Light and Darkness What is light? What is darkness? What is good? What is evil? Have you ever rummaged for these answers? I have. What really defines right from wrong? We live in a world which is tilting and changing rapidly. Many things which were a taboo in the time of our fathers pass on as ordinary today. A little child takes a piece of meat from the kitchen pot and he learns that it is wrong by the stinging pain of his mother’s cane, but how did his mother come to know that it is wrong to take a piece of meat from the pot unsupervised? Is it a universal rule or does she just believe it is wrong because her mother told her so? The latter should be the case because even if it is a universal rule, I don’t think anybody knows where it is written, some cultures would abolish it while some would embrace it with arms wide open. Like Ernest Hemingway said in his book Death in the Afternoon, “So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.” This goes to show that we are all an embodiment of what we were taught and our experiences as children; now I’m a super fan of children, I just love how they are so trusting and plump and puerile, and it makes me quiver with excitement. Maybe that is why I get so concerned when I see grown-ups spoil them and teach them wrong, delusional that somehow, somewhere in the future they would get to learn the right from someone at someplace, how fraudulent. Right and wrong are two conflicting concepts, the criteria to determine one from the other is always varying. No person can have supreme adjudication as to what is right and what is wrong, Megan Chance does a fine job of explaining that in her book The Spiritualist: “Imagine you come upon a house painted brown. What color would you say the house was?” “Why brown, of course.” “But what if I came upon it from the other side, and found it to be white?” “That would be absurd. Who would paint a house two colors?” He ignored my question. “You say it’s brown, and I say it’s white. Who’s right?” “We’re both right.” “Non,” he said. “We’re both wrong. The house isn’t brown or white. It’s both. You and I only see one side. But that doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t exist. To not see the whole is to not see the truth.” Light can only be distinguished from darkness As long as light exists, there will be shadows and as long as the concept of ‘winners’ exist, there will always be ‘losers’. Shalom!!!

rules are rules

"Good" and "evil" are both subjective.

Op, what then is evil and good?

Karmanaut:
"Good" and "evil" are both subjective.

Wouldn't that lead to a logical contradiction.

Picture this.

In my subjective interpretation of morality I hold that killing little babies for breakfast is good.
In your subjective morality you hold that killing little babies for breakfast is wrong.
But then a thing is either true or false.

How would you handle this?

Reyginus:
Wouldn't that lead to a logical contradiction.

Picture this.

In my subjective interpretation of morality I hold that killing little babies for breakfast is good.
In your subjective morality you hold that killing little babies for breakfast is wrong.
But then a thing is either true or false.

How would you handle this?

Simple:
Everything I say is false, sir.

Now you tell me if that statement is true or false.

Karmanaut:

Simple:
Everything I say is false, sir.

Now you tell me if that statement is true or false.

That's not even the point. It is not in your position to say which of your words is true or false. If it were to be so we wouldn't have to examine anything but accept everything said by everyone and ourselves without question.

Now back to my question. If there is a clash of opinions and relative morality that contradicts can we still cling to subjective morality? If yes, why?

Reyginus:
That's not even the point.

I know. I was contradicting your claim of diathelism.

It is not in your position to say which of your words is true or false. If it were to be so we wouldn't have to examine anything but accept everything said by everyone and ourselves without question.

Says who?
[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction]Analytical statement, baby[/url]

Now back to my question. If there is a clash of opinions and relative morality that contradicts can we still cling to subjective morality? If yes, why?

Yes, because there is no objective morality.

Assuming that what is legal is moral,
According to Saudi Arabia, homosexual marriage is forbidden and participants should be killed;
Meanwhile....
According to the US, it is legal and proponents can marry.

You tell me, so you cling to your subjective morality?

Karmanaut:

I know. I was contradicting your claim of diathelism.

Says who?
[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction]Analytical statement, baby[/url]


Yes, because there is no objective morality.

Assuming that what is legal is moral,
According to Saudi Arabia, homosexual marriage is forbidden and participants should be killed;
Meanwhile....
According to the US, it is legal and proponents can marry.

You tell me, so you cling to your subjective morality?

I'm not also saying that what is legal is moral but only questioning the foundation or the logical nature of your Subjective morality.

Let me something you've been going against. Think about this.

You lay claim to subjective morality and another person lays claim to subjective morality but in that person's subjective morality he claims that their are absolute truths which must not be questioned. And that is what he thinks and doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.

As a proponent of subjective morality can anything be wrong with his claim?

And please on Analytical Philosophy only talk about examining a proposition it doesn't say the one proposing it will examine it and tell us.

Reyginus:
I'm not also saying that what is legal is moral but only questioning the foundation or the logical nature of your Subjective morality.

I know. I was assuming that what is legal is moral to give an example via the homosexuality case.

Let me something you've been going against. Think about this.

You lay claim to subjective morality and another person lays claim to subjective morality [/b]but in that person's subjective morality he claims that their are absolute truths which must not be questioned.[/b] And that is what he thinks and doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.

I don't see how morality correlates to absolute truths.
eg: A triangle has 3 sides.
How does that correlate to morality?
Or maybe I'm missing something?

As a proponent of subjective morality can anything be wrong with his claim?

See the above.
Besides if something is absolutely true for all iterations then it is objective.

And please on Analytical Philosophy only talk about examining a proposition it doesn't say the one proposing it will examine it and tell us.

You said that it is not my place (or any body's who is making a statement) to say if the statement is true or false.
So I redirected you to analytical statements. which are self-evident and can be true by themselve

Karmanaut:

I know. I was assuming that what is legal is moral to give an example via the homosexuality case.

I don't understand your meaning here. Are you saying that what is legal is moral or what?

Karmanaut:

I don't see how morality correlates to absolute truths.
eg: A triangle has 3 sides.
How does that correlate to morality?
Or maybe I'm missing something?

You are .missing something. Here is the thought of a person who holds a similar view of subjective morality. Your kind but on a different level. Not me.

Karmanaut:

See the above.
Besides if something is absolutely true for all iterations then it is objective.

See the above too. Speak with your Subjective friend.

Karmanaut:



You said that it is not my place (or any body's who is making a statement) to say if the statement is true or false.
So I redirected you to analytical statements. which are self-evident and can be true by themselve

They are not true because you say they are but because they are self evident. That's my point.

Reyginus:
I don't understand your meaning here. Are you saying that what is legal is moral or what?

I was giving an illustration using the gay marriage analogy.
Assuming what is legal is moral--and vice-versa-- gay marriage is immoral in nigeria but moral in the United states.
Dies that count as an example of opposing views?

You are .missing something. Here is the thought of a person who holds a similar view of subjective morality. Your kind but on a different level. Not me.

Who?

See the above too. Speak with your Subjective friend.
They are not true because you say they are but because they are self evident. That's my point.

Ah. I see your point.
But assuming a person was speaking a truth about himself:
"I tell lies all the time"
If the person is lying then paradoxically the person is telling the truth, and vice versa.
I brought it up to counter your stance on diathelism.
Humans can speak the truth if themselves,no?

This is like Ethics... It's a relative concept. That is, no universal agreement but a point of convergence can be reached.

Time is a factor in anything that is relative. What is ethical today might not be ethical tomorrow.

I learnt this from my Media Law and Ethics Lecturer So, @Op, it applies to Good and Bad. Thank You

Karmanaut:

I was giving an illustration using the gay marriage analogy.
Assuming what is legal is moral--and vice-versa-- gay marriage is immoral in nigeria but moral in the United states.
Dies that count as an example of opposing views?

Nothing can be moral in one place and immoral in another place though it may be perceived so. It can be legal and illegal in two different places because what is legal is not necessarily moral and what is illegal is not necessarily immoral.

Those are opposing views. But their is a true nature of every thing unaffected by our perception and understanding of it. Two little boys can argue all day over how a woman gets pregnant. One may say that it is through the contact of their stomach when they sleep(I was guilty of this growing up) while the other holds that it is through intercourse. The fact that both have opposing views doesn't change the fact that it is through intercourse.

Karmanaut:


Who?

Lol. I'm speaking of the brother I created to help you deal with Subjective morality. The one who holds in his subjective morality that some truths are absolute and he doesn't care what anyone says about it.

Karmanaut:


Ah. I see your point.
But assuming a person was speaking a truth about himself:
"I tell lies all the time"
If the person is lying then paradoxically the person is telling the truth, and vice versa.
I brought it up to counter your stance on diathelism.
Humans can speak the truth if themselves,no?

Yes it may be true but it not true because they say it is. His statement agreeing with his morality does not hold because he said it is true. It only means that his statement is in agreement with the truth. The truth exists first then comes the words in this case.

Wow am really getting enlightened here.