Reyginus: Lol. @the above. I don't think he will agree with you, even when he is obviously saying it.
I think he is honestly ignorant of the implication his statement will present.

No, seems you have comprehension problems.

Let me make it clear.

[size=14pt]THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH "murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that".[/size]

Do you get it now?

There is something I'll like deepsight to explain.

Do you realise hundreds of years ago, slavery was inherently right to people living then. If you had lived centuries back and you came from a royal family who owned slaves, don't you feel you would had seen slavery as inherently right?

Now, that you and everyone else feels slavery is inherently wrong, doesn't that tell mean this idea of inherently right or wrong are purely subjective and can change over time?

rationalmind: There is something I'll like deepsight to explain.

Do you realise hundreds of years ago, slavery was inherently right to people living then. If you had lived centuries back and you came from a royal family who owned slaves, don't you feel you would had seen slavery as inherently right?

Now, that you and everyone else feels slavery is inherently wrong, doesn't that tell mean this idea of inherently right or wrong are purely subjective and can change over time?

That is not true: that something is widely practiced does not make it iherently right or good: as is the case with the killing of twins and Aztec human sacrifice. The truth is that in every age people of goodwill through the pin prick of conscience have spoken against common barbarities, as was the case with people like William Wilberforce in the campaign against slavery.

You actually fail to see the contradiction when you say that at some point slavery was inherently good, because if it was, then there would be no conscientuous campaign against it at all, which led to its abolition.

Slavery did not become inherently bad on account of its abolition, which is actually what your statement implies! The truth is rather that it was always inherently bad or wrong, and over time, societies attuned themselves to that truth which had always been there.

Anything else will be to say that somethibg like slavery, or the torture of children, skips merrily from being inherently good to being inherently bad from time to time.

That, sir, is an inherently bad argument.

wiegraf:

No, seems you have comprehension problems.

Let me make it clear.

[size=14pt]THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH "murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that".[/size]

Do you get it now?

You do not have a coherent worldview, you are completely amoral, and you have no right whatsoever to ever speak against anything whatsoever that goes on or happens in the world, for that will render you a double speaking hypocrite.

I hope you therefore stay consistent with your chosen path.

wiegraf:

No, seems you have comprehension problems.

Let me make it clear.

[size=14pt]THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH "murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that".[/size]

Do you get it now?

And here was I thinking you know little of what you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance.I have two questions.

1. If you think the above to be true, with what moral standard do you judge a seeming murderer whose morality is differently evolved from yours? As in, if there be a society in this time, ofcourse their is, ( abriba in Abia State), who don't think they are doing any wrong in hunting fellow man for meat, would you say that their acts are morally wrong?

2. Why wouldn't I rightly say that your criticism of God for the deeds in the OT is highly irrational and hypocritical?

Reyginus: And here was I thinking you know little of what you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance.I have two questions.

1. If you think the above to be true, with what moral standard do you judge a seeming murderer whose morality is differently evolved from yours? As in, if there be a society in this time, ofcourse their is, ( abriba in Abia State), who don't think they are doing any wrong in hunting fellow man for meat, would you say that their acts are morally wrong?

2. Why wouldn't I rightly say that your criticism of God for the deeds in the OT is highly irrational and hypocritical?

And Number 2 above, as I also had said, is particularly damning. It just shows up our man wiegraf as a very idle thinker who is yet to stop to give rational thought to the slightest thing, and who belongs yet in the grade of that baby atheism which only takes shots at the Abrahamic God because its a funky new teenage fad that helps them feel smart.

Nor can he escape by allussion to the changing ways of said God, because he asserts that morality changes.

He has, unwittingly, withdrawn every single allegation he has ever made against Yahweh. Yahweh thus wins.

Pity.

Deep Sight:

And Number 2 above, as I also had said, is particularly damning. It just shows up our man wiegraf as a very idle thinker who is yet to stop to give rational thought to the slightest thing, and who belongs yet in the grade of that baby atheism which only takes shots at the Abrahamic God because its a funky new teenage fad that helps them feel smart.

Nor can he escape by allussion to the changing ways of said God, because he asserts that morality changes.

He has, unwittingly, withdrawn every single allegation he has ever made against Yahweh. Yahweh thus wins.

Pity.

Lol. Another thing he has not told us is whether this evolution of morality is concurrent with the entire human race or if it happens differently.
If he answers the former in the affirmative, I would then look forward to a new lecture on why the laws of all sovereign countries are not entirely the same.
On the other hand, if he replies the latter in like manner, then we would have no option than to conclude nothing can be moral or immoral.

@ Deep Sight: The concept of 'Malum in se' is flawed in this wise. It supposes a thing to be evil and IGNORES the fact that evil is actually a value given by human to certain events. As such, it is bound to ignore that 'malum in se' to another person,nor in another context, or viewed in another light, could be 'bonum in se'. In truth, the closest thing to evil (or good) in itself is that which sees both, something elemental, without which evil (or good) could exist. That thing is consciousness, better yet, an advanced one as in man.

Of course, this should be evident to you. A dead body would see nothing being desecrated, or dismembered. Neither would I expect a baby to begin to assess the intrigues of Nigerian polity and the morals of those involved. Even though at some base level children have a sense of morality, their consciousness (or intelligence) hasn't advanced to that level. A boulder isn't evil for crushing a burdened mother.

In this wise, Mr Troll's statement is vindicated.

Nothing in Nature is intrinsically wrong or right . . . without consciousness {my addition}.

And this is shown since in the statement you contrasted it with, it is stated mala in se is judged in the sense of a civilized community (which means not only consciousness but a collective one that builds from agreements and moral value judgements on various things, actions etc that form an ethos or law for such a people).

Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum. It depends on two basic things. A consciousness and a physical thing (or event) which is being judged evil, to a greater or lesser degree, or for which which this judgement is witheld (to an extent, the reason I may explain later). Without these two evil can't even begin to exist. In fact, malum in se presumes a physical event to be evil. So why pretend it's evil in itself, when it is someone making the judgement. And so, the final blow to the concept of malum in se is dealt. There is no 'malum in se' but 'malum apparuit in materia'.

Daz all

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: The concept of 'Malum in se' is flawed in this wise. It supposes a thing to be evil and IGNORES the fact that evil is actually a value given by human to certain events. As such, it is bound to ignore that 'malum in se' to another person,nor in another context, or viewed in another light, could be 'bonum in se'. In truth, the closest thing to evil (or good) in itself is that which sees both, something elemental, without which evil (or good) could exist. That thing is consciousness, better yet, an advanced one as in man.

Of course, this should be evident to you. A dead body would see nothing being desecrated, or dismembered. Neither would I expect a baby to begin to assess the intrigues of Nigerian polity and the morals of those involved. Even though at some base level children have a sense of morality, their consciousness (or intelligence) hasn't advanced to that level. A boulder isn't evil for crushing a burdened mother.

In this wise, Mr Troll's statement is vindicated.

Nothing in Nature is intrinsically wrong or right . . . without consciousness {my addition}.

And this is shown since in the statement you contrasted it with, it is stated mala in se is judged in the sense of a civilized community (which means not only consciousness but a collective one that builds from agreements and moral value judgements on various things, actions etc that form an ethos or law for such a people).

Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum. It depends on two basic things. A consciousness and a physical thing (or event) which is being judged evil, to a greater or lesser degree, or for which which this judgement is witheld (to an extent, the reason I may explain later). Without these two evil can't even begin to exist. In fact, malum in se presumes a physical event to be evil. So why pretend it's evil in itself, when it is someone making the judgement. And so, the final blow to the concept of malum in se is dealt. There is no 'malum in se' but 'malum apparuit in materia'.

Daz all

The bold shows how you have badly confused issues, and with due respect, your comment is neither here nor there: for when you add - "without consciousness" - that is incredibly moot because unconscious entities have no moral paradigm whatsoever. Only conscious entities have a moral paradigm - and only developed self-conscious ones at that. The question is therefore not whether there is evil in nature but whether such developed conscious beings (us) have a natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil, as per OUR intrinsic nature.

As such, your examples with asking about the morality of dead bodies or babies, is simply not the question here, and is quite lost.

So you really have to go back to the drawing board as you did not address anything. I really think you need to read some of the posts above again and ponder the dilemmas thrown up.

Deep Sight:

The bold shows how you have badly confused issues, and with due respect, your comment is neither here nor there: for when you add - "without consciousness" - that is incredibly moot because unconscious entities have no moral paradigm whatsoever.

True. In fact your last statement supports the statement you claim is moot. It suggests a moral paradigm is needed before one can begin to judge a thing to be evil. In fact, I think you have underestimated the importance of my points in this matter.

Deep Sight:
Only conscious entities have a moral paradigm - and only developed self-conscious ones at that.

Agreed.

Deep Sight:
The question is therefore not whether there is evil in nature

Very good. In fact, that wasn't my central point.

Deep Sight:
but whether such developed conscious beings (us) have a natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil, as per their intrinsic nature.

Then you miss my central point entrely. For all I wrote was to show that actions ARE NOT intrinsically evil. In fact, my last statement should denied evil in itself as non-extant. The defining phrase, for me, here is 'natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil'. In particular, recognition. Someone is recognizing a thing as evil. In itself, it actually isn't evil. What happens is you HOLD it (the action) to be evil (given your consciousness) and then state it to be intrinsically evil. It isn't. You hold it to be.

It's like arguing whether a Olumo rock is intrinsically Olumo rock, or put simply whether that's the name to the actual rock. The rock isn't the name. In fact it isn't even a rock (as spelt, seen or conceived by you). The rock it self is different from whatsoever you think of it, but it would be hard for folks to see this because we tend to tie our perception of things to things themselves as if they are one.

Deep Sight:
As such, your examples with asking about the morality of dead bodies or babies, is simply not the question here, and is quite lost.

Ah ! Baba Deep (if you don't mind) you fall my hand ! Big time ! If you think that analogy lost. The intention was to divorce, as much as possible, your consciousness, from THINGS (or ACTIONS or EVENTS) you deem evil or good. That's proving more difficult than I thought. Even with YOU, of all people !

Deep Sight:
So you really have to go back to the drawing board as you did not address anything. I really think you need to read some of the posts above again and ponder the dilemmas thrown up.

So if I didn't address anything, what did you address I didn't thoroughly read previous posts but I skimmed through and took some time (as I do) to focus on what I thought crucial before responding. The dilemmas you present deal with specifics in the form of scenarios. If we can't agree on (or clarify) abstracts, by which we would adjudge such scenarios how would you expect progress of any sort ?

You noted the error there and made it ' . . . OUR intrinsic nature.'. I'll respond to that. But that shows you are on course.

Now as to natural recognition of evil as to OUR (presumably humans) intrinsic nature I think we will find that subjectivity reigns here despite the fact that, idealists as yourself like to think otherwise. Just the fact that you are a human with a unique body, mindset, behaviour and place changes things.

For instance, if I was born short I might as a result think tall people are snobs and so evil. Another short person could think otherwise, but possibly because of being raised by caring tall parents. A blind from birth person doesn't know beauty as seen by sight, or a color-blind person as seen by colors. Little as these may seem they add up to one's recognition of what's evil or not. Take for instance a leprous person. Leprosy damages the nerves not the skin. A lepros person doesn't feel pain. And pain is traditionally held to be evil. I mean physical pain on the body and skin inclusive. Is the remival of this 'evil' in the form of tactile pain good ? Depends on the person. But one thing is for sure we know, that the loss of tactile pain robs the leper of little dangers, here and there, folks would forget were it not for pain. A cup of tea too hot, a cut here, a laceration there, an itch under. In fact, one could develop an apathy to danger that would lead to death.

As if the one's body isn't enough to muddle things. The way people think. I (and surely a more experienced you) have seen twins as different as light and night. One is gentle, the other ruthless. In fact, their usual mien or persona gives them away despite their outright sameness. So you have controversies in the form of theism-atheism, liberalism-conservatism, evolution-creationism, idealism-materialism etc. Even those who like to think they have found a new third way and hence a solution and the end of the 'false dichotomy' such issues bring don't solve the matter. They further complicate it, not if, when. You have a good example in socialism, brought about as some mean between capitalism and communist extremes, even so-called mixed economies as in Nigeria. But in truth, one was less communist and the other less capitalist.


When you say OUR intrinsic nature. You talk of one's persona. And what is that if not the choice one makes. And isn't it clear people make different choices at different times. In fact, the choice varies with the person, not just by the choice but by the person (human body and/or reputation of) making the choice.

Uyi Iredia: You noted the error there and made it ' . . . OUR intrinsic nature.'. I'll respond to that. But that shows you are on course.

It was no error my good friend; I just noticed that when I wrote "their" the reader might not get that I was referring to us, human beings. So to make it clearer I changed it to "our." The "their" was equally apt within the sentence.

Uyi Iredia: Now as to natural recognition of evil as to OUR (presumably humans) intrinsic nature I think we will find that subjectivity reigns here despite the fact that, idealists as yourself like to think otherwise. Just the fact that you are a human with a unique body, mindset, behaviour and place changes things.

For instance, if I was born short I might as a result think tall people are snobs and so evil. Another short person could think otherwise, but possibly because of being raised by caring tall parents. A blind from birth person doesn't know beauty as seen by sight, or a color-blind person as seen by colors. Little as these may seem they add up to one's recognition of what's evil or not. Take for instance a leprous person. Leprosy damages the nerves not the skin. A lepros person doesn't feel pain. And pain is traditionally held to be evil. I mean physical pain on the body and skin inclusive. Is the remival of this 'evil' in the form of tactile pain good ? Depends on the person. But one thing is for sure we know, that the loss of tactile pain robs the leper of little dangers, here and there, folks would forget were it not for pain. A cup of tea too hot, a cut here, a laceration there, an itch under. In fact, one could develop an apathy to danger that would lead to death.

As if the one's body isn't enough to muddle things. The way people think. I (and surely a more experienced you) have seen twins as different as light and night. One is gentle, the other ruthless. In fact, their usual mien or persona gives them away despite their outright sameness. So you have controversies in the form of theism-atheism, liberalism-conservatism, evolution-creationism, idealism-materialism etc. Even those who like to think they have found a new third way and hence a solution and the end of the 'false dichotomy' such issues bring don't solve the matter. They further complicate it, not if, when. You have a good example in socialism, brought about as some mean between capitalism and communist extremes, even so-called mixed economies as in Nigeria. But in truth, one was less communist and the other less capitalist.


When you say OUR intrinsic nature. You talk of one's persona. And what is that if not the choice one makes. And isn't it clear people make different choices at different times. In fact, the choice varies with the person, not just by the choice but by the person (human body and/or reputation of) making the choice.

Well before expending excess energy addressing the details which I believe are misconceived and misfooted here, let me ask you one simple question.

If "its all subjective" as you say, and rightly varies from person to person, then on what jurisprudential basis can any criminal laws ever be made.

On what basis should a law be made prohibiting, for example, murder, if it is a subjective matter only. Does that not amount to imposing a subjective moral paradigm on others who may not agree with it.

Answer this question succinctly and without recourse to epistle, please.

Thank you.

PS: Maybe I should set some Jamb questions for you in my next post, to help things along. But please answer succinctly the question posed in this post.

By agreeing.

Therein they strike a balance between their various positions and come to a mean (sometimes to one's detriment or advantage) that is binding one everyone by virtue of agreement. In fact, that's how the Romans did it. And Romans gave jurisprudence to the world. Not that folks weren't doing it in their own way, before them.

Jamb Questions for Uyi Iredia.

1. Should there by criminal laws in countries?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't know

Next question will follow after you answer this one.

Uyi Iredia: By agreeing.

And what happens to those who do not agree?

Is their subjective moral paradigm to be ground under the jack boot of the majority?

And if so, why?

Deep Sight:

You do not have a coherent worldview, you are completely amoral, and you have no right whatsoever to ever speak against anything whatsoever that goes on or happens in the world, for that will render you a double speaking hypocrite.

I hope you therefore stay consistent with your chosen path.

And you, with your 'objective' moral code, aren't one? When you call the other 'objective' moral codes false, I suppose you aren't being a hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is unavoidable, I say this all.the.time. I'm a proud hypocrite when it comes to defending my values. No need to lie, in your case though...

Nothing new to see here

wiegraf:

And you, with your 'objective' moral code, aren't one? When you call the other 'objective' moral codes false, I suppose you aren't being a hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is unavoidable, I say this all.the.time. I'm a proud hypocrite when it comes to defending my values. No need to lie, in your case though...

Nothing new to see here

And this is an answer?

Lol. So you criticize Yahweh's morality even after saying all morality is subjective only and that nothing is intrinsically evil - and when the dubious hypocrisy of this is pointed out, you answer by simply admitting to being a hypocrite.

Ol boy, how on earth do you expect any one to take such nonsense seriously. How on earth do you expect anyone not to think you are not positing from some lunatic asylum?

Shift joor.

Reyginus: And here was I thinking you know little of what you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance.I have two questions.

1. If you think the above to be true, with what moral standard do you judge a seeming murderer whose morality is differently evolved from yours? As in, if there be a society in this time, ofcourse their is, ( abriba in Abia State), who don't think they are doing any wrong in hunting fellow man for meat, would you say that their acts are morally wrong?

2. Why wouldn't I rightly say that your criticism of God for the deeds in the OT is highly irrational and hypocritical?

I've already addressed this. Because they trample on my values, simple.

This is what everyone does, some simply label it "god" or objective. Muslims are ordained by allah, have you met allah before?

There's no difference between this 'objective' and the subjective. Well, yes there's a difference in practice. In my case, you're free to come and debate me, put your case forward and the rest can see if they are happy with it. In other words, we can always negotiate. In the case of those that claim objective morals though, even when they are about to commit their genocide, they of course leave NO room for debate. After all, they are objectively correct. See?

Deep Sight:

And this is an answer?

Lol. So you criticize Yahweh's morality even after saying all morality is subjective only and that nothing is intrinsically evil - and when the dubious hypocrisy of this is pointed out, you answer by simply admitting to being a hypocrite.

Ol boy, how on earth do you expect any one to take such nonsense seriously. How on earth do you expect anyone not to think you are not positing from some lunatic asylum?

Shift joor.

Erm, yes. And you continue to address nothing and play the hypocrite.

Why is your moral code objective and that of say the muslims not so?

Deep Sight:

The question is therefore not whether there is evil in nature but whether such developed conscious beings (us) have a natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil, as per OUR intrinsic nature.

So, your intrinsic nature is the same as mine?

What is wrong with you?


EDIT: The heck, uyi is already on it. Your folly is dangerously close to making me like an uyi comment....

wiegraf:

Erm, yes. And you continue to address nothing and play the hypocrite.

Why is your moral code objective and that of say the muslims not so?

I have not said so, and I have no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

As far as I know, the general objective morality preached by virtually all world religions is love of God and fellow man.

And believing in that, I draw my position therefrom to say nay to anything that runs counter to love of fellow man - such as murder, theft and the like.

You, on the other hand, say that none of these are intrinsically evil so YOU have no basis to condemn those who subscribe to such - based on YOUR declared position.

I say - there is objective morality and so I can condemn certain actions.

You say - its all subjective, and so you CANNOT condemn ANY actions.

Its simple, really.

Deep Sight:

I have not said so, and I have no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

As far as I know, the general objective morality preached by virtually all world religions is love of God and fellow man.

And believing in that, I draw my position therefrom to say nay to anything that runs counter to love of fellow man - such as murder, theft and the like.

You, on the other hand, say that none of these are intrinsically evil so YOU have no basis to condemn those who subscribe to such - based on YOUR declared position.

I say - there is objective morality and so I can condemn certain actions.

You say - its all subjective, and so you CANNOT condemn ANY actions.

Its simple, really.

Then I await this objective moral code. Do please show it. You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it. Oh wow

The majority of what, or who?

wiegraf:

So, your intrinsic nature is the same as mine?

What is wrong with you?


EDIT: The heck, uyi is already on it. Your folly is dangerously close to making me like an uyi comment....

Lol, the same Uyi who must come back and address my Jamb questions.

You have a go:

- - -> If its all subjective, on what basis should criminal laws exist anywhere?

Why should anyone criminalize a subjective matter and enforce punishment on a subjective matter?

Do you agree, that your position means that there should be no such thing as criminal law!

Surely, even you can see that, can you not?

How do you impose a uniform criminal law on EVERYBODY, when the paradigms are ALL subjective. How can that ever be just?

Thus, your only revert to consistency, would be to hold that there should be no criminal laws in any society, as it is all subjective.

wiegraf:

Then I await this objective moral code. Do please show it. You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it. Oh wow

The majority of what, or who?

My position is not, and never has been that it is objective on account of being approved by the majority. That may be your position (it is not even, your position is anarchy as you say it is all subjective and thus each man to his own).

My position is that such basic moral paradigms are elements ingrained into the conscience of human beings as an integral part of their spiritual and social psyche. It thus applies universally, even with those that violate it. Thus the pangs of conscience in individuals, and thus revolutions in nations, where such ingrained and embedded moral paradigms are violated. That is my position. I do not say that it is up to each to decide: I say that there is a supervening moral paradigm governing all of us, and this paradigm is based on love, fairness, equity, dignity and justice.

Deep Sight: Jamb Questions for Uyi Iredia.

1. Should there by criminal laws in countries?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't know

Next question will follow after you answer this one.

Yes.

CAVEAT: I would prefer if it is a could, so it becomes a question of ability rather than an onus.

Deep Sight:

And what happens to those who do not agree?

Is their subjective moral paradigm to be ground under the jack boot of the majority?

And if so, why?

That depends on them. They may choose to fight it, and may succeed or fail at it. Or they allow it even though they dislike it. This is part what I had in mind when I said it could be to one's detriment.

Deep Sight:

Lol, the same Uyi who must come back and address my Jamb questions.

You have a go:

- - -> If its all subjective, on what basis should criminal laws exist anywhere?

Why should anyone criminalize a subjective matter and enforce punishment on a subjective matter?

Do you agree, that your position means that there should be no such thing as criminal law!

Surely, even you can see that, can you not?

How do you impose a uniform criminal law on EVERYBODY, when the paradigms are ALL subjective. How can that ever be just?

Thus, your only revert to consistency, would be to hold that there should be no criminal laws in any society, as it is all subjective.

Do you need me to state in Klingon?

It has, always has been, built around wills. Usually those of the majority, but no necessarily so. Now, answer my first question please

me:

You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it.

The majority of what, or who?

Deep Sight:

And what happens to those who do not agree?

Is their subjective moral paradigm to be ground under the jack boot of the majority?

And if so, why?

1) That depends on them. They may choose to fight it, and may succeed or fail at it. Or they allow it even though they dislike it. This is part what I had in mind when I said it could be to one's detriment.

2) Yes, unless I'm not in the majority: if that's the case the merits of the matter would bear on my stance.

3) Because they choose to. Why for they choose ? They can given their consciousness.

wiegraf:

So, your intrinsic nature is the same as mine?

What is wrong with you?


EDIT: The heck, uyi is already on it. Your folly is dangerously close to making me like an uyi comment....

For whargarbl's sakes just like the damn thing already. Unless . . .

Deep Sight:

My position is not, and never has been that it is objective on account of being approved by the majority. That may be your position (it is not even, your position is anarchy as you say it is all subjective and thus each man to his own).

My position is that such basic moral paradigms are elements ingrained into the conscience of human beings as an integral part of their spiritual and social psyche. It thus applies universally, even with those that violate it. Thus the pangs of conscience in individuals, and thus revolutions in nations, where such ingrained and embedded moral paradigms are violated. That is my position. I do not say that it is up to each to decide: I say that there is a supervening moral paradigm governing all of us, and this paradigm is based on love, fairness, equity, dignity and justice.

You seem to be describing santa. Where is this universal, human consciousness based universal code? Human consciousness, a completely subjective experience. It applies to every species and isn't built around what the majority of humans are content with? And again, why does it automatically apply to those who do not subscribe to it? Are they not humans with consciousness as well? So, they are defective humans?