Why do you think

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

You take the extreme of Hitler and Nazi Germany and say that because the consensus at the time was “X” it’s somehow just a “good” in a moral sense to the Buddha encouraging us not to kill.

Not even remotely what I said, they are however both subjective claims, two extreme views of what is subjectively good cannot be equally good, if they are both subjective views. Good and bad or moral and immoral, are words we assign actions based on our subjective beliefs.

@rat_spit

Hitler brought about suffering. The Buddha’s moral code brings about non-suffering. That’s a pretty clear criteria for “moral standards”.

Actually it is two distinct and entirely subjective criteria for morality, since not everyone cares about suffering or believes it to be undesirable, while others like myself cite avoiding unnecessary suffering as the basis for our moral outlook. This was rather the point, which you seem to be struggling to grasp. Which one you or I or (allegedly) Buddha find SUBJECTIVELY moral is not remotely the point.

@rat_spit

The basic standard for morality is that if it brings about suffering then it’s immoral.

Do you think repeating the claim makes it any less subjective? Go to a prison and tell your new pals that, see how fast their morality collides with yours, SUBJECTIVELY. I gave you an obvious example of subjective morality that caused unimaginable suffering, it’s hardly unique either.

@rat_spit

It’s pretty “objective”. It causes “suffering”.

Yes, it is however an entirely subjective belief that causing suffering is immoral, one I share of course, but that doesn’t make it objective just because it is your or my OPINION that it does, you do know what objective means right?

@rat_spit

The more heinous the act, the more immoral the “murder”.

Adding adjectives to your opinion doesn’t make it objective.

@rat_spit

First degree is more immoral than second. Boiling your grandma in hydrochloric acid is more immoral than choking her to death.

That’s a subjective belief, not everyone shares that opinion, is this sinking in yet? I am not arguing about what it is moral, only pointing out the subjective nature of morality.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Lining up more unevidenced claims in tandem is not knowledge.

What the fuck would you know about knowledge?

Ad hominem fallacy.

@rat_spit

You don’t believe in certitude or anything absolute.

I don’t believe they are epistemologically possible no, since the existence of unfalsifiable claims and ideas, and the fallible nature of human reasoning demonstrates this is likely the case.

@rat_spit

Knowledge is truth. Truth is absolute.

Neither of those subjective claims is correct, knowledge is fallible, ipso facto it can wrong or untrue, so no knowledge is not truth, people who believe the world is flat are affirming the truth of that claim, it is based on their flawed knowledge. Truth is not nor can it be an absolute, it can be irrefutable, but never immutable. The best we can hope for is that a belief is supported by overwhelming objective evidence, so much so as to be irrefutable fact, since we are not infallible we can’t say it is immutable.

[mr.macabre13]

You stole that joke from Klinger on MASH.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Do you think repeating the claim makes it any less subjective? Go to a prison and tell your new pals that, see how fast their morality collides with yours,

You mean “immortality”.

@Sheldon

you do know what objective means right?

Sure. You can throw rocks at it.

@Sheldon

I don’t believe they are epistemologically possible no, since the existence of unfalsifiable claims and ideas, and the fallible nature of human reasoning demonstrates this is likely the case.

Well. Hopefully your reasoning here is not fallible as well. We might have a proof by contradiction on our hands.

@Sheldon

Truth is not nor can it be an absolute, it can be irrefutable, but never immutable.

My cat is coloured black and white … “truth”
Flat earth theorists are wrong … “truth”
The earth is a sphere … “truth”

What is not immutable about these three statements?

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Do you think repeating the claim makes it any less subjective? Go to a prison and tell your new pals that, see how fast their morality collides with yours,

You mean “immortality”.

Nope, I was talking about their subjective opinion, not mine or yours.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

you do know what objective means right?

Sure. You can throw rocks at it.

Try Googling it.

@rat_spit

Well. Hopefully your reasoning here is not fallible as well. We might have a proof by contradiction on our hands.

Oh dear, so all arguments are invalidated because we’re fallible, which would make yours wrong, so mine isn’t, and yet that means it is and simultaneously means it isn’t, …it seems the contradiction was yours not mine, unless you’re claiming one of us is infallible?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Truth is not nor can it be an absolute, it can be irrefutable, but never immutable.

My cat is coloured black and white … “truth”
Flat earth theorists are wrong … “truth”
The earth is a sphere … “truth”

What is not immutable about these three statements?

I think you mean what is refutable about these statements, immutable is making a prediction about future evidence, irrefutable is based on what we think we know, and if we’re smart on how rigorously we have objectively tested that knowledge.

Again this is a very common theistic mistake I see used over and over. Irrefutable and immutable are very different, and only the latter is as absolute.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Nope, I was talking about their subjective opinion, not mine or yours.

Lol. I don’t know what to say anymore. You’re justifying the moral standards of a convicted criminal on the basis that his opinions on his actions are “subjective”. And that makes his moral standards as valid as my own (a law abiding citizen)?

@Sheldon

Try Googling it.

No wonder you don’t believe in epistemic truth or knowledge. You find all of your answers on a web search. And you were born in ‘65? What are sad turn of events. You should know better, Shelly.

@Sheldon

and if we’re smart on how rigorously we have objectively tested that knowledge.

Do you think I wake up every morning “testing” my knowledge that my cat is coloured black and white?

@Sheldon

immutable is making a prediction about future evidence,

Do you think I go to sleep at night “wondering” if my cat will be coloured black and white in the morning?

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

You’re justifying the moral standards of a convicted criminal on the basis that his opinions on his actions are “subjective”.

Not even close, and I very specifically said the opposite as well?

@Sheldon

Nope, I was talking about their subjective opinion, not mine or yours.

Right there???

@rat_spit

No wonder you don’t believe in epistemic truth or knowledge. You find all of your answers on a web search.

Nope, another dishonest misrepresentation, as I claimed no such thing, in fact I have stated the opposite many times, and anyone can see I asked you what objective means, and you dishonestly evaded answering, again. Obviously because you know your “objective” moral standard cannot be supported by anything but your subjective opinion, the same as mine and everyone else’s.

@rat_spit

Do you think I wake up every morning “testing” my knowledge that my cat is coloured black and white?

Judging from some of these responses I am starting to doubt you have examined such notions beyond a very facile level, odd for a Buddhist I must say.

@rat_spit

Do you think I go to sleep at night “wondering” if my cat will be coloured black and white in the morning?

No, nor was that my point, again all you are demonstrating is a very facile grasp of what is being discussed, and I am running out of ways to simplify it. Allowing for doubt does not mean we have doubts, an irrefutable fact can leave room for doubt, an immutable claim cannot. The latter is of course the very definition of closed minded.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Judging from some of these responses I am starting to doubt you have examined such notions beyond a very facile level, odd for a Buddhist I must say.

I’ve lived for 42 years on this planet Sheldon. I’m a human. Somehow I managed to learn the English language at a young age, merely by being exposed to it.

My grasp of “morality” is going to be fine without or without your lofty relativist moral subjectivism … as if killing an old lady for her pearl necklace is “okay” if you see it that way.

There are some irrefutable moral realities that do not leave doubts. Killing old innocent ladies is one of them.

Killing someone or hurting someone because they’ve threatened your family and the moral reality of that may be open to disagreement. But, if you go ahead and commit to that choice there is a moral reality of “consequence”. That man’s family will lose a father, a husband, a provider. They will suffer. You will be held responsible for that suffering. You may go to prison. Your own family will suffer on that account.

These are objective realities. Whatever your intention is, that colours the nature of the deed. But the consequences will appear independently of your opinions on the matter. Reality will “judge” you and hand you some kind of sentence.

@Sheldon

and I am running out of ways to simplify it.

Yeah. Don’t worry Sheldon. If you want the moral high ground you can have it. I’ll continue practicing morality for the purpose of experiencing good feelings founded on a strong moral basis. This is another tenet of Buddhism not being discussed.

“Restraint leads to non-remorse. Non-remorse to gladness. Gladness to Joy. Joy to Rapture. Rapture to tranquility. And tranquility to bliss.”

• The Buddha

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

and I am running out of ways to simplify it.

Which is funny because I gave you the simple, irrefutable, immutable fact of knowledge that my cat is coloured black and white and all you can say is my understanding is facile?

Knowledge is that simple! Cats are black. Planets are spherical! Murdering people causes suffering! People don’t want to sufffer! Inflicting suffering on another person for the sake of gain or to unleash one’s anger is immoral! It doesn’t change depending on what excuse you have for that day.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

I’ve lived for 42 years on this planet Sheldon. I’m a human. Somehow I managed to learn the English language at a young age, merely by being exposed to it.

It wasn’t meant as an insult to your intellect, your maths would leave me befuddled very quickly. We are all more au fait with some topics than others. We all have blind spots as well, where ideas hit at core beliefs we hold. The more rigorously and uncompromisingly we challenge them though, the more sure we can be about them.

@rat_spit

My grasp of “morality” is going to be fine without or without your lofty relativist moral subjectivism …

I wasn’t talking about morality, but about your grasp of the difference between immutable absolutes, and irrefutable facts, because there is a significant difference.

@rat_spit

There are some irrefutable moral realities that do not leave doubts.

Hm, I prefer to challenge my concepts of morality, to trust reason over absolutes. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, blindly following “moral” absolutes is something most “good” Nazis managed. Now relax and breathe, I am not remotely suggesting your morals are like a Nazis, merely indicating that one approach seems more hazardous than the other to me.

@rat_spit

Killing someone or hurting someone because they’ve threatened your family and the moral reality of that may be open to disagreement. But, if you go ahead and commit to that choice there is a moral reality of “consequence”. That man’s family will lose a father, a husband, a provider. They will suffer. You will be held responsible for that suffering. You may go to prison. Your own family will suffer on that account.

Indeed, which is why we should be careful about what subjective moral choices we make. Also for clarity I wouldn’t kill anyone solely because of a threat, just to be clear.

@rat_spit

These are objective realities.

Nope, those are consequences to actions based on subjective morality and the laws societies create to reflect a broad (but subjective) consensus.

@rat_spit

Yeah. Don’t worry Sheldon. If you want the moral high ground you can have it.

Debate has little to do with morality, it is about sound reasoning, perhaps I am not clever enough to make these ideas clear.

@rat_spit

“Restraint leads to non-remorse. Non-remorse to gladness. Gladness to Joy. Joy to Rapture. Rapture to tranquility. And tranquility to bliss.”

• The Buddha

It seems flawed, what if I witness an attempted rape for example, then use restraint and don’t intervene? Context is everything.

Anyway I am going away shortly, and won’t be back until tomorrow, so that’s about all for me.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Which is funny because I gave you the simple, irrefutable, immutable fact of knowledge that my cat is coloured black and white and all you can say is my understanding is facile?

How do you know that is immutable? Can you predict the future, the best one can say is it is an irrefutable fact.

@rat_spit

Knowledge is that simple! Cats are black.

Nope, knowledge is not that simple, you are simplifying it and pretending irrefutable is no different to immutable, but they are very different terms.

@rat_spit

Murdering people causes suffering! People don’t want to sufffer!

I’m not sure the latter claim is true you know, Mother Theresa held a very different view for one example.

@rat_spit

Inflicting suffering on another person for the sake of gain or to unleash one’s anger is immoral!

I agree, but that’s a subjective opinion of course.

@rat_spit

It doesn’t change depending on what excuse you have for that day.

It clearly does, you said so yourself? You would angrily defend your family no? As would most people, even with lethal force. However more importantly even were all subjective opinions agreed on that, and they’re not, it would still be subjective opinion, how can it be otherwise, where else can our basis for morality come from other than our subjective reasoning? We can make objective claims about what actions will best serve that moral basis, but it remains subjective, and context as we see changes even those moral claims. It is necessarily complex because our minds and reasoning are complex. it cannot be otherwise as far as I can see.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Anyway I am going away shortly, and won’t be back until tomorrow, so that’s about all for me.

Yes. Let’s both take a breather.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

How do you know that is immutable? Can you predict the future, the best one can say is it is an irrefutable fact.

Let’s make a three hundred dollar bet that I can. If you agree, I will post a picture of my black and white cat here with a time stamp. We’ll all wait for five days to pass. If he is still alive after five days, I will post a second picture here with a time stamp on it. I predict with certainty that my cat will have the same colours.

If my cat has changed colour in those five days, let’s say I’ll give you five to one odds - so I’ll PayPal you $1,500. If he is the same colour you owe me $300.

Would you take that bet? Why or why not?

@Sheldon

Nope, knowledge is not that simple, you are simplifying it and pretending irrefutable is no different to immutable, but they are very different terms.

I’m not pretending anything. My cat is black and white! I can prove it with a photo. He’s a sexy son of a bitch too! You’ve never seen a tuxedo like this before. I guarantee it.

And, what’s even funnier is that he was the same colour when he wandered out of the streets into my wife’s loving arms. And, oddly enough, for the 15 years he’s been around, his coat hasn’t changed.

Well, a few greys. And I’ve got a feeling that when he passes and we cremate him, that coat will lose some of its lustre.

That’s as close as a living thing can possibly come to being “immutable”. Knowledge need not be based on the “eternal” in order to maintain its identity over time.

@Sheldon

You would angrily defend your family no?

Likely. I have my flaws.

@Sheldon

where else can our basis for morality come from other than our subjective reasoning?

Except that we’re “taught” morality. Viz. Lord of the Flies. Human nature is brutal and vicious and selfish. Like other character traits our morality is handed down over generations.

Just as our ancestors could only fish, hunt, or gather with the proper training, we can only live in a peaceful society with the right direction.

“Son. There is fish in that lake. Use this boat and go into the middle. Then cast this net over the side like this. Pull it up after some time and see. That is how we fish.”

Similarly, “Son. There is a thing called “love”. And there are other things like “joy” and “compassion”. They are great feelings. They are the height of what it means to be alive. But if you are cruel to others, and if you only care about your self, it will be very hard for you to grow up in order to understand these ideals. So, treat others fairly, be kind, do not harm others, do not take what is not offered, work hard for your keep. Do that and you will come to realize the best of things in life. You will be happy. And along with life and liberty, that is what you should pursue!”

It is like that.

@Sheldon

it cannot be otherwise as far as I can see.

Some of us are heading for the ideal by doing the right thing. Some of us have done the right thing, but have still missed the ideal. And some of us are far away from the ideal.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Let’s make a three hundred dollar bet that I can. If you agree, I will post a picture of my black and white cat here with a time stamp. We’ll all wait for five days to pass. If he is still alive after five days, I will post a second picture here with a time stamp on it. I predict with certainty that my cat will have the same colours.

You’re missing the point, that represents compelling objective evidence for your cat’s colour, even irrefutable evidence, it is not nor can it be immutable, you are still mistaking the former for the latter. The likelihood your cat will change colour is not the point, until you grasp this you won’t understand why immutable claims are epistemologically impossible, but this is not about what you can evidence, it’s about what you cannot evidence.

@rat_spit

Would you take that bet? Why or why not?

No, because it is irrelevant as no one is claiming your cat is going to change colour, in fact I’m not making any claims about your cat, you are claiming that your cat’s colour is an immutable fact, I do not believe you, as you cannot predict the future as just one example, the likelihood of the claim being true is not the point.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Nope, knowledge is not that simple, you are simplifying it and pretending irrefutable is no different to immutable, but they are very different terms.

I’m not pretending anything.

Use whatever word you want, immutable and irrefutable are very different ideas, and you are making claims that might be considered irrefutable, but are claiming they are immutable, and I don’t believe anything can be immutable.

@rat_spit

And, what’s even funnier is that he was the same colour when he wandered out of the streets into my wife’s loving arms. And, oddly enough, for the 15 years he’s been around, his coat hasn’t changed.

Why are you telling me this? I made no claims about your cat’s colour, only disbelieved your claim that it is an immutable fact.

@rat_spit

That’s as close as a living thing can possibly come to being “immutable”.

You’re still not understanding, I believe you about your cat’s colour, also since the claim is trivially true I’d accept the objective evidence is irrefutable, I do not accept it is immutable, even the scientific methods don’t do this, and all facts and ideas must remain tentative in the light of new evidence. As I explained, leaving room for doubt, does not mean there is any doubt.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

where else can our basis for morality come from other than our subjective reasoning?

Except that we’re “taught” morality. Viz. Lord of the Flies. Human nature is brutal and vicious and selfish. Like other character traits our morality is handed down over generations.

Those are the subjective reasoning of those authors, so no this is not a source of objective morality.

@rat_spit

Some of us are heading for the ideal by doing the right thing. Some of us have done the right thing, but have still missed the ideal. And some of us are far away from the ideal.

What is the relevance of this to morality being subjective? “The right thing” is a subjective concept, it cannot be otherwise, a Nazis tries to do what they think is right, as do the Taliban and ISIS and the KKK, but their subjective notion of “the right thing” is very different to mine and yours I’d hope. That we all think we are trying to do the right thing doesn’t make it objectively right.

[Cognostic]

@rat_spit

I predict with certainty that my cat will have the same colours.

As long as we specify, "Exact same coloring,’ and to the ‘exact same degree.’ I will take that bet. You can PM me for the address. Cats shed every day, but will only go through large-scale sheds once or twice a year, You start counting those hairs because they will need to stay exactly the same for you to win your bet.

The average cat has over 40 million strands of hair. It can shed up to 20% of that on any given day. Cats shed all the time. The actual color can not remain consistent. It only appears consistent because we are not looking very closely., You lose. Send me my money.

[CyberLN]

@rat_spit

I predict with certainty that my cat will have the same colours.

Interestingly, a clone, an exact genetic duplicate, of your tuxedo cat would NOT have the same pattern of black and white.

[skriten]

Hmmm…weird conversation going on here. I have to bring up something else, though…
I have a “Chameleon Cat” who changes colours daily. In fact, I never know for sure until I pet him, if he is indeed my little friend.
Sometimes he changes while I am looking at him, which is rather disconcerting.
One thing I am CERTAIN of is that he will NOT be the same cat tomorrow as he is today.
( See Heraclitus)
.
.
Edit to look for my tongue

[Cognostic]

@skriten

One thing I am CERTAIN of is that he will NOT be the same cat tomorrow as he is today.
( See Heraclitus)
.

Just dig your heels in ratty. Spout some more nonsense just like you always do. Miss the point entirely. Try to wriggle your way out of sending me my money. Why? Because that’s the kind of guy you are.

[rat_spit]

@Cognostic

As long as we specify, "Exact same coloring,’ and to the ‘exact same degree.’ I will take that bet. You can PM me for the address. Cats shed every day, but will only go through large-scale sheds once or twice a year, You start counting those hairs because they will need to stay exactly the same for you to win your bet.

Did I say “he’ll have the same amount of hair.”?

No, I said, “he’ll be the same colour”.

[rat_spit]

@Cognostic

Just dig your heels in ratty. Spout some more nonsense just like you always do. Miss the point entirely. Try to wriggle your way out of sending me my money. Why? Because that’s the kind of guy you are.

I don’t see you replying to my sutta references. Recall? The one’s annihilating your assertion that the Self does not exist in Buddhism? That the so-called realization of anatta is Nirvana?

Hard for you to imagine that anyone might know anything more concerning a topic you’ve “glossed” over once upon a time. You seem to be the one “spouting” nonsense.

You reply to what’s convenient. I do see Sheldon, however, grasping at straws in the darkness.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

You’re missing the point, that represents compelling objective evidence for your cat’s colour, even irrefutable evidence, it is not nor can it be immutable, you are still mistaking the former for the latter. The likelihood your cat will change colour is not the point, until you grasp this you won’t understand why immutable claims are epistemologically impossible, but this is not about what you can evidence, it’s about what you cannot evidence.

You have a poor standard of knowledge if you think that facts must be immutable for knowledge to be established. There are exactly three facts that underly intuitive knowledge of reality.

1. reality is suffering
2. reality is impermanent
3. all real things are not-self

Anatta (“not-self”) is the quality that, for example, we cannot simply make things into what we wish. This is not the same as “no self” or, the “annihilation” of personal identity (which some rookie “rocking chair” philosophers might assume).

@Sheldon

No, because it is irrelevant as no one is claiming your cat is going to change colour, in fact I’m not making any claims about your cat, you are claiming that your cat’s colour is an immutable fact, I do not believe you, as you cannot predict the future as just one example, the likelihood of the claim being true is not the point.

Everything changes. If you cannot personally establish for your self that a given thing is “knowable” because it the truth of that thing may change over time, then I am not surprised you are sceptical of “knowledge”.

What about “Mathematical Truths”? Do you think the value of pi is subject to change.

Either way, I do not share your opinion. If something is true and justified for some length of time my knowledge of it holds firm until such time as that true and justified fact breaks down.

Regarding morality, the standards of judging something to be moral or immoral are love and compassion. I may not be capable of “knowing” what is right and what is wrong until I reach those bench marks. Until such time as I do, my “knowledge” of morality remains incomplete (not “subjective” - merely “deficient”. Like a man with bad eyesight attempting to identify
an animal in the distance).

When love and compassion have disappeared from the world, the whole idea of morality will have disappeared. There will be no standard for morality. This is perhaps what disturbs me about “subjective morality”. How do you hold a Nazi, or a Terrorist “accountable” for their actions if their “subjective” take on morality is no more or less justified than mine or yours?

@Sheldon

and I don’t believe anything can be immutable.

Neither do I. It doesn’t stop me from “knowing” things.

@Sheldon

You’re still not understanding, I believe you about your cat’s colour,

That’s funny. Cog doesn’t seem to.

@Sheldon

What is the relevance of this to morality being subjective? “The right thing” is a subjective concept, it cannot be otherwise, a Nazis tries to do what they think is right, as do the Taliban and ISIS and the KKK, but their subjective notion of “the right thing” is very different to mine and yours I’d hope. That we all think we are trying to do the right thing doesn’t make it objectively right.

It’s relevant to whether we, as humans, are or are not morally capable. We must learn morality. We don’t just decide it to be this or that based on our whims.

I do the “wrong thing” all the time. Out of conceit or laziness mostly. I know it’s wrong, but my failings as a human make it easier to make the mistake.

People often find very elaborate and complicated ways to convince themselves that an impulse.

Hitler found a very “compelling” narrative which he sold the German people.

The Taliban have their “religious convictions”.

The KKK are simply “racist”.

Acting out of hatred produces negative consequences. Acting out of love does not.

Those are the standards for moral and immoral decisions made through history by Nazis, the Taliban, and the KKK.

Indifference and greed being other highly motivating factors for immoral decisions. They are not “subjective” realities. They are “deficient”. The morality of the Nazis; the Taliban; or the KKK are morally “deficient” - not subjective. It does not matter if they’ve convinced themselves that “X” is “right”. Follow the intentions and motives behind their actions and you will find hatred at the root.