johnydon22:
Actually, it isn't.

Lmao. There are Christians in both Nigeria and Uk that believe a homosexual is going to hell. Innit?

Oh i think your arguments on morality is peurile alright.

I have not even made 1 moral claim. I have only been asking how you reach a moral conclusion of which you seem unable to say.

Isn't that funny?

Again i ask, why is killing wrong?

Morality is in the eye of the beholder unless you want to impose some heavenly godly morals on everyone. Most have abandoned that idea so they impose laws instead to guide morals. But even laws have their limitations so the wiser add education to it too to guide your morals, and prison if you break the law.

Can I ask you questions? Why are you so uncivil? Why do you think your opinion is any more less puerile to anyone else's? Are you well in the head? I'm just wondering johnydon22 because I can't quite recall you being this way except of very recent!

budaatum:

Morality is in the eye of the beholder unless you want to impose some heavenly godly morals on everyone.

Nope, morality is practically intersubjective like every other imagined order such as money, government, corporations etc..

Most have abandoned that idea so they impose laws instead to guide morals. But even laws have their limitations so the wiser add education to it too to guide your morals, and prison if you break the law.

ok

Can I ask you questions? Why are you so uncivil? Why do you think your opinion is any more less puerile to anyone else's? Are you well in the head? I'm just wondering johnydon22 because I can't quite recall you being this way except of very recent!

I do believe now there is a similarity between being frank and being uncivil, apparently.

Like i said, there is something inherently wrong with a moral conclusion that do not have a derivative basis, it is as illogical as a "God did it" answer from a theist.

If i can tell a theist, your answer is naive, i can as well tell someone who makes such logical blunders - hey your ideas on morality are puerile, it is called being frank or call it bluntness.

You may look further than my bluntness and try thinking deeper into the point

CreepyBlackpool:
I see no problem of morality here.


In fact the only problem I see here is
what if the clone decides to kill the original to take his place?

or what if the clones try to take over the world?
and we have a clone war

I.saw a movie where the clone killed the original who was dying of a disease and took his place since he already had his memories.

johnydon22:
Nope, morality is practically intersubjective like every other imagined order such as money, government, corporations etc..

You've been touting that word "intersubjective" now for so long that one can possibly call you it's prophet, yet your sermons on it have not exactly flown, have they? Might that be the source of your frustration perhaps, that's made you the uncivil being you seem to be becoming? You could just educate us you know instead of insulting us for being not so wise as you!

Anyway, my morality is subject to me. I choose the morals I adopt and do not need any external objective basis on which to choose them. I don't kill people because I don't like being killed and assume other's might not like me killing them either. An objective reason could be, if I kill I could go to jail. But that not why I don't kill. I don't kill people because I don't like killing people, simple. Same goes for being uncivil. Uncivility makes people sound stupid and ignorant to me. It's a thing ignorant people resort to when they haven't really got anything worthwhile to say so they cover up their inadequacies with even more inadequacies. I'm however stupid and ignorant enough as I am so why shroud my self in even more stupidity and ignorance!? But thats me, with my subjective opinion subject to me. I can't exactly say its objective and it doesn't need to be since I'm not claiming some external source for my opinion and stance nor asking anyone else to adopt it. If I don't like uncivil people I can very easily ignore them. And if I don't like killers I can run away or die. Se la vie.

Can I just use my own mind to subjectively decide my morals for myself johnydon22?

johnydon22:
Like i said, there is something inherently wrong with a moral conclusion that do not have a derivative basis, it is as illogical as a "God did it" answer from a theist.

"Like you said", Prophet johnydon22, Lol! Or is it God johnydon22?

Please note that I am stupid, ignorant, naive, wrong, puerile, illogical, very human buda. Maybe if you educate me please, I too can become Prophet or God johnydon22 too. Though, if it includes uncivility, you, can, keep it, thank you.

budaatum:

You've been touting that word "intersubjective" now for so long that one can possibly call you it's prophet, yet your sermons on it have not exactly flown, have they? Might that be the source of your frustration perhaps, that's made you the uncivil being you seem to be becoming? You could just educate us you know instead of insulting us for being not so wise as you!

Anyway, my morality is subject to me. I choose the morals I adopt and do not need any external objective basis on which to choose them. I don't kill people because I don't like being killed and assume other's might not like me killing them either. An objective reason could be, if I kill I could go to jail. But that not why I don't kill. I don't kill people because I don't like killing people, simple. Same goes for being uncivil. Uncivility makes people sound stupid and ignorant to me. It's a thing ignorant people resort to when they haven't really got anything worthwhile to say so they cover up their inadequacies with even more inadequacies. I'm however stupid and ignorant enough as I am so why shroud my self in even more stupidity and ignorance!? But thats me, with my subjective opinion subject to me. I can't exactly say its objective and it doesn't need to be since I'm not claiming some external source for my opinion and stance nor asking anyone else to adopt it. If I don't like uncivil people I can very easily ignore them. And if I don't like killers I can run away or die. Se la vie.

Can I just use my own mind to subjectively decide my morals for myself johnydon22?


"Like you said", Prophet johnydon22, Lol! Or is it God johnydon22?

Please note that I am stupid, ignorant, naive, wrong, puerile, illogical, very human buda. Maybe if you educate me please, I too can become Prophet or God johnydon22 too. Though, if it includes uncivility, you, can, keep it, thank you.

Oh God.

#sighs

budaatum:

Killing anyone is wrong for me, ABC, regardless of whether the killed likes it or not. It's so wrong for me that I can't possibly kill anyone. And in my opinion, killing OBL is wrong too especially if he could have been captured (and I believe he could have), and tried for his crimes which is what I'd prefer. Thankfully, no one is asking me to pass judgement on his killers, but if I were, they'd be guilty as charged.

So,why is killing anyone wrong to you?

ABCthings:
So,why is killing anyone wrong to you?

Lol

budaatum:
Morality is in the eye of the beholder unless you want to impose some heavenly godly morals on everyone. Most have abandoned that idea so they impose laws instead to guide morals. But even laws have their limitations so the wiser add education to it too to guide your morals, and prison if you break the law.

Can I ask you questions?
Why are you so uncivil? Why do you think your opinion is any more less puerile to anyone else's?
Are you well in the head?
I'm just wondering johnydon22 because I can't quite recall you being this way except of very recent!

MuttleyLaff:
Watch your tongue and take some lessons on how to construct your posts with manners, you cheeky young upstart

Good that you're beginning to know your place and worth but I'll let you squirm a bit more before I do

johnydon22:
hahahahahahaha ok sir oya

Except of very recent indeed almost 4 years ago by johnydon22(m): 1:15pm On Jun 20, 2015

ABCthings:
So,why is killing anyone wrong to you?

Killing anyone is wrong for me because I doubt I'd like how I might feel if I killed someone and I don't like feeling bad so I stay away from such things. I get this feeling from studying people killing and how killers feel and how I imagine I might feel if I were killed. I'd be dead if killed and miss everything that happens afterwards and life is way too interesting for me to be forced to miss it all. I reckon the person I kill might feel the same way I might so I'd rather not be the cause of such feelings in another.

MuttleyLaff:




Except of very recent indeed almost 4 years ago by johnydon22(m): 1:15pm On Jun 20, 2015

He's been this way since 2015 and not seen a reason to change at all?! That might explain why we've not engaged much since I tend to swerve past uncivil people.

I wonder if you might be civil with me please johnydon22? You have a lot to teach me and it's not fair of you to deprive me with such an unnecessary thing as uncivility. I'd be most grateful, I promise.

budaatum:

He's been this way since 2015 and not seen a reason to change at all?! That might explain why we've not engaged much since I tend to swerve past uncivil people.

I wonder if you might be civil with me please johnydon22? You have a lot to teach me and it's not fair of you to deprive me with such an unnecessary thing as uncivility. I'd be most grateful, I promise.

Lmao. Uncivility. Gold

johnydon22:
Lmao. Uncivility. Gold

It is said that "good manners don't cost much", and good behaviour is better than silver and gold". The first at least does works for me especially when I'm on the receiving side of it. But don't take my subjective word for it. Try it yourself if you wish.

budaatum:

It is said that "good manners don't cost much", and good behaviour is better than silver and gold". The first at least does works for me especially when I'm on the receiving side of it. But don't take my subjective word for it. Try it yourself if you wish.

lol. Ok. Johnydon is uncivil because he said Buda's argument is puerile, lmao.

johnydon22:
That is to first assume depriving someone of what belongs to them is wrong. Lol

Not liking something isn't same thing as that thing being wrong, is it?

I think words like "right" and "wrong" are human terms that speak of things that benefit us humans in general.
In this discourse, what do you mean by RIGHT and WRONG?

Evangkatsoulis:


I think words like "right" and "wrong" are human terms that speak of things that benefit us humans in general.
In this discourse, what do you mean by RIGHT and WRONG?

Accepted moral principles

johnydon22:
Lmao. Uncivility. Gold

It is said that "good manners don't cost much", and good behaviour is better than silver and gold". The first at least does works for me especially when I'm on the receiving side of it. But don't take my subjective word for it. Try it yourself if you wish.

budaatum:

It is said that "good manners don't cost much", and good behaviour is better than silver and gold". The first at least does works for me especially when I'm on the receiving side of it. But don't take my subjective word for it. Try it yourself if you wish.

Alright, go troll someone else

johnydon22:


Accepted moral principles

Accepted by humans and made by humans.

johnydon22:


Accepted moral principles

U mean the generally accepted moral principles of the society or the individual.
So morality precedes right and wrong?

budaatum:

Accepted by humans and made by humans.

Yes? So?

johnydon22:
lol. Ok. Johnydon is uncivil because he said Buda's argument is puerile, lmao.

No, not because you said buda's argument was puerile but because you were being rude.

johnydon22:
Yes? So?

Subjective humans?

Evangkatsoulis:


U mean the generally accepted moral principles of the society or the individual.

Society. A belief system if you will.

So morality precedes right and wrong?

One and the same. You can remove the "moral" in that definition and leave it as "acceptable principles of actions" it remains the same

budaatum:

Subjective humans?

lol. Intersubjective. Morality is a belief system.

budaatum:

No, not because you said buda's argument was puerile but because you were being rude.

I was being rude by sayiny Buda's argument is puerile then. Lol

johnydon22:
I was being rude by sayiny Buda's argument is puerile then. Lol

I wasn't bothered with your "puerile". You couldn't even spell it right so I assumed you might not know what it meant either. But even if you did, it still didn't bother me since its just your subjective opinion.

johnydon22:
lol. Intersubjective. Morality is a belief system.

A subjective beliefs system held by subjective humans?

What does "intersubjective" mean please?

budaatum:

I wasn't bothered with your "puerile". You couldn't even spell it right so I assumed you might not know what it meant either. But even if you did, it still didn't bother me since its just your subjective opinion.

You seem to be quite irked. Lol. So much for not being bothered.

Says Johny was rude, couldn't say why Johny was rude.

Got angry because Johny called his argument puerile then said he isn't bothered about it.

It is apparent, you snapped immediately after the "puerile" statement, you got to make your mind dude and stick to it.

Do you care or not cus the way you have been moaning about it, seems you care very much

budaatum:

A subjective beliefs system held by subjective humans?

What does "intersubjective" mean please?

An explanation will be in order even though i have explained this over and over before.

Ok here goes, a snappy one: Morality is an imagined order, imagined orders are not personal beliefs, it is a collection of beliefs in a principle.

Any imagined order only makes sense and is effective as an intersubjective principle. E.g: money.

The value of money is as a result of a collective belief by everyone.

Once everyone loses this belief, the concept becomes useless.

If everyone in Nigeria agrees today that the states in the Eastern part of the country will now be known as Biafra, it automatically becomes Biafra. The land or the people didn't change, only the belief did.

Imagined orders aren't personal as they are concepts that transpire between a collective whole.

Nnamdi Kanu saying, he is a Biafran doesn't make it so. He may believe it but it is not effective, it doesn't make SE Biafra.

Mr A saying, i don't believe in money, doesn't make money any less valuable - the only thing that would is everyone who believes in this value to lose this belief.

Likewise, one person saying, I don't believe stealing is wrong affect the moral weight of that action since morality refers to interactive actions.

If only one man lived on earth, they won't be a "killing is wrong"

It takes an intersubjective belief in this principle by a given clime.

So there are three natures of morality in ethics;

1. Objective morality - Morality as an inherent part of the universe, a transcendent quality. This is the most meaningful conceptualization since it is non-arbitrary by definition - alas, only as a philosophical position since it doesn't work like that in a practical sense

2. Intersubjective - as explained above

3. Subjective which by definition is meaningless since it eliminates the interactive considerations of a moral action.

But then, basis in morality refers to fundamental derivative beliefs we use to insill moral values.

E.g: Killing is wrong.

Mr A killed an ant
Mr B killed a human?

Who do we abhor? Mr B of course, why? Aren't both guilty of killing?

This implies that the nature of being right or wrong isn't necessarily in the action. The weight of right or wrong comes with our fundamental assumption on the subject.

So, for us to think killing a human is a graver abhorrence to killing say an ant, means our value belief of both subjects aren't on par.

So when i ask for moral basis, it is not to say i do not agree with your reasons for a moral judgement, it is because a conclusion without basis makes an assumption that moral quality is an intrinsic part of an action which is demonstrably not so.

buda does not get angry, johnydon22, nor does buda snap. buda did get irritated however because johnydon22 irritated buda.

I could not get why someone so smart and intelligent would choose to soil such a wonderfully thought provoking thread with such puerility and yet not look in a mirror. It was like you built an amazing castle then ruined it with your own hands.

Please stop soiling this most wonderfully educative thread johnydon22 that you created yourself. Please, I beg you please.

johnydon22:
You seem to be quite irked. Lol. So much for not being bothered.

Says Johny was rude, couldn't say why Johny was rude.

Got angry because Johny called his argument puerile then said he isn't bothered about it.

It is apparent, you snapped immediately after the "puerile" statement, you got to make your mind dude and stick to it.

Do you care or not cus the way you have been moaning about it, seems you care very much

budaatum:
buda does not get angry, johnydon22, nor does buda snap. buda did get irritated however because johnydon22 irritated buda.

I could not get why someone so smart and intelligent would choose to soil such a wonderfully thought provoking thread with such puerility and yet not look in a mirror. It was like you built an amazing castle then ruined it with your own hands.

Please stop soiling this most wonderfully educative thread johnydon22 that you created yourself. Please, I beg you please.

irritated
/ˈɪrɪteɪtɪd/
adjective
showing or feeling slight anger; annoyed.

Thank you immensely. You cannot imagine how much this is appreciated. Now let me know if I fully comprehend you. Please mark my sheet.

johnydon22:
An explanation will be in order even though i have explained this over and over before.

Yes you have, and to me specifically since I've asked the same question in the past. Can't say I've understood like I think I do this time though. One of us must have improved.

johnydon22:
Ok here goes, a snappy one: Morality is an imagined order, imagined orders are not personal beliefs, it is a collection of beliefs in a principle.

My moral principles are not things I imagine but principles I choose to live by. I don't kill is a moral of mine, and a personal 'belief', and I'm not imagining it.

johnydon22:
Any imagined order only makes sense and is effective as an intersubjective principle. E.g: money.

The value of money is as a result of a collective belief by everyone.

Once everyone loses this belief, the concept becomes useless.

But my principle to not kill does not depend on anyone else's opinion. If everyone decides killing people were good I still will resist killing people, at least I hope I would whatever the circumstances, and I'm not imagining it. I would therefore insist that it is in no way intersubjective as money might be.

johnydon22:

If every in Nigeria agrees today that the states in the Eastern part of the country will now be known as Biafra, it automatically becomes Biafra. The land or the people didn't change, only the belief did.

I agree. Doesn't apply to my principle of not killing though. We may notice this with homosexuality in some nations. No matter how hard we try to change attitudes towards it some will still tell you to go to hell.

johnydon22:
Imagined orders aren't personal as they are concepts that transpire between a collective whole.

Nnamdi Kanu saying, he is a Biafran doesn't make it so. He may believe it but it is not effective, it doesn't make SE Biafra.

Mr A saying, i don't believe in money, doesn't make money any less valuable - the only thing that would is everyone who believes in this value to lose this belief.

Likewise, one person saying, I don't believe stealing is wrong affect the moral weight of that action since morality refers to interactive actions.

My principle not to kill is very subjective to me. It does not depend on what anyone thinks but is a moral I have adopted for myself. Even the thought of killing a whole human being makes me cringe, but I can't say everyone would cringe. My point is that I only talk for my subjective self regardless of what other subjects might think. It's not an imagined order neither - well, perhaps it is, but still very personal to me.

johnydon22:
If only man lived on earth, they won't be a "killing is wrong".

It takes an intersubjective belief in this principle by a given clime.

If I were one of those men it still will be wrong for me to kill! But of course I'm assuming here. It could be a norm under certain circumstances that not killing means be killed, in which case I just might change my mind. Would I be correct in saying that "change my mind" under those circumstances is what is intersubjective?

All the same, I was always talking about my morals in the world I live in now where killing is very wrong for me.

johnydon22:

So there are three natures of morality in ethics;

1. Objective morality - Morality as an inherent part of the universe, a transcendent quality. This is the most meaningful conceptualization since it is non-arbitrary by definition - alas, only as a philosophical position since it doesn't work like it

As in objective morality does not exist? If so, I agree. My moral principle not to kill is very subjective to me. There are some people who hold to a subjective opposite position.

johnydon22:
3. Subjective which by definition is meaningless since it eliminates the interactive considerations of a moral action.

I don't agree with this at all. See above. My subjective no killing principle is very subjective to me regardless of what any other subject might think (in the world as it is at least).

johnydon22:
But then, basis in morality refers to fundamental derivative beliefs we use to insill moral values.

E.g: Killing is wrong.

Mr A killed an ant
Mr B killed a human?

Who do we abhor? Mr B of course, why? Aren't both guilty of killing?

This implies that the nature of being right or wrong isn't necessarily in the action. The weight of right or wrong comes with our fundamental assumption on the subject.

Ok, you've tacked different here. Your use of abhor in the example above implies a moral judgement on someone else's action, a position I have refrained from taking since I'm more concerned with the forest in my own eye and not the eyes of others.

I abhor me killing, would explain the position I've held here all along. Some others might not subscribe to my position and tell me to go to hell. That's why I've maintained my position is subjective to me and not some moral objectively imposed on others. Remember my "God johnydon22?" Now see "human buda". And it is in the action, which is what killing is. And hopefully when I stated my principle regarding killing you know I meant human beings. I'm sure I said so when I first presented it as my moral, or least I hope I did.

johnydon22:
So, for us to think killing a human is a graver abhorrence to killing say an ant, means our value belief of both subjects aren't on par.

Confession. I don't mind killing ants. I don't mind killing chickens. I do mind killing humans. And I do agree with you that they are not on par.


So, intersubjectivity, from wiki

Intersubjectivity, in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the psychological relation between people, as in shared subjective states by two or more individuals who agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation.

"Intersubjectivity" also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation.

My no killing moral is not a shared subjective state no is it something I've constructed with anyone else . There are many after all who don't share my no killing moral or agree with it at all. Does this not make it subjective to me regardless of what anyone else might think?

johnydon22:

So when i ask for moral basis, it is not to say i do not agree with your reasons for a moral judgement, it is because a conclusion without basis makes an assumption that moral quality is an intrinsic part of an action which is demonstrably not so.

I never said my morals were an intrinsic part of any action apart from the action itself! And I doubt I have to demonstrate anything to anyone since it is subjective to me. Or did I not clearly state that I don't kill because I don't like killing? That "not like" is my very subjective basis.