Poetnartist wrote:
“Of course, if there's no "good" or "evil"- then how could their be
responsibility? If nothing is wrong, then no act is wrong. And thus, we
have no reason to feel remorse, no matter what the act.”

I think the point is that your responsibility is ultimately to yourself,
and what you consider to be “right or wrong”.

If god came down to you and said, “It’s perfectly alright to murder your
parents. There’s nothing bad about that at all. They will die and
leave this life early, but that’s not a problem because they are good
people and will just go to heaven to be with me. So it’s not a problem.
Here’s a gun. Go ahead and shoot them if you like”.

Would you then kill your parents with no remorse simply because it’s a
‘good’ thing?

Probably not.

First, you probably couldn’t even pull the trigger (unless you happen to
hate your parents), and secondly you’d probably be overwhelmed with
remorse if you actually did carry out the act.

Feelings of remorse have nothing to do with any ‘absolute’ notions of
good or evil. They have everything to do with YOUR subjective view of
good or evil.

You’d turn to god and say, Wow! It might be alright with you if I kill
my parents, but I’d rather not. I’d rather they stay here and live
with me for a while. I don’t want to kill them!

You idea of what’s ‘good’ may not have anything at all to do with any
‘absolute’ idea of what’s good. Just like the crocodile eating your
baby. It’s not ‘good’ from your point of view, but from the crocodile’s
point of view it’s just a delicious meal.

There is no absolute good or evil. It’s all subjective judgments.
And those judgments really don’t depend on any external god. They are
ultimately selfish feelings whether we want to think of them like that
or not.

Poetnartist wrote:
“If there's no difference between us and animals. Then there's no
difference between...”

But there is a difference! The difference is subjective, not absolute.

To us, humans are more important than crocodiles. To crocodiles, they
are more important than humans.

As a human being it’s perfectly natural for you to view humans as the
ultimately creation of the universe. But that’s only your subjective
point of view because you *are* human.

And yet, we're the only species to have subjectivity. At least, the
only one in this corner of the universe. That should mean something in
and of itself.


Besides. If all things are subjective. Why are we talking? I know why
*I* am. But why are you? If your opinion and mine is subjective, then
you can't be truly "right" about anything. And you can't believe you can
be (except maybe on things such as basic mathamatics).


I, on the other hand, believe in objectivity. I believe there is
clear-cut right and wrong. I can justify debate with concretely valuable
reasons. Such as advancing knowlege (which I feel is objective- if
knowlege is subjective, why pursue it?).


And so on and so forth. No matter what you believe, you ultimately have
to a concrete base.

And by "base"- I mean something about which you can say "this is good
because it is good- not because someone says it's good- but because it
*is* good."


If you lack that base, then you don't have anything by which to support
anything. After all, if your view is that mine is subjective- what gives
you that idea? Subjective would be, by definition, subjective.

Poetnartist wrote:
“Besides. If all things are subjective. Why are we talking? I know why
*I* am. But why are you? If your opinion and mine is subjective, then
you can't be truly "right" about anything. And you can't believe you can
be (except maybe on things such as basic mathamatics).”

This is absolutely true. I make no claim to have any ‘absolute’
knowledge about anything.

However, I don’t believe that you do either.

And this is why we talk. We try to sway each other to embrace our
subjective views.

That’s really all we can do.

If you believe that you have all the ‘absolute’ answers. Then why are
you talking to other people? Just to set them straight?

Everything I offer to you is my own personal view. I’ll back it up with
as much logic as I can muster to try to explain why I hold the view.

Are my views absolutely correct?

They can’t be. Because I don’t believe that there is an absolutely
correct view.

Don’t mistake this for confusion.

It’s kind of like Einstein’s General Relativity. Back in the days of
Isaac Newton the world was believed to be ‘absolute’. Time was
absolute, and so was space. Albert Einstein came along and said, “No,
that can’t be true”. They world is indeed subjective based on the
observer. Time and space are dynamic, not absolute.

Was Einstein merely confused and unsure of himself?

Well, if he was then so is the universe because experiments have shown
that the universe does indeed behave as Einstein has described it.

Understanding that the universe is indeed based on subjectivity does not
make a person ‘wrong’.

Believing that the universe is necessarily based on ‘objectivity’ does
not make a person ‘right’.

There can be no ‘absolute’ right or wrong in moral judgments outside of
a god. Because who’s opinion would be the ‘absolute’ opinion? Your’s?
Mine? Someone else’s?

If you want an ‘absolute’ moral judgment you’ll have to turn to a
referee. A god who says, “This is my answer and since I’m the top dog
here no one can deny my word as the final call”.

Without a single solitary ‘entity’ to make that final call, then
everyone’s opinions are necessarily equally valid. Meaning that all
proclamations are ultimately subjective opinions.

All we can do is hope to share with each other the reasons why we feel
our moral judgments are fair.

Without a direct reference to a god, you can only offer what you believe
to be fair. Many people would rather refer to a god, that way they can
claim that their beliefs are ‘absolute’.

I offer all my views as food for thought. I'm just talking for the fun
of conversation and sharing views. I'm not attempting to convince you
of anything. It only appears that way to you because I am offering my
views. And when I contest your views it's not because I desire to put
them down, but simply because I'm just trying to explain why I don't buy
into them.

Well, that works. But why do you place value in this? In expressing? In
learning?


As far as I'm concerned, the human quest for knowlege and learning
isn't a "subjective" good. It's an ABSOLUTE. It's good, because it's
good. Of course, it's still a tool and can obviously be put to horrible
applications.


And Einstein's theories don't prove that there's no "absolutes" in the
universe, or even implies that's the case. It merely proves that our
small little world isn't sitting on said absolute. No more than a
mountain valley is at sea level.

Poetnartist wrote:
“Well, that works. But why do you place value in this? In expressing? In
learning?”

I’m not sure I do place ‘value’ on it other than the pure enjoyment I
get from it. And enjoyment is absolutely subjective. (ha ha)

Poetnartist wrote:
‘And Einstein's theories don't prove that there's no "absolutes" in the
universe, or even implies that's the case. It merely proves that our
small little world isn't sitting on said absolute. No more than a
mountain valley is at sea level”

You’re right, Einstien’s theories don’t prove this.

But quantum mechanics does.

See Bell’s Theorem and the EPR experiment.

Even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has pretty much clinched the
fact that the universe is necessarily subjective in its underlying
nature. But if that isn’t convincing Bell’s Theorem as definitely sewn
it up.

I have no problem with a subjective universe.

However, when it comes to morals how can you claim that there is such a
thing as an ‘absolute’ moral?

Absolute in who’s mind? Yours? Wouldn’t that automatically make it
subjective?

I don’t see how anyone can talk about ‘absolute’ morals outside of a
judgmental god who would be the referee in such matters.

But at the same time, it’s not about ‘morals’ for me. The whole idea of
‘morals’ is a religious idea in the first place.

I don’t run around murdering people. But it’s not because I think it
would be ‘immoral’ to do so. I simply don’t do it because for me
personally its something that I have no desire to do.

Should other people who desire to murder people run out and kill them?
Well, that’s the wrong question to ask.

People who desire to murder other people often DO run out and kill them!
We call them criminals and we hunt them down and put them behind bars,
or maybe put them to death.

Is there an ‘absolute’ answer to the question of capital punishment?

If you believe that you have the absolute ‘base’ for morality then you
should be able to give me the absolute definitive answer on whether or
not capital punishment is moral or immoral.

What say thee?

What is the ‘absolute’ answer to capital punishment?

no

How about euthanasia for someone who’s in pain and begging to be put to
sleep?

Ok, enjoyment *is* a subjective. That we can agree on. And nothing in
those higher-end physics says that there's no absolutes. Even if they
are true, that makes THEM the absolutes. Merely because we haven't found
that absolute point, doesn't mean it's nonexistant.


And it's not my mind, or anyone else's, that chooses what's "right" and
"wrong". That's what souls were DESIGNED for. Or, at least, part of it.
Certainly one of the functions, at least.


Absolutes on capital punishment? Sure, why not. A being that would
commit such a violation of the very nature of what our souls are- can't
have a soul in and of themselves. So killing them really is no
difference than putting down a dangerous, man-killing animal.


However, there's a very real possibility of convicting an innocent
person. So capital punishment, although not wrong, is too risky to
engage in. But if there was absolute proof- I'd flip the switch, myself.
I'd certainly take no enjoyment from the act- except maybe the feeling
of security knowing there's one less monster in the world.

4fun06 wrote:
‘no’

Without quoted posts it’s sometimes hard to know who’s responding to
who’s posts. At first I though you might be responding to the question
I was directing to poetnartist about an absolute answer to capital
punishment, but now I’m thinking that your ‘no’ was actually in response
to the original thread topic. (ha ha)

As to euthenasia- absolutely. Humans have ultimate right to their own
selves. If you want to die, go ahead. Your only responsibility is to not
hurt someone else in the process.

poetnartist wrote:
‘And it's not my mind, or anyone else's, that chooses what's "right" and
"wrong". That's what souls were DESIGNED for. Or, at least, part of it.
Certainly one of the functions, at least.’

So in your mind its your ‘soul’ that gives you a sense of right or
wrong, and feelings of remorse or guilt.

I can certainly identify with those feelings, but I don’t attribute them
to a ‘soul’. I attribute them to my ‘spirit’ which I don’t actually see
as being individual from this universe.

’Absolutes on capital punishment? Sure, why not. A being that would
commit such a violation of the very nature of what our souls are- can't
have a soul in and of themselves. So killing them really is no
difference than putting down a dangerous, man-killing animal.’

I tend to agree with you in the spirit of how I would react to the
situation, but since I don’t even believe in ‘souls’ that part of it
wouldn’t even come into question for me.

’However, there's a very real possibility of convicting an innocent
person. So capital punishment, although not wrong, is too risky to
engage in.”

I agree with you on this point too. I have no problem with capital
punishment if the person is guilty without a doubt. But if there’s any
doubt at all that we might have an innocent person, then we wouldn’t
want to be putting innocent people do death.

‘But if there was absolute proof- I'd flip the switch, myself. I'd
certainly take no enjoyment from the act- except maybe the feeling of
security knowing there's one less monster in the world”

Again, this would be my conclusion to, except maybe I’d be a little more
compassionate about it than you seem to be indicating here. First, that
switch I’m flipping better be non-painful. Like to activate a lethal
injection system. I want no parts of electrocuting someone or gassing
them to death or any other form of physical ‘punishment’. To me,
punishment is not the goal. I just want to eliminate the ‘monster’ from
the world.

To me, the ‘monster’ is a ‘human weed’. By that I mean that they are a
defective person. I actually feel sorry for them that this is the case.
Their mind must not have developed right for whatever reason, whether
physical or purely psychological. To me the act of putting them to
death is almost as much about putting them out of their own emotional
misery as much as removing them from our world.

So we seem to have come to the same conclusions. You came to these
conclusions by what you consider to be “absolute” morals. I came to
these conclusions by what I consider to be my own personal subjective
morals. Although, I think these morals are also based on ‘logic’ to a
certain degree.

However, there are many pro-lifers out there who would argue that
killing humans is ‘absolute wrong’ period. Is their view merely a
subjective opinion, and your view the ‘absolutely correct’ morals of the
universe?

How do you justify that your morals are the ‘absolute morals’?

Poetnartist
“As to euthenasia- absolutely. Humans have ultimate right to their own
selves. If you want to die, go ahead. Your only responsibility is to not
hurt someone else in the process.”

Well, once again, I’m in 100% agreement with you on what I would choose
for this situation.

However, again I see my choice in this matter to be subjective. I base
my ‘logic’ here on the idea that any person should have the freedom and
right to have complete say over their own life (and death). I think it
just make logical sense. So I base many of my morals on logic.

After all, if we go back to relying on your ‘soul’ then we have a
problem here. What if the person who’s requesting euthanasia is
someone you love? You’re instinct is going to be to feel bad about
putting them to sleep I would imagine. Yet, here you are suggesting
that this would be the ‘right’ thing to do.

I admit that my choice in this matter is one of pure logic and a belief
that people should be free to make decisions about their own life or
death.

I don’t claim that my answer is ‘absolute’, It’s just how I feel about
it personally, and I would certainly vote to support euthanasia.

So I can still feel just as strongly about my views as you do about
yours yet at the same time be willing to admit that they are indeed
subjective views.

My individual morals? I cannot. Not all of them, at least. It's against
my morality to poison my own flesh- it's in the rights of others to do
that to themselves. As an example.

The first, the only *absolute* right a human has (that I'm aware of) is
the "right to self"- we OWN us. What you do to and with yourself is your
right. And what I do with me is mine. Of course, it's almost impossible
to do anything without affecting another person. As long as it's done
with tacit consent, there's nothing wrong with it.

Beyond that, things get more blurry. Our souls certainly compel us to
help others in need- that doesn't make it a MUST that we act on that
feeling. But we are rewarded, spiritually, for doing so.


And, as you said, "defective" humans. They certainly exist. Wish I knew
how and why. It'd be a nice tool to have. Fix them if possible, and hunt
them down if not.

Hmm. Interesting on the euthenasia question. My uncle has cancer- he's
dying- even if we had a cure for cancer that would kill it instantly,
and gave it to him tomorrow, the stuff has done too much damage to his
body, there's no recovery from his point.


I couldn't kill him. I wouldn't. But I would not seek to prevent him
from doing it himself. I would personally load the gun, if that's the
way he wanted to go, but I would not pull the trigger.

poetnartist wrote:
“I would personally load the gun, if that's the way he wanted to go, but
I would not pull the trigger”

Oh my god please! I could never shoot someone in the head for the
purposes of euthanasia. There are peaceful ways to put people to
sleep.

I could put a person to sleep that I love. Because I love them that
much! I would be willing to put them out of their pain and let them
go. Not saying that I wouldn’t have strong emotions about it. I’m sure
that I would be devastated by it. But at the same time I wouldn’t have
remorse because I understand that certain things in life need to be done
and I accept that.

I would feel better knowing that I put them out of their misery early,
than if I had refused them only to watch them suffer until they died
naturally. So yes, I could put down someone I love very deeply at their
request. I would actually view it as an act love to do this for them.
I would want them to do the same for me!

But no guns please! I’m not a violent person. I could never blow
anyone’s brains out including my own.

I said I couldn't pull the trigger. I could help someone to the finish
line, I couldn't help them cross. And I did say "if that's the way he
wished to go". Frankly, he's got enough perscription pain relievers to
supply the next Heaven's Gate cult. So I don't think a firearm would be
necessary. But if that's the choice, that's the choice.


Personally, I'd wanna do a freefall jump from an airplane, then slip
out of the parachute on the way down. I'd aim for my own car.

and, I still wait to read whee the superiority fit's in...lol.

I should think our ability to have this conversation provides quite a
degree of support to the "we're superior" argument.


Define "superiority" in any sence.

The ability to survive? We win- nothing else on this planet can visit
the depths of the oceans and the highest mountain peaks. Or, for that
matter, take a stroll on the moon.

The ability to communicate? Done and done.

The ability to adapt? See survival.

Spread our genetics? We can actually make babies without sex these
days.

One day we'll be comfortably eliminating all genetic diseases, and
giving neat little addendums to our gene pool.

Ability to affect the world? Obviously we're winning that one.



Without bringing morality into it, opperating on pure pragmatism- we're
the clear victors. When bringing morality into it- we're the ones that
can understand what it morality- that means something, does it not?

Now, does our being "superior" mean we can get away with whatever we
want? Hell no. We can break a lot of rules, and been plenty of others,
but we're still leashed like every other beast. We have a longer chain
by far, but that only means more freedom, not complete autonomy.

I've read nothing at all that leads to superiority.