₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
+
I don't have a problem with all this. What is missing is the fact that you are not attaching an objective moral value to human judgements and acts.

So long as you don't do that, you have to accept all the implications I listed.

Because if it's all subjective, then it's fine whatever each individual believes is right for him to do. And you can only overcome or suppress it by force. Even then, you will not have changed his subjective morality. You would only have had your way. Via might being right.

timilehin007:
Please, who or what are you?.

chieveboy:
You will recall in the earlier thread for lord.reed where i mentioned even what we accept as reality is not objective, I said what we have are 'agreements to reality' in the sense that subject objects of perception are used to perceive what the observers call reality. That the fact that subjective eyes, neurons, brain cells are used could never birth objectivity in its 100% state, hence its just us agreeing that yes, blue is blue even though for all of us, no one is seeing the blue as exactly as it might be.

Having not to accept implications would then mean I lose myself completely body and mind, else, it is impossible to not have a choice from right, wrong or neutrality. Objectivity all of the time is not possible as far as the human experience is concerned--no contradiction here. What a human would call Objective or when a human goes neutral, they cannot do that beyond the subjective feeds they get from their sensoria.

The real way of having objective perspective is only when a human strips themselves of their sensoria (eyes, nose, skin, tongue or mind generally). Reason as you know is the limits and capabilities they impose.

These sensoria are mathematically equal to opinions even before the match begins. They are also equal to implications, definitions and sides. In other words, our senses are equal to Subjectives. There is another way however to have actual (human) objectivity: All souls using the human body of a single person. This way, whatever is observed is using same electric wire and wiring, so the experience will be one and the same for all, giving us a human objectivity.

We have two ideologies presented in the above statements...

DeepSight:
+
Again, I don't have any problems with the above. It's just that the implications don't go away. . .so do you for example agree that there is no basis for criminal law?

chieveboy:
There is basis for criminal law because that's a play of Agreements we spoke of.

Technically, Agreements are the interoperability interface which must be established for one or two Subjectives to have some form of objective experience (in a community, state, relationship, group, religion, etc.). These agreements or laws are derivatives of the Subjective experiences of the participants which are not or may be universally applied--but not necessarily based on objective reality, which may be written, unwritten or even genetically programmed.

Lack of exposure to deeper levels of causative variables like past life and reincarnation, or even genetics may see someone who takes out a life because the "victim" took theirs in a past life usually resulting in criminal law/enforcement making bad decisions by escalating a universal criminal case using communal or state laws. Subjective or man-made laws are limited and do not have all variables and factors accounted for even in the case of the expertise of the investigators and that of the human judge.

Despite the limitations of criminal law, it however is grist for the mill of the grander, comprehensive and perfect universal laws which seem to be enforced rather too slowly, but then they is enforced more wholesomely.

Excellent93:
Jesus loves you and every terrorist

Abee79:
Trust me, if there is a place where the streets are made of gold and there is an abundance of eternal pleasures, the white man will NEVER allow the black man to have free access to it. See how they tighten the visa restrictions to their earthly countries . . .

DeepSight:
+
You are speaking well but you are still missing the point.
To make it clear as briefly as possible. -

- It is not an agreement with those who disagree with it. Laws are made by a government usually by an agreement of the majority - if morality is subjective then there is a minority that does not agree with those laws and for them, there is no basis for those laws as you did not get their agreement. So it is not by agreement for them. However, there are also cases where laws are decreed by one person (for example in a dictatorship or absolute mornachy). So again, if morality is subjective where is the basis for any criminal laws.

Criminal laws only make sense if certain things that are objectively and rationally evil or bad.

Otherwise its just your opinion vs my opinion and you have your way because you have the might.

chieveboy:
No, its an action primarily with several permutations of effects.



Those affected and those emotionally or "rationally" invested are the ones who would say it is evil and also good. Note how what you think was evil, the perpetrator believes its good.