Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 10:21:43 PM

Quote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:47:55 PM

Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:24:06 PM

Quote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:18:40 PM

Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PM

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PM

The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.

Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.

To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.

Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.

Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist

Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.

If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.

When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.

It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.

Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.

I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.

I get that you disagree, it's just perplexing that you see morality as inherent and more than just a concept when no meaning could ever be derived from suffering without the subjective interpretation of sentient beings.

Because who cares whether meaning is derived or not? Suffering is still there. Whether or not we know its bad is irrelevant.

Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.

Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.

Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.

Quote from: Annie on June 06, 2017, 07:12:52 AM

Quote from: Aether on June 06, 2017, 06:54:16 AM

Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.

Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.

Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.

You have a very strange definition of morality. It doesn't make any logical sense to me, and it certainly doesn't align with what society axiomatically understands morality to be. How can morality just be suffering? Do you suffer by living a moral life? If morality is composed of good and evil, then would you say that good is suffering?

 How is morality simply the pain we experience and not the meaning derived from that pain?

We already have a concept to define the pain we experience, which is suffering. Whether or not something is good or evil is an entirely different concept that is interdependent with suffering.

Any actual definition you can find of morality essentially states that it is the principles we use to define and distinguish good and evil. Nothing about the concept, as it is self-evidently defined by society, can be reduced to just the phenomenon of suffering.

And your definition is just as baffling. Suffering is a net bad, whether that be physical suffering or emotional. Any person with a modicum of logic could tell you that. Why on earth would suffering stop being bad just because that person isn't around to say so anymore? It's still bad, a gazelle being eaten alive is still in constant pain. If a schitzophrenic who has no external awareness shoots up a mall because he thinks everyone in the mall are Russian soldiers who are trying to kill him, did he shoot up the mall in self-defense? No, he mass murdered the people there - what he did was still evil, even if he couldn't come close to comprehening that.

Quote from: Aether on June 06, 2017, 07:36:16 AM

Quote from: Annie on June 06, 2017, 07:12:52 AM

Quote from: Aether on June 06, 2017, 06:54:16 AM

Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.

Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.

Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.

You have a very strange definition of morality. It doesn't make any logical sense to me, and it certainly doesn't align with what society axiomatically understands morality to be. How can morality just be suffering? Do you suffer by living a moral life? If morality is composed of good and evil, then would you say that good is suffering?

 How is morality simply the pain we experience and not the meaning derived from that pain?

We already have a concept to define the pain we experience, which is suffering. Whether or not something is good or evil is an entirely different concept that is interdependent with suffering.

Any actual definition you can find of morality essentially states that it is the principles we use to define and distinguish good and evil. Nothing about the concept, as it is self-evidently defined by society, can be reduced to just the phenomenon of suffering.

And your definition is just as baffling. Suffering is a net bad, whether that be physical suffering or emotional. Any person with a modicum of logic could tell you that. Why on earth would suffering stop being bad just because that person isn't around to say so anymore? It's still bad, a gazelle being eaten alive is still in constant pain. If a schitzophrenic who has no external awareness shoots up a mall because he thinks everyone in the mall are Russian soldiers who are trying to kill him, did he shoot up the mall in self-defense? No, he mass murdered the people there - what he did was still evil, even if he couldn't come close to comprehening that.

Perhaps it's hard to understand this but the idea of good and evil is ultimately subjective. It is an interpretation of the meaning derived from suffering. A reality without sentience is one that has no concept of good and evil.

All phenomena, including suffering, are merely the result of conditioning. Everything does as it is conditioned to do. This is simple cause and effect, action and reaction. Meaning has no inherent stake in this process, it is just a product of our perception of that process.

Don't take this as some warped justification for a person to do anything that they want. To be a condition of suffering without having to bear the burden of responsibility that comes with it.

Undoubtedly, if you are a condition of suffering then you will suffer yourself. You can never be free from suffering unless you yourself are not a condition of it. You don't have to understand morality to be an inherent part of reality to have the wisdom to follow a path that leads to freedom from suffering. No phenomena within the realm of duality exist inherently, everything is interdependent apart from the one truth that supersedes all others, and which all other truths are rooted in.

I can't force you to see things the way I do, and I don't necessarily have a desire too, but at least try to understand that last part as it becomes the basis for understanding all other ideas with greater clarity.

Suuuubjectiiiivvvveeee

Quote from: Annie on June 06, 2017, 11:59:07 AM

You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.

You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.

The last point I made, that all phenomena are interdependent, is not an opinion. It is the truth. Nothing that ever comes into being can exist without the conditions that manifest it.

That concepts are subjective is axiomatic. They don't exist outside of our subjective conceptualization. It is that conceptualization that creates them. That is why they are called concepts.

What you seem to be stating is that morality is more than a concept. Which is not how society defines it. You can choose to define morality this way but it does not align with the general definition of what morality is. You say that morality is suffering, but society defines morality as principles that are based on the meaning derived from suffering.

And society is wrong. Morality isn't a concept, it's a law. No different than gravity or conservation of matter.

Quote from: Annie on June 06, 2017, 04:11:13 PM

Quote from: Aether on June 06, 2017, 04:05:13 PM

Quote from: Annie on June 06, 2017, 11:59:07 AM

You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.

You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.

The last point I made, that all phenomena are interdependent, is not an opinion. It is the truth. Nothing that ever comes into being can exist without the conditions that manifest it.

That concepts are subjective is axiomatic. They don't exist outside of our subjective conceptualization. It is that conceptualization that creates them. That is why they are called concepts.

What you seem to be stating is that morality is more than a concept. Which is not how society defines it. You can choose to define morality this way but it does not align with the general definition of what morality is. You say that morality is suffering, but society defines morality as principles that are based on the meaning derived from suffering.

And society is wrong. Morality isn't a concept, it's a law. No different than gravity or conservation of matter.

You can't prove this to be an absolute truth. None of the examples you've given have done so.

It doesn't matter to me in the end, picking apart your perspective was interesting at least.

Just like yours haven't. You've restated the same talking points over and over without saying why they're true. You can use big words all day, they don't make you right.