Isn't there something beyond right and wrong?

[j-ogenes]

People often ask:
1. Is X action right or wrong?
2. Who's to say? IS there a right or wrong?
Lately, I've been thinking, maybe some of the most interesting questions lay in something beyond that. Perhaps once you've decided X action IS (to you, or as an absolute, whatever your pleasure) right or wrong, then what?

There are a lot of questions I could ask, but to avoid a big mess, I'll narrow it in this way: what are the issues concerning someone doing something that is "wrong"? In other words, is "wrong" a word used to describe an activity that is absolutely repugnant and that should never be committed?

Here's a scenario.
Jenny has decided it is always WRONG to steal. She has decided she doesn't like moral relativism and thinks that things should be absolute. She has decided that whether you steal from Wal-Mart or whether you steal a dollar or a million dollars, it is wrong. She has her reasoning behind this--how stealing hurts the victim and/or society.

Jenny steals a pen from the desk of a loan officer at her bank after talking to him. She knows he can replace it, no problem. It's a cheap Bic 10-center. However, she says "wait, I just did something wrong."

Do we expect Jenny to feel guilt? It's HER moral code she's broken. If someone has decided it's wrong to steal under any circumstances, that person would also feel guilt over the slightest thing, right? But what if she doesn't? What if she cognitively, intellectually says, "what I did is WRONG--not right--but it's not a big enough deal for me to really feel guilt."

So, does this make her a hypocrite? Does it mean she really thinks stealing the pen was not wrong? Does it amount to saying sometimes stealing is wrong and sometimes not? Is it significant that she wants to label the action WRONG, even if not a wrong to beat herself up over? I hope if this is all unclear it at least provides material for discussion.

[faerhyne]

Interesting post.

I would imagine that she would either feel guilty for breaking her own moral code, or else she wouldn't even notice that she stole. That sounds weird, but I've noticed that some people do that. They're against something (i.e., stealing) but when they steal something they don't consider it stealing. Your hypothetical person reminds me a bit of this type.

[fast]

what are the issues concerning someone doing something that is "wrong"? In other words, is "wrong" a word used to describe an activity that is absolutely repugnant and that should never be committed?There are those that will say that something either is or is not wrong without room for Grey area, but at the same time (and it's not contradictory) to feel stronger about some wrong's than others. I may tell you that stealing my wallet versus my pen is wrong regardless of how you cut it, but I'm going to be a whole lot more upset if it's the wallet you take instead of the pen--that 10 cent-er, of course.

Jenny has decided it is always WRONG to steal.Jenny would be incorrect to say that stealing is 'always' wrong, for it is not.

She has decided she doesn't like moral relativismShe needs to realize that what she likes does not reflect reality.

and thinks that things should be absolute.I'd say she is conflating what she would like (a world of simple structure) with how things really are. Things are not absolute. Show me an absolute, and I'll show you an exception. Show me that very same exception contingent upon that absolute, then I'll show you an exception to that...and so on.

She has decided that whether you steal from Wal-Mart or whether you steal a dollar or a million dollars, it is wrong. She has her reasoning behind this--how stealing hurts the victim and/or society.I'd say not stealing is a great principle to live by, but when it comes to stealing that gun from her brother that she knows he's going to do something bad with...

Jenny steals a pen from the desk of a loan officer at her bank after talking to him. She knows he can replace it, no problem. It's a cheap Bic 10-center. However, she says "wait, I just did something wrong."
And she would be correct, according to me. :) --just a little something to add spice.

Do we expect Jenny to feel guilt? It's HER moral code she's broken. If someone has decided it's wrong to steal under any circumstances, that person would also feel guilt over the slightest thing, right?
hmmm, not necessarily. Wrong to her IS wrong to her, but this does not necessarily warrant the same convictions for each wrong. Both killing and stealing a pen may both be wrong to her, but this is not going to have the same psychological impact -- or at least I wouldn't expect it to.

But what if she doesn't? What if she cognitively, intellectually says, "what I did is WRONG--not right--but it's not a big enough deal for me to really feel guilt." This problem (if it can be called that) is two-fold. On one hand, one may argue that she is rationalizing unjust behavior. On the other hand (or um another issue), she is keeping things in perspective.
I'll probably get whipped for that one.

So, does this make her a hypocrite? Does it mean she really thinks stealing the pen was not wrong? She's convinced herself that it's an acceptable wrong, and yes, it does make her a hypocrite.

Does it amount to saying sometimes stealing is wrong and sometimes not? Not in this case. In this case, it's a matter of it's wrong (to her) and she's justifying her behavior fallaciously.

Now, here's a question for subjectivists. If she has the pen as an exception to being wrong, does this therefore mean that she is not guilty of drawing invalid inferences?

[Surreal Reality]

Here's a bit of my reasoning,

I think the idea of right and wrong depends on a persons morals.

If, when you do something wrong, you think about the consequences either on yourself or another, then you feel guilt, then you decide that is wrong.
If, when you do something wrong, and you think about the consequences either on yourself or to another, but still consider it in your or someone elses best interest to do that "wrong" thing, it then becomes right because you justify it in your mind.

In order to go beyond right and wrong, you have to go beyond morals and ethics. When you do something, don't think about the conseuqences (if you can) just do what your doing. This is called instinct, to me, instinct is devoid of morality.

But that's just what I think.

[OCLonghorn]

I think if you recognize that you have done "wrong", and yet don't feel guilt, then you do not understand why what you have done is wrong.

If you steal the pen, you might "know" that what you have done was "wrong", but you may not feel guilt because of a mitigating factor...ie- you feel that no (immediately discernible) harm was done.

However, if you have some appreciation for the cumulative impact of this action being repeated by others (in reality or even hypotheically), you might feel a genuine sense of guilt arising from this seemingly small breach of ethics.

The guilt might also have to do with the level of committment you have to yourself/your ethics. If you have made a personal committment to a value (in this case - "I shall not steal"), you may feel guilt over having failed your committment to yourself more than you do over the harm that was/was not caused to the owner of the pen.

[wardy]

thoughts: given the illustration above in the first post, Jenny would be a hypocrite if she believes that stealing is wrong and she steals by the simple definition of the word hypocrite (see dictionary.com) this makes her a transgressor of her own moral standard.

Does it mean that she thinks stealing the pen was not wrong?

Great question! She may, but she may not. Many people have moral standards and convictions and fail to keep them. This doesn't mean she thinks stealing the pen is okay but it does mean she is a violater of her own standard. She may move on never to steal another thing for the rest of her life and she may return the pen at a later date. Just because she violates her standard doesn't mean that the standard does not exist to her. (i hope i articulated this well) I know that I haven't lived up to my own standard.

You brought up a good point about, "Is it okay to steal sometimes, example: taking a gun away from a person who is intending to do harm." This same sort of question is posed in philosophy classes. It's usually in the form of, If you are driving a train and you come up to a fork in the tracks and you have to make an immediate decision on which track to take, however on one track a person is tied up to it with ropes, on the other track 5 people are tied up with ropes. Which scenario is worse? I'm in the position to make a choice that is going to kill somebody. Even if I decide not to choose and let the train just select the already defauted track, it will result in the death of at least one person.

I believe stealing is morally wrong. I don't want to steal from people and I don't want people to steal from me. However, If someone's life is in danger or harm can be done to a person, and I have a choice to steal/take a gun from a person who's intending to do harm then I will chose that action. Now, the reason I use the word steal/take is because i think the variable of the circumstances changes if its really stealing. In an immediate life/death/harm situation you take the gun away. If you know that a person has time before they are about to act then a wise person would call the authorities so that they do not have to steal the firearm.

The headhunter who eats others doesn't want his head hunted.

Question:
What happens if a person believes that it's okay to steal but steal has a guilty consious? Does this ever happen?

[fast]

Question:
What happens if a person believes that it's okay to steal but steal has a guilty consious? Does this ever happen?

Hi ya wardy!

Reframing your question slightly:
How can we interpret someone that holds the opinion that stealing is wrong but who also feels guilty subsequent to (or after) stealing?, and Does this ever happen?

I would interpret this someone as conflating an issue. First off, the presence of guilt isn't consistent with the notion that it's not wrong. Guilt usually stems from the awareness of what they did was wrong. I can go at this a couple ways.

#1 The person who verbally claims that it's not wrong is mistaken. The subsequent guilt is evidence of that false claim.

#2 The person who holds the claim that it's wrong is doing so from an entirely intellectually philosophical stance. For example, one may entertain themselves with the notion that there is no true wrong that actually exists and thus either spout the claim or hold it bottled up inside without further examination of their stance. Subsequently, the unanswered questions that stem from not exploring their notion is incompatible with how they also feel in the real world. Consequently, a guilt can surface despite their own limited belief that it somehow isn't wrong.

In regards to your second question about does it ever happen, I'd say in case #1, then it's very unlikely, but in case #2, it probably does.

[wardy]

Hi Fast,

Thanks for the thoughts. However when you reframation of my question totally takes away from the point that I'm trying to make. I'll take it as my fault for not communicating my point clearly enough and give you guys and girls another shot. (i often think too far ahead of my fingers ability to type.)

the reason I asked my question if my desire to explore this statement posed by Surreal Reality. -- "I think the idea of right and wrong depends on a persons morals."

My question again rephrased for clarity: A person decides/believes that it's okay to steal or murder. (cannibals who kidnap and eat other humans). Do a case exist where people ever fell guilty for their actions even though there may be no consequences for their actions?

If a cannibal decides/believes that it's okay to kidnap and kill why doesn't he agree with somebody kidnapping and murdering him or his family? His attempt to make his own moral standard is inadequate and something that he cannot live by himself.

I invite your thoughts.

[UncleJim]

People often ask:
1. Is X action right or wrong?
2. Who's to say? IS there a right or wrong?
Lately, I've been thinking, maybe some of the most interesting questions lay in something beyond that. Perhaps once you've decided X action IS (to you, or as an absolute, whatever your pleasure) right or wrong, then what?

There are a lot of questions I could ask, but to avoid a big mess, I'll narrow it in this way: what are the issues concerning someone doing something that is "wrong"? In other words, is "wrong" a word used to describe an activity that is absolutely repugnant and that should never be committed?

Here's a scenario.
Jenny has decided it is always WRONG to steal. She has decided she doesn't like moral relativism and thinks that things should be absolute. She has decided that whether you steal from Wal-Mart or whether you steal a dollar or a million dollars, it is wrong. She has her reasoning behind this--how stealing hurts the victim and/or society.

Jenny steals a pen from the desk of a loan officer at her bank after talking to him. She knows he can replace it, no problem. It's a cheap Bic 10-center. However, she says "wait, I just did something wrong."

Do we expect Jenny to feel guilt? It's HER moral code she's broken. If someone has decided it's wrong to steal under any circumstances, that person would also feel guilt over the slightest thing, right? But what if she doesn't? What if she cognitively, intellectually says, "what I did is WRONG--not right--but it's not a big enough deal for me to really feel guilt."

So, does this make her a hypocrite? Does it mean she really thinks stealing the pen was not wrong? Does it amount to saying sometimes stealing is wrong and sometimes not? Is it significant that she wants to label the action WRONG, even if not a wrong to beat herself up over? I hope if this is all unclear it at least provides material for discussion.

Words have specific meanings. Right and wrong don't violate this premise.

If an action is right it is never wrong. If an action is wrong it is never right. Otherwise these words would be meaningless.

Now there are actions that carry no identification of right or wrong these are optional and unimportant actions. They cause neither harm nor good.

Stealing is a wrong action. Its identification of wrong is known by the result produced on the receiver of your action. By example: You may feel that it is right for you to steal milk so that your baby can live but since that wronged the life of the baby from whom you stole it; it is therefore a wrong action. It is true that your baby has a right to live but that right cannot include the violation of the equal right of another baby. The value of the item stolen is of no consequence; it is the principle we are discussing.

Rights are only guarantees of action; they are not guarantees that an action will produce a desired result or that an action must be provided or taken by which you will benefit or that a benefit achieved by another‘s action is yours to enjoy. Rights are only guarantees of action; if you don’t (or can’t) act it is right that only you suffer, not another. If another provides you with aid (a pencil) you benefit not by your right of its possession but by the charity of the one who provided it to you.

[ComestibleVenom]

Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" was a work of genius on this topic such that the best of the best of the best anyone on IIDB.org could produce would only be a pale shadow of it's brilliance.

That will be all.

[DougP]

I would say that because she doesnt feel guilty then her brain isnt telling her it is wrong, even if she had decided that it is wrong. It is very often that people feel bad about doing something whether they want to feel bad about it or not, and also the same for people who do not feel bad about something. Example: A sociopath could learn that hurting another person is wrong, but still feel no remorse after doing it.

-Doug

[Shake Well]

Jenny has decided it is always WRONG to steal.

DOES Jenny really decide for herself? Or, is her decision really based on her environment, the society in which she was brought up? Can you truly decide something for yourself? (Since what you believe and what your supposed personal 'values' are really based on what society has taught you.)

Jenny, like all of us, is a product of society. Her decisions are based on her experience in this world. And her values, her decision that 'all stealing is bad', is really based on what society has taught her to think. Right and wrong here are therefore decided by society as a whole, and Jenny is merely following the pattern created by society. Society creates the categories Right and Wrong so that people who do what's "right", which would be beneficial to the society as a whole.

3 people, A, B, and C live in a cave. A steals from B, B finds out, but cannot do anything because A is stronger than B, is A wrong? A then proceeds to steal from C, after getting away with stealing from B, and C finds out, but is not as strong as A and therefore cannot do anything about it. But now, B and C form an alliance, decided that A has wronged them by stealing, they make the rule for the cave that stealing is not permitted and will be punished, making the action of 'stealing' 'wrong' for residents of the cave. B and C can overpower A, which makes that rule capable of being enforced. Now is A wrong? Now multiply that by the cave population by a couple billion. :D

[fast]

DOES Jenny really decide for herself? Or, is her decision really based on her environment, the society in which she was brought up?
I make my final decision, and my final decision is greatly influenced by my situation and experiences.
Nice post btw. And, welcome :wave:

fast

[Shake Well]

thanks :)

[fast]

If an action is right it is never wrong. If an action is wrong it is never right. Otherwise these words would be meaningless.

This is so untrue.

[fast]

A person decides/believes that it's okay to steal or murder.A single person cannot decide whether something is or is not morally wrong. A single person may believe whether something is or is not morally wrong.

Morally correct actions are determined by comparing those actions to a standard--kind of like comparing a grade to grading system. If the standard declares "stealing in situation A" is wrong, then "stealing in situation A" is wrong by that standard.

Now, is the standard objective or subjective? Notice that this is an invalid question -- what is THE standard? There is no "THE" standard; hence, there is no morality without standard. People develop different constructs and believe their construct to be correct.

Do a case exist where people ever fell guilty for their actions even though there may be no consequences for their actions?Yes

If a cannibal decides/believes that it's okay to kidnap and kill why doesn't he agree with somebody kidnapping and murdering him or his family?Well, assuming they truly believe it's okay to do it to others, and assuming they actually disagree with it happening to themselves, I'd say there's something wrong with their reasoning.

His attempt to make his own moral standard is inadequate and something that he cannot live by himself.What is wrong, to me, is technically a standard, but it's not a standard that will hold valid for everyone.

[UncleJim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleJim
If an action is right it is never wrong. If an action is wrong it is never right. Otherwise these words would be meaningless.

This is so untrue.
[/quote]
Since you don't agree that an action is either right or wrong how can I know what you mean by "This is so untrue."?

Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?

[fast]

Since you don't agree that an action is either right or wrong how can I know what you mean by "This is so untrue."?

Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?I'm not going to equivocate, nor am I going to fall prey to this equivocation. I am neither right nor wrong. I'm simply correct.

I made that statement for the benefit of the newcomers. I'll happily continue this debate on the other already derailed thread, which I must admit that I contributed to it. Any debate (any anything) in regards to my correctness can be had there.

<fast runs for the bushes>
<derailment countdown stops>

[UncleJim]

A person decides/believes that it's okay to steal or murder.

A single person cannot decide whether something is or is not morally wrong. A single person may believe whether something is or is not morally wrong.

Morally correct actions are determined by comparing those actions to a standard--kind of like comparing a grade to grading system. If the standard declares "stealing in situation A" is wrong, then "stealing in situation A" is wrong by that standard.

Now, is the standard objective or subjective? Notice that this is an invalid question -- what is THE standard? There is no "THE" standard; hence, there is no morality without standard. People develop different constructs and believe their construct to be correct.

Fast notice your internal contradiction.
First you said that a standard is required then you said the question of standards is invalid.

What do you actually mean?

If a cannibal decides/believes that it's okay to kidnap and kill why doesn't he agree with somebody kidnapping and murdering him or his family?

Well, assuming they truly believe it's okay to do it to others, and assuming they actually disagree with it happening to themselves, I'd say there's something wrong with their reasoning.

Is proper reasoning based on the theory of standards?

His attempt to make his own moral standard is inadequate and something that he cannot live by himself.

What is wrong, to me, is technically a standard, but it's not a standard that will hold valid for everyone.

Will you define what a standard is that is not a standard?

[UncleJim]

I'm not going to equivocate, nor am I going to fall prey to this equivocation. I am neither right nor wrong. I'm simply correct.

What?

I made that statement for the benefit of the newcomers.

I'm sure you impressed them!

I'll happily continue this debate on the other already derailed thread, which I must admit that I contributed to it. Any debate (any anything) in regards to my correctness can be had there.

<fast runs for the bushes>
<derailment countdown stops>

Until we meet again!

[fast]

Fast notice your internal contradiction.Didn't see it.

First you said that a standard is required
Should I eat? Seriously, should I? The should and ought answers always depends on the "if". It depends on the standard -- the comparison -- the goal -- the objective -- the desired result -- the outcome -- it depends on something! What is that something? I say standard for compare.

then you said the question of standards is invalid.Arbitrary creation of standards is invalid, in that it doesn't hold ALWAYS. Should I eat? If life, as you say (um, you say) is worthy of preserving, then it is you that has identified this purported truth. Someone else is going to identify some other standard, and we can only guess what standard they will manufacture.

What do you actually mean?Essentially, I hold that right and wrong are only believed and never known.

Is proper reasoning based on the theory of standards?I'm not sure if stumped on this one or not, but I'll say 'no'-- final answer :D

Will you define what a standard is that is not a standard?
cute. An arbitrary standard is a standard, but it is an improper standard in that it's arbitrary, furthermore, all standards are arbitrary, so all standards are invalid. What I should do, what I ought to do, are invalid questions and cannot be answered without the creation of an artificial, made-up, standard.

[fast]

A little recap:If an action is right it is never wrong. If an action is wrong it is never right. Otherwise these words would be meaningless.This is so untrue.Since you don't agree that an action is either right or wrong how can I know what you mean by "This is so untrue."? Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?I'm not going to equivocate, nor am I going to fall prey to this equivocation. I am neither right nor wrong. I'm simply correct.So much to say, so little time.

You said, "if an action is right it is never wrong". First of all, that is an incorrect statement. It is untrue. An action that is right may not be right later, for example. Crossing the street would be a good example. Even if we spread some favorable assumed implications where time and circumstance is notwithstanding, there's still the problem of the false dichotomy. What's right by one standard is not necessarily right by another standard. Your throwing in 'never' is almost always a red flag as well. You can't characterize right and wrong as if it's concrete, like either zero or one--that's will lend itself to major problems. A math wiz could explain this better than I. It goes something like the opposite of true is not true -- as opposed to false, because there is some negligible difference between false and not true--don't ask, I can't explain it any better. Regardless, What's right now isn't ALWAYS right.

Debunking your idea that words have the potential of being meaningless has already been addressed in detail.

You said, "Since you don't agree that an action is either right or wrong how can I know what you mean by "This is so untrue."?

First, I could say that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and I would be correct if it were not for the invalid standards, but being invalid doesn't negate the existence of those standards. Given a static standard, I do believe in fact that an action could be understood as right versus wrong. My biggest issue before was the NEVER part and the words being meaningless part.

You said, "Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?[/QUOTE]I didn't like this come back too much because you are twisting what is correct with what is right and what is wrong with what is incorrect.

If you don't understand what I just said, let me explain it another way. In everyday vernacular we use the terms right and wrong loosely -- it's okay to do that and it's proper usage. However, when we are being pedantic about 'right' and 'wrong', then a pedantic distinction must be drawn in order to differentiate 'right' from 'correct' and 'wrong' from 'incorrect'. Seeing as the discussion was explicitly about actions being 'right' and 'wrong', I had a negative view with your word choice as follows: "Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?" Clearly, an answer to this would have an appearance of contradiction what I had just said, but fact is, your word choice was no more than a conflation or equivocation for 'correct' and 'incorrect'. This is why I responded the way I did. Perhaps I read into too far. Didn't mean to be offensive.

I'm sure you impressed them!Let 'em stick around -- they'll eventually figure out that I make this stuff up as I go along. :D

Until we meet again!You'll always be my favorite!

<fast recants all knowledge and starts over>

[UncleJim]

First you said that a standard is required

Should I eat? Seriously, should I?

What is your should based on? If you want to remain alive then the answer is yes. But of course you knew that. So what's the true point of your question?

The should and ought answers always depends on the "if". It depends on the standard -- the comparison -- the goal -- the objective -- the desired result -- the outcome -- it depends on something! What is that something? I say standard for compare.

Sorry! There is no standard for "if". If you want to remain alive then you ought to eat.

Sorry there is no standard for comparison either. Perhaps your saying that you need to have at least two things for a comparison to take place?

By example is god real or imagined. Now take god and compare it against each of these and determine which it is most like or different from. You see when you make a comparison you must have a standard; in this case god is the imposed standard. Another example; what is this in my hand. Now you have forced the thing in your hand as the standard; and "everything else" is what you are comparing it to. First you will distinguish it from everything which it is not. Now you have narrowed the options as to what it may be. You have identified its species. Perhaps it is a metal. Now you compare it against all metals. When you continue to reduce it to what it is you will know its true identity. That is its identity which accurately describes some aspect of, in or about reality; i.e., that which is true. You will not have discovered that which is true - you will have validated a truth. Meaning; you will have validated that it represents some aspect of or about what is true about reality.

Perhaps when you are searching for its true identity you discover that there are no known facts that compare to what it is! You have discovered a new thing! You have discovered the basis for a new truth; i.e., you have the privilege of defining a new fact – a new truth.

Then you said the question of standards is invalid.

Arbitrary creation of standards is invalid, in that it doesn't hold ALWAYS.

Standards are not created - they already exist. That's the problem; people try to create "false" standards and then they try to hold other's to that false standard. This is what religion does!

Should I eat? If life, as you say (um, you say) is worthy of preserving, then it is you that has identified this purported truth.

I didn't say this! I didn't say that life is worthy of preserving.

Does life exist? Yes! Does life require natural resources in-order that it can continue to exist? Yes! Does this say that the life possessed by living things requires natural resources? Yes! Does this then say that it is proper for that living thing to act for this end? Yes! Does this say that if that living thing fails to act properly that that living thing will die? Yes! Does this then say that the life possessed by that living thing becomes the standard by which its proper actions are determined? Yes!

Is life worth the effort? Yes? Do you think that life is worth the effort? That's a subjective question! The answer depends on the state of the functioning of your mind; meaning, are you rational or irrational?

Acting rationally means to act in accordance to what reality is and requires. It means to have properly identified what life is and what it requires and then to act in favor of it.

Someone else is going to identify some other standard, and we can only guess what standard they will manufacture.

I just spoke to this. It’s a true statement about how people act - but its a false premise about what is proper action.

What do you actually mean?

Essentially, I hold that right and wrong are only believed and never known.

Then you don't know if you just said anything that is true. Or if you ever have or ever will - right? You don't know anything - right. So nothing that you say; have every said or will ever say holds any value either to yourself or to others - right?

Is proper reasoning based on the theory of standards?

I'm not sure if stumped on this one or not, but I'll say 'no'-- final answer

How can you reason if you don't know anything?

The first requirement is that there be something to know. The second is that you are aware of that something; i.e., that you know what it is. Only then can you compare other things to it and determine if they are the same or different. Then by comparing each of these to another thing you can determine and rank their comparative value. These things to which other things are compared is called a standard.

What is the first metaphysical standard? existence! What is the standard of existence? reality! What is the standard of reality? Life.

What is the first epistemological standard? value! What is the standard of value? Life! What is the standard of life? God! What is the standard of god? Man!

Life and value are one and the same. Life means "the existence of value." God is the measure of man's value.

Life is a specific naturally occurring eternally existing relationship between the matter and the energy of the universe. Value is man's mental incarnation of what life is. And man (the living god) is its ultimate achievement.

Will you define what a standard is that is not a standard?

cute. An arbitrary standard is a standard, but it is an improper standard in that it's arbitrary, furthermore, all standards are arbitrary, so all standards are invalid. What I should do, what I ought to do, are invalid questions and cannot be answered without the creation of an artificial, made-up, standard.

Would you like to try again? Wait – I just remembered you’re a believer.

[fast]

Would you like to try again? Wait – I just remembered you’re a believer.

You lost me on the "you're a believer" part. So many ways to take it. My first thought was in "God" (the nonUncleJim version). But then, I thought perhaps that I just tend to believe instead of know. Not sure of the message.

[UncleJim]

A little recap:
So much to say, so little time.

Take your time! It’s yours to spend after all. Spending to much of it however will leave less to spend. It reduces the amount of future you have – so spend it wisely.

You said, "if an action is right it is never wrong". First of all, that is an incorrect statement. It is untrue. An action that is right may not be right later, for example. Crossing the street would be a good example. Even if we spread some favorable assumed implications where time and circumstance is notwithstanding, there's still the problem of the false dichotomy. What's right by one standard is not necessarily right by another standard. Your throwing in 'never' is almost always a red flag as well. You can't characterize right and wrong as if it's concrete, like either zero or one--that's will lend itself to major problems. A math wiz could explain this better than I. It goes something like the opposite of true is not true -- as opposed to false, because there is some negligible difference between false and not true--don't ask, I can't explain it any better. Regardless, What's right now isn't ALWAYS right.

Good! Then your wrong and I'm right.

Crossing a street is not an example of being right or wrong. You do have a right to cross the street but you must do it properly. You mixed up the terms. Possessing rights and being right about their application is different.

Being right means to know the truth. It means to have accurately identified a fact in, of or about reality. Since facts are absolute then what is right about them is also an absolute.

You cannot be factual (truthful) and be wrong. This premise does not depend on you or your abilities it is only dependent on what physical facts are. And physical facts are true - always.

Debunking your idea that words have the potential of being meaningless has already been addressed in detail.

But in error.

You said, "Since you don't agree that an action is either right or wrong how can I know what you mean by "This is so untrue."?

First, I could say that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and I would be correct if it were not for the invalid standards, but being invalid doesn't negate the existence of those standards.

What? There are no valid standards but there are standards? Will you give me some clue about what you are saying? That is give me something to base it on - give me your standard of how you determine what makes sense.

Given a static standard, I do believe in fact that an action could be understood as right versus wrong. My biggest issue before was the NEVER part and the words being meaningless part.

So what? Your inability to understand does not violate what a standard is. Now we are dealing with: Standards; Invalid Standards and Static Standards. For someone who says that they don’t like standards you sure don’t show it.

You said, "Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?" I didn't like this come back too much because you are twisting what is correct with what is right and what is wrong with what is incorrect.

What? Are you actually saying that what is right may actually be incorrect? Its your lack of standards that permits you to say these things. IOW you have no idea what you are saying; i.e., you have no bases for you position - you have no standards of what is right (true) or wrong (false).

If you don't understand what I just said, let me explain it another way. In everyday vernacular we use the terms right and wrong loosely -- it's okay to do that and it's proper usage.

Nonsense! It is never "okay" to tell a lie and then neither know nor care that you did. This is what you just proposed - you don't know anything but that's okay because you believe your doing the right thing anyway. How can you believe such a thing? You have no way of validating what you are saying is true (correct) or not – I need to have a way of knowing what you are trying to say. I need you to show me how you determine what is true (correct) so that I can evaluate it for its worth (value).

However, when we are being pedantic about 'right' and 'wrong', then a pedantic distinction must be drawn in order to differentiate 'right' from 'correct' and 'wrong' from 'incorrect'. Seeing as the discussion was explicitly about actions being 'right' and 'wrong', I had a negative view with your word choice as follows: "Are you right or wrong or doesn't it much matter what you say about anything either way?" Clearly, an answer to this would have an appearance of contradiction what I had just said, but fact is, your word choice was no more than a conflation or equivocation for 'correct' and 'incorrect'. This is why I responded the way I did. Perhaps I read into too far. Didn't mean to be offensive.

What you are proposing is pure nonsense; meaning it does not square with what is real. If this seems offensive to you so be it. Your feelings about what I say are not my concern. I am concerned only about what is true about what you are saying. And I’m not finding very much truth in what you have been saying. And that results from the fact that you are only a believer. Knowing what you are saying requires that it be based in what is true - IOW that it be based in reality.

[fast]

What is your should based on?Mine specifically? I have no “should�

If you want to remain alive then the answer is yes.If – you said it! But, what does this about ‘ought’. Remaining alive is not ALWAYS what one ought to do. Overlaying different situations in conjunction with an imposed arbitrary standard is the only ought that exists, which is to essentially say that ought doesn’t truly exist, expect for that ought we manufacture.

But of course you knew that. I just ate, so I ought not eat now to survive.

So what's the true point of your question?To show that determining ought cannot be found by looking to nature (the outside world). To help you recognize that ought is a mental creature. To demonstrate that “life� is an IS and no ought without thought thrives.

Sorry! There is no standard for "if".and no absolute standard for ‘ought’

If you want to remain alive then you ought to eat.Assuming I ought to live. You cannot prove this; therefore, your statement cannot be grounded as undeniable.

Sorry there is no standard for comparison either. Perhaps your saying that you need to have at least two things for a comparison to take place?I’m not sure of your intended meaning here.

We only ‘think’ we ‘ought’. We ‘think’ of reasons why we ‘ought’. Those reasons do not determine ‘ought’. There is no ‘ought’ other than the ‘ought’ we ‘think’.

Nowhere in the reality of existence is there an ought. I want to build five houses. I have built four already. How many more ought I build? Reality is what is real. There are really four houses. How many more ought I build? You cannot answer this question correctly. There is no ought in reality. The only ought to be found will be the ought we conjure. Perhaps only four houses can legally be built where I want them built. Notice how what I ought to do changes. But, did it really? No, there was never truly an ought to begin with.

By example is god real or imagined. Now take god and compare it against each of these and determine which it is most like or different from. You see when you make a comparison you must have a standard; in this case god is the imposed standard. You are talking about reality. I am talking about ought. My decision to eat will effect my continued existence. That’s true. You are the one trying to identify what is real. I’m only trying to determine ‘ought’. Doing this without a standard is impossible. All standards spoken about, whether they conform to reality or not, do not determine ought.

When you continue to reduce it to what it is you will know its true identity.
I see where you are going with this. Even if you identify what is real properly, you will be no closer to ought.

Standards are not created - they already exist. That's the problem; people try to create "false" standards and then they try to hold other's to that false standard. This is what religion does!
I’ve followed you down this road already. Others have as well, repeatedly. You claim to identify what is real. To say the least, there is disagreement.

I didn't say this! I didn't say that life is worthy of preserving.Dang it! I apologize for misrepresenting you.

Does life exist? Yes!
Agreed

Does life require natural resources in-order that it can continue to exist? Yes!
Nicely put, and yes, I agree.

Does this say that the life possessed by living things requires natural resources? Yes!
A little slack on this one. I’ll withhold my remark on this one for now. If you want progress, then you need to rephrase it with the same tempo as the previous quote.

Hint: state facts in the if, then form. Your use of ‘in-order’ happens to have passed my test.

Is life worth the effort? Yes? Do you think that life is worth the effort? That's a subjective question! The answer depends on the state of the functioning of your mind; meaning, are you rational or irrational?And you wonder why I occasionally goof up with Strawman arguments.

What is the first epistemological standard?First huh? We’ve been through this as well. When you say ‘epistemological’, how do you define that.

According to dictionary.com, “The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.�

To be honest, I see this word continuously used, I see the definition, and I still don’t grasp the concept in how it’s being used. I’ve been trying lately to find the ‘family’ of closely related terms in a better effort to distinguish different types of ‘oughts’. Example, is there such a thing as an epistemological ought and other types of oughts?

I just remembered you’re a believer.
If I knew, then there would be no room for belief. Besides, I lack belief.

[Haplo]

Jenny has decided it is always WRONG to steal. She has decided she doesn't like moral relativism and thinks that things should be absolute

Jenny believes in absolutes which means she should never steal, no matter what reason. so if she steals and still maintains that absolute moral code, she's a hypocrite. it depends on how strongly she adheres to her moral system if she were to feel guilt. whether she feels guilty or not does not take away the rightness/wrongness of an action. guilt is also dependent on other factors like whether she's caught or not and whether her action caused much hurt to her victim.

OTOH, i think not every action can be classified as right or wrong. for example is not doing volunteer work right or wrong?

[fast]

Crossing a street is not an example of being right or wrong. You do have a right to cross the street but you must do it properly. You mixed up the terms. Possessing rights and being right about their application is different. I didn't mean it that way! Crossing the street when a car is coming is a bad idea. If you make the decision to do it anyway, then you have made what kind of decision -- other than 'bad'? Is it a wrong decision, or is it an incorrect decision, or do you think they are perfectly interchangeable words to use from a pedantic perspective?

Being right means to know the truth. It means to have accurately identified a fact in, of or about reality. Since facts are absolute then what is right about them is also an absolute.Understand that I agree with some of what you say. There's even some more of what you say that I agree with, but I refuse to because of how you say it.

Do you not recognize a distinction between what is right and what is correct? Answering questions correctly is getting the right answer--yeah--duh, but if we are talking about right and wrong from a moral perspective, then correct and incorrect as substitutes are less interchangeable. It's better to use correct instead of right so we don't confuse right with the other right (the correct version--correct).

Does the phrase "morally correct" mean anything pedantically? If it does, I'll just go cool off somewhere. As of now, my idea is that morals have to do with what's right and wrong, period. It doesn't have jack to do with what's correct and incorrect.

Children get answers right on a test. Adults answer correctly. If you want to say that "being right means to know the truth", then fine. I certainly was not conflating 'right' with the legal right to cross a street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What? There are no valid standards but there are standards? Will you give me some clue about what you are saying? That is give me something to base it on - give me your standard of how you determine what makes sense.There are no goals unless we exert mental energy to set those goals.
There are no standards unless we exert mental energy to set those standards.
There is no 'ought' unless we exert mental energy to determine 'ought'.
There is no 'should' unless we exert mental energy to establish 'should'.
There is no 'I ought to eat' unless we exert mental energy and decide we want to live. There is no 'we ought to eat' because there is no 'we ought to live'. The only time we get a 'we ought to eat' is when I, you, or them create, manifest, or conjure living as a goal. None of this conflicts with the fact if don't eat, we will eventually die.

So what? Your inability to understand does not violate what a standard is.Thanks Jim, do you feel better now? Others bash you like there’s no tomorrow, so your retribution is to ridicule me when I fail to communicate what I'm trying to get through to you.

Now we are dealing with: Standards; Invalid Standards and Static Standards. For someone who says that they don’t like standards you sure don’t show it.The basis for ought changes.

What? Are you actually saying that what is right may actually be incorrect? Its your lack of standards that permits you to say these things. IOW you have no idea what you are saying; i.e., you have no bases for you position - you have no standards of what is right (true) or wrong (false).Whether you should cross the street (when that car is coming) or whether you ought to cross that street can depend on so many factors.

First of all, let me state that if you intentionally walk out in front of the car that could potentially lead to loss of life, then you have NOT by itself made an incorrect decision. The decision is not correct or incorrect, and the moral decision is not right or wrong without 'something' to compare that decision to. If you desire to live, then in comparison to that desire, then it's not the correct decision to make.

Now, to your "I have no idea what [i'm] saying". Here's a little test for ya. If you get the answer correct, then I'm going to kill someone. If ya do what's right, I won't. What's 2+2 equal? Now, what's the correct answer?, and what's the right answer?


Can you see the two ideas that I'm trying to distinguish yet?

Nonsense! It is never "okay" to tell a lie and then neither know nor care that you did. This is what you just proposed - you don't know anything but that's okay because you believe your doing the right thing anyway.I so much didn't mean to say that. The meaning behind my message is completely misunderstood. I only meant that we sometimes say “right� when it’s more appropriate to say “correct�. You’re way off base in thinking I mean the things you say I do. I know, it’s likely mostly my fault. I’ll get better eventually.

Your feelings about what I say are not my concern.I’ll never understand this about people. Off topic, what’s so terrible about taking someone’s feelings into account when nothing real is at stake anyway? You could twist that all up, I’m sure, but in those cases where a little respect could be shown, why not? I’m not going to prioritize someone’s feelings over main issues, but then again, I’m not going to go out of my way to communicate the message that I’m uncaring about another – I just don’t get it.

I’m not finding very much truth in what you have been saying.I’m exploring possibilities in hopes of validating difficult (for me) concepts. I wish you didn’t have such a dim view of me.

fast

[UncleJim]

You lost me on the "you're a believer" part. So many ways to take it. My first thought was in "God" (the nonUncleJim version). But then, I thought perhaps that I just tend to believe instead of know. Not sure of the message.
Either one works just as well as the other. Believers in God -or- Believers in truth: it all results both in and from the same thing: not knowing.

Except believers in God don't much care about what it true. You have demonstrated that you do care about what is true. You're a searcher for the truth; that's why I like talking to you.

[fast]

You're a searcher for the truth; that's why I like talking to you.Thanks, and ditto!

<fast, off to watch x-files reruns-- the search for the truth>

[UncleJim]

Crossing a street is not an example of being right or wrong. You do have a right to cross the street but you must do it properly. You mixed up the terms. Possessing rights and being right about their application is different.

I didn't mean it that way! Crossing the street when a car is coming is a bad idea. If you make the decision to do it anyway, then you have made what kind of decision -- other than 'bad'? Is it a wrong decision, or is it an incorrect decision, or do you think they are perfectly interchangeable words to use from a pedantic perspective?

Being right means to know what is true; which means to know the truth. Being correct means to be able to identify what is true; which means to be able to define it correctly.

Being right relates to a physical fact; its a physical action: By example - this is a cow. If you are referencing a physical cow your right!

Being correct relates to defining a physical fact; its an epistemological action: By example - a living organism possessing four two hoofed feet and an utter that can produce milk is a cow. If this actually does sufficiently identify what a physical cow is then it is a correct definition.

Being right means to know the truth. It means to have accurately identified a fact in, of or about reality. Since facts are absolute then what is right about them is also an absolute.

Understand that I agree with some of what you say. There's even some more of what you say that I agree with, but I refuse to because of how you say it.

Nonsense. Just because you don't like my style that has no bearing on its truth. Your claim of refusal to know is only a cover for not knowing. I'm not interested in how you feel about one thing or another; I only want to know what you know. Put your hurt feelings aside and talk only about what is true.

Do you not recognize a distinction between what is right and what is correct? Answering questions correctly is getting the right answer--yeah--duh, but if we are talking about right and wrong from a moral perspective, then correct and incorrect as substitutes are less interchangeable. It's better to use correct instead of right so we don't confuse right with the other right (the correct version--correct).

What is right references a physical fact - what is correct references its accurate identification.

Using then properly does not present any problems in communication.

Does the phrase "morally correct" mean anything pedantically? If it does, I'll just go cool off somewhere. As of now, my idea is that morals have to do with what's right and wrong, period. It doesn't have jack to do with what's correct and incorrect.

Morality has to do with acts and deals with what is necessitated of man by the fact of his nature. If an act respects man's nature then it is right that he perform it. To say that man has a right to act in accordance to his nature is a correct statement. To say that morality is within mans nature is a correct statement. The concept of correct referees to accuracy in definition.

Children get answers right on a test. Adults answer correctly. If you want to say that "being right means to know the truth", then fine. I certainly was not conflating 'right' with the legal right to cross a street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Children are expected to know the correct answers. If they do they then they are able to provide its physical evidence; i.e., that is the right response.

What? There are no valid standards but there are standards? Will you give me some clue about what you are saying? That is give me something to base it on - give me your standard of how you determine what makes sense.


There are no goals unless we exert mental energy to set those goals.

This implies that goals are not real; that they are "set" by a mind and are therefore arbitrary. The fundamental goal of all living organisms is to remain alive. By your standard of what a goal is life is of no significance unless the thing possessing it agrees and sets the maintenance of its life as its personal goal. A rose bush cannot do this - how have they survived this long?

There are no standards unless we exert mental energy to set those standards.

This implies that it does not much matter what you do the result will always be the same. Whether you drink a glass of water or a glass of poison to satisfy your thirst is of no significance since there is no standard by which to distinguish a difference in the result.

There is no 'ought' unless we exert mental energy to determine 'ought'.

This implies that even though you are a living organism there is nothing you ought to do with respect to that fact; like eat or breath or get out of the rain.

There is no 'should' unless we exert mental energy to establish 'should'.

Since you are a living organism should you act to remain alive or not? All of the other living organisims are acting as if the answer is yes.

There is no 'I ought to eat' unless we exert mental energy and decide we want to live. There is no 'we ought to eat' because there is no 'we ought to live'. The only time we get a 'we ought to eat' is when I, you, or them create, manifest, or conjure living as a goal. None of this conflicts with the fact if don't eat, we will eventually die.

The failure in your philosophy is that you believe that you are the determining factor in what is true. You believe that you are the creator god; this is why you reject religions proposal that the real creator God is a mystical supernatural spiritual being with magical powers unknown to and unknowable by ordinary man - but you know better.

You are only a "life possessor." The only difference between you and dirt is that you possess one more distinguishing fact than dirt does - life.

So what? Your inability to understand does not violate what a standard is.

Thanks Jim, do you feel better now? Others bash you like there’s no tomorrow, so your retribution is to ridicule me when I fail to communicate what I'm trying to get through to you.

You are not trying to communicate what is true. Your only goal is to refute my claims and you don't much care what you say in that effort. This has lead you into saying some of the most preposterous things I have read in this forum.

Fast this type of nonsense is beneath you; your better than this.

By example:

Now we are dealing with: Standards; Invalid Standards and Static Standards. For someone who says that they don’t like standards you sure don’t show it.

The basis for ought changes.

No it doesn't: The bases is life - it has always been and always will be life.

We don't live in a chaos of unknowable constant flux. We live in reality and our mind is able to figure it out.

What? Are you actually saying that what is right may actually be incorrect? Its your lack of standards that permits you to say these things. IOW you have no idea what you are saying; i.e., you have no bases for you position - you have no standards of what is right (true) or wrong (false).

Whether you should cross the street (when that car is coming) or whether you ought to cross that street can depend on so many factors.

No it doesn’t. You should only cross the street if you have purpose. If that purpose if life dependent then you ought to cross the street but you had better do it correctly (i.e., by identifying the right way to do it).

First of all, let me state that if you intentionally walk out in front of the car that could potentially lead to loss of life, then you have NOT by itself made an incorrect decision. The decision is not correct or incorrect, and the moral decision is not right or wrong without 'something' to compare that decision to. If you desire to live, then in comparison to that desire, then it's not the correct decision to make.

This is an example of you playing the God role again. Life is the final arbiter of what is right or wrong - with respect to it. You can chose to abide by life's requirements or not; this however has no impact on what is right or wrong that remains with life.

Now, to your "I have no idea what [i'm] saying". Here's a little test for ya. If you get the answer correct, then I'm going to kill someone. If ya do what's right, I won't. What's 2+2 equal? Now, what's the correct answer?, and what's the right answer?

The right answer is 4 - my knowledge of that fact is correct.

Can you see the two ideas that I'm trying to distinguish yet?

There are two factors here. One is related to metaphysics (what is right) the other is related to epistemology (what is correct). Right and correct are one and the same; Why? Because the result from the same physical fact. Right is the physical reference; correct is its mental incarnation.

Nonsense! It is never "okay" to tell a lie and then neither know nor care that you did. This is what you just proposed - you don't know anything but that's okay because you believe your doing the right thing anyway.

I so much didn't mean to say that. The meaning behind my message is completely misunderstood. I only meant that we sometimes say “right� when it’s more appropriate to say “correct�. You’re way off base in thinking I mean the things you say I do. I know, it’s likely mostly my fault. I’ll get better eventually.

I agree that the words are very often used improperly. Our effort has been around trying to figure out how to use then properly. Its a worthy effort don't you think?

Your feelings about what I say are not my concern.

I’ll never understand this about people. Off topic, what’s so terrible about taking someone’s feelings into account when nothing real is at stake anyway? You could twist that all up, I’m sure, but in those cases where a little respect could be shown, why not? I’m not going to prioritize someone’s feelings over main issues, but then again, I’m not going to go out of my way to communicate the message that I’m uncaring about another – I just don’t get it.

Feelings are not intellectually potent. I will not allow someone's feeling to alter or influence what is true.

I’m not finding very much truth in what you have been saying.

I’m exploring possibilities in hopes of validating difficult (for me) concepts. I wish you didn’t have such a dim view of me.

Its what you say. I don't believe you are being completely honest with how you represent your intelligence. I believe you are much better that some of the things which you have allow to come out of your mouth. You seem to get all emotionally screwed up and this gets you into trouble when you try to think about new ways to express yourself.

[fast]

This implies that goals are not real; that they are "set" by a mind and are therefore arbitrary. The fundamental goal of all living organisms is to remain alive. By your standard of what a goal is life is of no significance unless the thing possessing it agrees and sets the maintenance of its life as its personal goal. A rose bush cannot do this - how have they survived this long?

Rose bush huh? I calmly say, "There are no goals unless we exert mental energy to set those goals.", and you reply with a damn rose bush. <damn, as in a calm reflective way as if still pondering how 'life' became a point of topic>

I could be remain calm, but nay, you want to witness intelligence in action instead of a calm quest for knowledge. Well here:

The cute little quaint and clean yet goofy word true means, thus IS truly, a brainy conceptualization which in turn tantalizingly represents little sensory stimulating and let's not forget important and observable, factoids, with comparable value to us full-of-life insect-like infestuous humans, which are nonetheless second none on the echelon of importance, and exists as the fundamentally basic aspects and peculiarities of our cute naturally occurring real, reality, ya know that gooey and not gooey substantive matter and energy that does jumping jacks over the entire physical plane of the universe.

I could give you the ugly, big, not quaint, and dirty NON FRIGGIN GOOFY version, but no: You gave me a rose bush, so you get this:

<fast loses value when fast sleeps, or so he thought>
<fast awakens to re-identify his value>
<fast get conked over the head with rose bush for saying it>
<fast loses value forever for his utterance of truth>
<God just lost of a couple pints of value for fasts insane utterance>
<but wait, could it be, she's pregnant>

PS: don’t take it personally; The damn AC broke in the Condo, the house is being vaporized with alien chemicals of some sort, the motor home is in the shop, it’s too damn hot to go jet skiing, and here I am cooped up in one of my other RV’s wandering what evil monster invented 6 fucking minute commercials.

Oh, btw, take a closer look at the definition of true up above minus the silliness.

[UncleJim]

This implies that goals are not real; that they are "set" by a mind and are therefore arbitrary. The fundamental goal of all living organisms is to remain alive. By your standard of what a goal is life is of no significance unless the thing possessing it agrees and sets the maintenance of its life as its personal goal. A rose bush cannot do this - how have they survived this long?

Rose bush huh? I calmly say, "There are no goals unless we exert mental energy to set those goals.", and you reply with a damn rose bush. <damn, as in a calm reflective way as if still pondering how 'life' became a point of topic>

Life became the point of topic because value was introduced. All living things possess the exact same value; they possess life. Life is the base of value; it is how all lesser values are known and ranked.

I could be remain calm, but nay, you want to witness intelligence in action instead of a calm quest for knowledge. Well here:

The cute little quaint and clean yet goofy word true means, thus IS truly, a brainy conceptualization which in turn tantalizingly represents little sensory stimulating and let's not forget important and observable, factoids, with comparable value to us full-of-life insect-like infestuous humans, which are nonetheless second none on the echelon of importance, and exists as the fundamentally basic aspects and peculiarities of our cute naturally occurring real, reality, ya know that gooey and not gooey substantive matter and energy that does jumping jacks over the entire physical plane of the universe.

I could give you the ugly, big, not quaint, and dirty NON FRIGGIN GOOFY version, but no: You gave me a rose bush, so you get this:

You didn't advance much with this.

<fast loses value when fast sleeps, or so he thought>

Only if he dies. Fast maintains the standard-of-value (life) during his entire living existence.

<fast awakens to re-identify his value>

Yes! Fast regains consciousness upon awaking. Consciousness being "awareness" of existences and for humans this includes "awareness" of self.

<fast get conked over the head with rose bush for saying it>

By whom?

<fast loses value forever for his utterance of truth>

Nonsense. Mere utterance is not life threatening. What is uttered may have negative consequences however.

<God just lost of a couple pints of value for fasts insane utterance>

Nonsense. God is "the measure of man's value." Man's value is maintained undisturbed during his entire living existence. What man does during his life-time is an entirely different subject however.

<but wait, could it be, she's pregnant>

Bad fast. Not all pregnant women are nuts.

PS: don’t take it personally; The damn AC broke in the Condo, the house is being vaporized with alien chemicals of some sort, the motor home is in the shop, it’s too damn hot to go jet skiing, and here I am cooped up in one of my other RV’s wandering what evil monster invented 6 fucking minute commercials.

If you were to understand the true meaning and base of the word value you would not have so much trouble applying it properly.

Oh, btw, take a closer look at the definition of true up above minus the silliness.

Existence is -and- What is true is real -and- A truth is about reality. That which is true exists within reality.

[fast]

Nonsense. God is "the measure of man's value." Man's value is maintained undisturbed during his entire living existence. What man does during his life-time is an entirely different subject however.
Dang it! I failed to mention the "and died" part from being conked in the head.

This should have effected your God version. If God is the measure of man's value, and there's one less man, then there should have been an effect, unless of course I allowed one of those antecedent (WHATEVER) fallacy's to creep in somehow. But then again, the yard stick doesn't change just because we are measuring a different size string.

Confused--measure? measurement? Is God the yard stick or the string?

I'll get back to you on that value being introduced part.

[UncleJim]

Nonsense. God is "the measure of man's value." Man's value is maintained undisturbed during his entire living existence. What man does during his life-time is an entirely different subject however.

Dang it! I failed to mention the "and died" part from being conked in the head.

That wouldn't have changed anything anyway.

This should have effected your God version. If God is the measure of man's value, and there's one less man, then there should have been an effect, unless of course I allowed one of those antecedent (WHATEVER) fallacy's to creep in somehow. But then again, the yard stick doesn't change just because we are measuring a different size string.

Confused--measure? measurement? Is God the yard stick or the string?

I'll get back to you on that value being introduced part.

Neither! God it the result of the measurement. It like how long my ummm lets see ... "foot" - 12 inches; WOW!

Now "what is man's value?" - His life. That's not what I meant! - What is the measure of mans value - God. WOW! This is like asking how bid is the universe? The answer is that its infinite. The same with man's value - its God.

The highest and greatest concept of physical existence know to man is infinity - the highest and greatest value known to man is God.

Infinity is to reality that God is to value. Infinity is a physical fact - God is its mental incarnation.

[nj_heathens]

A single person cannot decide whether something is or is not morally wrong.This is patently untrue. Individuals have the ability to decide whether a particular action, in a particular situation, violates their own, personal morals. In fact, almost everyone does this.

Morally correct actions are determined by comparing those actions to a standard...<snip>This is also patently untrue.

Morals do not exist in a vacuum, nor outside of individual human experience. Nor are they the ultimate basis for deciding how we behave.

Ethics (and morals, which are a subset of ethics) are derived from values.

Values are those things which we hold dear. For instance, honesty, integrity, compassion, freedom, loving our children, etc. Values are fungible entities which vary from culture to culture, between communities, families and even individuals. Very religious people might hold belief in a god as a value. Most of us here probably do not.

Values can be more specific than the basic ones I've listed. For example: Being involved in the political process, conserving the environment, feeding the hungry, etc.

A person's morals result from that person acting in such a way as to uphold his or her own personal values. These values might be in line with those of many others in one's social circles, and might therefore seem to represent a standard, but this is an illusion. Value systems usually vary greatly even within communities, and therefore so do morals.

If one values integrity, one does not--usually--break promises. But suppose a friend with children asks you to store his handgun. You agree, and promise to return it when asked. One day, he arrives at your door purple with rage and angrily demands his gun. Knowing that he might use the gun to kill someone, would you not break your promise?

Mr. Heathen

[UncleJim]

A single person cannot decide whether something is or is not morally wrong.

This is patently untrue. Individuals have the ability to decide whether a particular action, in a particular situation, violates their own, personal morals. In fact, almost everyone does this.

There is no such thing as a set of morals that is right for one but not for another. The laws (or rules) of morality apply to all humans in that same way, manner and respect. Moral behavior is not determined it is discovered. It is discovered by observing life and what it requires.

Morally correct actions are determined by comparing those actions to a standard...<snip>

This is also patently untrue.

If you don't know what "**" is then you have no way to determine if your actions taken based on "**" are proper actions. "**" is the standard for your actions. How is it possible for you to do anything correctly with out the knowledge of what “correct action� (i.e., moral action) is?

Morals do not exist in a vacuum, nor outside of individual human experience. Nor are they the ultimate basis for deciding how we behave.

That is true. The base for determining how we must behave is our life.

Ethics (and morals, which are a subset of ethics) are derived from values.

That's true. And the standard-of-value is life.

Values are those things which we hold dear. For instance, honesty, integrity, compassion, freedom, loving our children, etc. Values are fungible entities which vary from culture to culture, between communities, families and even individuals. Very religious people might hold belief in a god as a value. Most of us here probably do not.

Values can be more specific than the basic ones I've listed. For example: Being involved in the political process, conserving the environment, feeding the hungry, etc.

Notice how no lesser values (like the ones which you listed) can exist without and are dependent on the standard-of-value; life.

A person's morals result from that person acting in such a way as to uphold his or her own personal values. These values might be in line with those of many others in one's social circles, and might therefore seem to represent a standard, but this is an illusion. Value systems usually vary greatly even within communities, and therefore so do morals.

If no person possessed life where would your premise stand? If no person held the life they do possess as a value where would your premise stand?

If one values integrity, one does not--usually--break promises. But suppose a friend with children asks you to store his handgun. You agree, and promise to return it when asked. One day, he arrives at your door purple with rage and angrily demands his gun. Knowing that he might use the gun to kill someone, would you not break your promise?

Mr. Heathen

Are you implying that in this situation that if you refused to return his handgun you would be sacrificing your integrity?

Integrity in not something you receive from another it is a measure of your adherence to morality. Since you are a moral person this prevents you from acting in away that would endanger life. Of course you would not return his gun; this would be an example of you sacrificing your integrity.

[fast]

A single person cannot decide whether something is or is not morally wrong.This is patently untrue. Individuals have the ability to decide whether a particular action, in a particular situation, violates their own, personal morals. In fact, almost everyone does this.

I comprehend your message, but as UncleJim has pointed out, your assessment of my statement is in error.

To verbalize and hold the opinion that morality is factually dependent on the single individuals unique perspective is faulty. Flagrant mainstream misuse of the term morality has obscured most peoples chance of ever figuring it out. Wide spread acceptance of subjective morality is testament to that fact, although I still contend that certain aspects of morality is nevertheless subjective.

This is not to say that further comprehension to what you said cannot be found to hold merit. Example, you may equivocate the phrase 'personal morals' with the term 'morality' and intend to convey the message that you disapprove of certain actions, but that of course does not identify morality for what it truly is.