectively attach meanings to words that no else’s understands they will likely not be communicating very clearly. Also different languages influence other languages, more so in the post industrial era, ,and as travel and films are having a massive influence how many people globally experience other languages.
However I digress, maybe a thread on words and language is called for.
What have I been saying? You just said “your conditions” for morality. Do “your conditions” match those of everyone else’s, like Nazis or the KKK or ISIS or the Taliban etc etc?
The idea they are right or wrong values is subjective yes.
If they have encountered the emotions or the words, then yes it is likely they have some notion of these emotions and what the words mean, but how they apply them if at all to their view of morality would be subjective, as the examples demonstrated.
If you mean did they subjectively believe they were justified, then quite obviously they did, did you think the holocaust was an accident?
Morality is subjective yes, once we create a subjective moral basis we can use objective arguments on how best to achieve that subjective morality, but the moral judgments remain subjective.
The heart does not hold, contain or produce emotions. Though it can be influenced by emotions as it is controlled by the brain.
All moral judgments are subjective, they cannot be otherwise. Even Buddha would have been making subjective choices on what he taught.
I posted the definition for you, that is sufficient to demonstrate that love and compassion are not universally used as a basis for all morality, as you claimed.
I can’t speak to what all Nazis felt obviously, but love of the fatherland and the party and family seems to be claims they made often and with sincerity. Love describes a complex set of emotions, but it means different things at different times and to different people.
I don’t follow, if it is subjective then it need not be interpreted the same obviously, beyond it being a very strong motivating emotion.
How do you know it is not what your brain tells you it is? You can not say what it is or is not without looking into it. Step one. Is it there?
I would enjoy that.
No. But I consider my conditions “superior” to those of the KKK, etc.
So what’s wrong to me may be right to a Nazi and noone can be the judge of that?
So, compassion and cruelty may be compatible values and actions? The value of compassion can, depending on the person, reflect itself in … say … violence to others?
Is there any type of “justification” that is not subjective?
So, a morality based on cruelty and violence is “objectively” good, for example, if … let’s say … Hitler exterminates as many Jews, Gypsies, and Jehovas Witnesses as he possibly can. Otherwise, objective to his system, he is acting immorally? And no one outside of that system can objectively state, “what he is doing is wrong”? Since their moral values are entirely subjective?
Although, for example, a “heart attack” registers pain in the heart. My wife and I call them “jammers”. They feel like clots of blood are forcing their way through your arteries. “Miny heart attacks”. Extremely painful and disturbing. When the pain is gone there is a sense of relief. Emotions are, after all, just “feelings” of pain and pleasure.
Because there are no objective standards by which to judge morality? (Other than how well you “execute” your own subjective moral values).
What if I were to claim that they exist as “totalities”?
Regardless of whatever love they felt to their motherland, it did not extend to others? That is the sense in which love is not universal. In that universal love extends to all people. Why do you think a person cannot at least attain a level of love that extends to all people? Do you not think such a type of love exists?
I mean that my understanding of love need not be compatible with theirs since theirs allows them to harm others whereas mine does not.