There is no right or wrong, good or bad, only experience

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by ForrestDean, Feb 17, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,365
    Can one obtain a "used soul" somewhere? Can we buy a "spare soul"? (just in case).......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Can they be used as a "collector's item"?...........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,390
    Colostomy bag is hardly a collector item

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,365
    But that's a collecting item, unless one has an exotic taste in collector items....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,390
    True

    I should have stopped at colostomy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,801
    I remember a day back in the '90s when school kids were lined up to get their books in a town in the former Yugoslavia. The "other guys" dropped a couple of dozen mortar bombs on them.

    That was bad.
     
  9. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,879
    It sounds like what you're describing is moral nihilism. Didn't read through the thread, so not sure you've discussed that.
     
  10. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Safety and pleasure are universal moral values.
     
  11. Marathon-man Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Murdering innocent children - right or wrong? You can't tell? You don't care? It doesn't matter to you? It doesn't resonate with you, so it doesn't matter?
    Done under abortion it is legal and promoted
    Killed during war, Just a casualty.
    Worked to death, part of child labor and fairly common around the world.
    Child sacrifice, happens more frequently than one thinks.
     
  12. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    if by your soul you mean your experience, then the soul is not an thing that you have, it actually IS you. you ARE your awareness of things because experience is existence and therefore your experience is your existence. experience is existence because an experience is the way in which things exist however they're perceived to, (e.g. the sight of greenness is the greenness which is seen) and because an experience is the way things exist how they're perceived to, experience is the existence of perceived things, and therefore, experience is existence itself, and consequentially, your experience is the same thing as your existence. also, don't worry about getting a spare soul, there is no need, because your soul, (your awareness) is indestructible. it is indestructible because it is impossible for you not to experience anything, it is impossible for you to experience the absence of all experience because the absence of all experience is not an experience, and therefore you must experience something, whatever it may be, for eternity, you always have, and you always will. you can never experience nothing because there is nothing to it to experience, it is not a thing but the absence of anything.

    you ask also whether or not souls can be used as a collectors item. I suppose if you found a way to trap them, you could collect the souls of others, like satan.
     
  13. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    I do not believe in objective right and wrong, because I am able to prove that the only thing that exists is experience like this:

    Experience is comprised entirely of perceived things,

    And so consequently an experience IS perceived things, because that is the only thing that an experience is comprised of.


    Because an experience IS perceived things, an experience is the way in which things exist however they’re perceived to.

    Therefore an experience is the way in which things exist.

    And therefore experience is existence.

    however, I do believe that right and wrong exist as subjective qaulities, and that, because experience is existence, if you THINK that something is wrong it is wrong, and if you THINK that something is right it is right.

    you may have noticed that I used the term you, and that is because what others think is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant because, your experience is the only thing that exists to you, and therefore your versions of right and wrong are the only versions that exist to you.

    basically, your opinions about what is right and what is wrong are the only ones that count for you.

    although, if it is your objective to live in accordance with the rights and wrongs of your fellow beings, for whatever reason, (e.g. empathy, law) then murdering innocent children is probably not a very good idea, as it will almost definitely be perceived as wrong by entities other than yourself, not least of all the innocent children.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    just me:

    Are you saying you think that there's no general agreement among people that certain actions are morally wrong, while others are morally laudable? Or are you saying you don't think there's an "absolute" moral dictated from on high, or something like that?

    That's an extreme form of moral relativism.

    Are you really telling us, for example, that if a person believes that mass murder is the right thing do then it is the right thing to do? You would have no grounds for a moral complaint about such a person torturing or murdering you, because you couldn't argue that it would be wrong for him to do that.

    Is this what you really believe?

    What others think is entirely irrelevant to moral questions?

    That's a strange position to take, since it seems to me that morality is mostly applied in relation to one's actions and attitudes towards other human beings.

    You're telling us, in effect, that there's no moral justification for putting criminals in jail for their crimes. I suppose you assume that when a society decides to lock up people for crimes it's just an arbitrary exertion of power, because they can. Is that what you're saying?

    Do you have any qualms about lying to people or exploiting them? If so, is that just a personal preference on your part - something you do for no particular reason. Or what? I'm interested to find out.

    Then you're not in a position to complain on moral grounds about anything that another person does. When people lie to you, or steal from you, or hurt you, what do you do? Do you just say "Well, that's fair enough, because only their opinions count for them, and my opinions on the morality of their actions don't apply to them"?

    Why would you care about what other people think? I don't understand your reasoning. So what if the innocent children suffer? Using your argument, their moral ideas or preferences are irrelevant to the people who are exploiting or hurting them, and that's just fine by you. Isn't it? What possible grounds could you have to complain about the exploitation of children, for example?
     
  15. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    yes, you are exactly right, I do not believe that there is any action which is morally laudable, or the inverse. and yes, if someone thinks that mass murder, child abuse, or whatever other malevolent action is the right thing to do then it is, at least to them.
    however, this extreme form of moral relativism, as you referred to it, doesn't work so well in society. if the machine is to keep churning, then false objective morals must continue to be imposed.

    as for the on high comment, morals are indeed imposed upon us all the time, at least, they are in my experience, but morals imposed upon us by a god are no more valid than moral imposed upon us by a human, in fact, no morals are valid except ones own, because no morals can exist to anyone except for their own, and a non existent moral can not be valid, nor invalid, there is no moral to be anything.

    this is really what I believe, because I am able to prove it, and I never disbelieve what can be proven because I do not like to delude myself.

    and I don't complain about any ailments others inflict upon me, I just get my revenge and feel better. I don't really care much about what other people think, unless I find it intriguing, which I often do.

    I acknowledge that there is no objective reason that I should or shouldn't do anything, just subjective ones which are equally as real to me, I don't need what I should and should not do to be written in the stars.

    I do not have many qualms about hurting others because I was born with an empathy deficit, but I do have some, I wouldn't want to hurt my parents.

    I know this theory is extreme and strange, to me also, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

    also, you say so what if the children suffer?

    well, my reason for answering this question was to provide a helpful response to the person who asked it, just for fun, and, in order for that answer to be helpful, to the person who asked it, I tweaked it so that it was relevant to their perspective.

    you see, killing innocent children, I suspect, would be very bad to them indeed, it may be important to the person who asked this question that they do not kill innocent children, be it because of the guilt they would feel, or incarceration, or whatever other negative repercussion.

    so that's why I included a recommendation of what this person should do, I thought it might be helpful to them, I thought it might work for them, resonate with their own perspective, so to speak.

    there isn't really any logical reason that I care about other perspectives, and there doesn't have to be, I just do.

    its enjoyable, for me, answering questions on the internet, I suppose.

    I hope I haven't missed any of your inquiries, they all seemed like pretty valid points.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,253
    JMS's idea sounds a lot like the definition of anarchy.
    Anarchy doesn't mean there is no morality, it simply means there is no centralized arbiter of morality.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,253
    Hang on. There's a middle ground here between anarchy and objective "on-high".

    Morality is usually considered to be a consensus of a society. So, neither truly objective, nor truly subjective.
     
    just me likes this.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    You'd better be very careful who you tell that you think mass murder is morally permissible. Society might want to lock you up, just to keep the rest of us safe.

    Right. Society will act to protect itself from the danger posed.

    Sorry, it's not clear to me what you think you can prove. What are you saying you can prove about morality? Can you present your proof, please?

    Revenge? Why would you want revenge? Those people did nothing wrong in inflicting hurt or suffering on you, according to you. I don't understand how you could justify revenge or why you'd want it. Please explain.

    You're a sociopath? Or psychopath? Or what? Have you been diagnosed?

    You sound dangerous. As far as I can tell, there's no reason you wouldn't kill somebody just because you felt like it at the time. Do people avoid you, or do you keep your true nature a secret?

    What reasons do you have for not wanting to hurt your parents? I am interested to know. Is it out of pure self-interest, or is there some other reason?
     
  19. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    oh, also you asked whether or not I lie, and exploit people, I never really thought about it, I don't lie all that often because I see no need to and am not very good at it anyway, although I maintain eye contact and all of that stuff, I often contradict myself, so people find out afterwards, and its rather embarrassing.

    and do I exploit people? only to get what I want, and I want precious little, I am a hardcore minimalist. and the 1 main thing that I do want, an infinite amount of power, not political power, but more like the kind that a genie has, I don't see how exploiting people is gonna get me that.

    don't know why you would be so interested in me, as opposed to my philosophy, I'm really boring.
     
  20. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102


    ha, sound advice, I will be careful about who I tell that I think mass murder is morally permissible.

    I was referring to the subjectivity of morality, that is what I am saying I can prove, and I have also already given my proof for that, by giving evidence for the fact that existence itself, and therefore everything that exists, including morality, is the same thing as experience, and is therefore entirely subjective. just re read it, the proof, It is in the first message that you responded to, right near the top of our conversation, the neatly paragraphed bit.

    summed up in 1 sentence, the evidence for experience/awareness being the same as existence is:
    an experience is the way in which a perceived thing exists in whichever manners it is perceived to.

    e.g. so, greenness would be the sight of greenness, hardness, the feel of hardness, excetra.

    I know people who hurt me have done nothing wrong, but I still subjectively wanna hurt them, and because there is no such thing as objective should and shouldn't/right and wrong, there is no reason why I should not hurt them, objectively, although there is a reason why I should subjectively, I think I should because I get angry at them, those who hurt me, that is.

    subjective shoulds and shouldnt's are just opinions, and opinions don't need justification.

    I am not sure whether or not I am a socio/psychopath and am 16 so am too young to be officially diagnosed.

    however, deen who was in my class and is interested in psychology told me I was a sociopath.

    and the reason I wouldn't kill someone is because I would get caught, fairly easily, and hence go to prison and have my life wasted.

    people don't avoid me, I avoid people, I find them to be mostly insufferable.
    a keen intellect and curiosity is a redeeming factor to me though.

    and I don't want to hurt my parents because I care about them and because they give me what I need, so its a bit of selfish reasons, and a bit of so called not selfish reasons which contribute to that aversion.

    hey how about we write 1 question at a time? that will allow for faster communication.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
  21. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    yes that's a good idea but it still involves the necessary impedance of free will unfortunately.
     
  22. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
     
  23. just me Registered Member

    Messages:
    102
    s
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019

Share This Page