Absolute Moral Values

[anwiii 17]

how in the world did this topic sway to some religious debate? i find it funny. mean, if we are going to bring religion in to this, we have to bring ALL religions in to this topic for it to be remotely objective. this topic wasn't about religion or god. it was about morals. right and wrong and the proof that right or wrong exists. it wasn't about a person's belief and it certainly wasn't about something you can read in a book. let's get back on topic here guys!homosexuality was a good example of right or wrong and the morality of life. but i am still awaiting proof from true fusion in what he knows to support what he says. he has yet to even try to prove anything he says is true. i commend him for his opinions though. he has stated more than what i expected....

[web_designer 7]

long long posts are in here, i even couldn't finish all of them. so, i will just state my opinion about right and wrong in human being.first, i really think that all human born with a deep concept of right and wrong inside them, even it is just a small seeds of goodness and evilness. after that, growing up, experiencing new things in life, and interacting with others will feed these seeds either to grow up and become a good person or be a bad person.here comes the duty of family, family has the first and strong effect of building a child and guide him to what is right and wrong. after that, this human will grow up and become an adult who could make his own choices of what he wants to be in life.also,i really think that the deep concept of right or wrong depend on our inner sense. but sometimes we couldn't make the right choice because we get confused or distracted in life. therefore the right and wrong differs from society to another.?

[OpaQue 15]

This is Bhagawad Geeta SUMMARY. I feel, its beautiful to read.

The Gita addresses the discord between the senses and the intuition of cosmic order. It speaks of the Yoga of equanimity, a detached outlook. The term Yoga covers a wide range of meanings, but in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, describes a unified outlook, serenity of mind, skill in action and the ability to stay attuned to the glory of the Self (Atman) (SOUL) and the Supreme Being (Bhagavan) (SUPER SOUL). According to Krishna (an avatar just like christ), the root of all suffering and discord is the agitation of the mind caused by selfish desire. The only way to douse the flame of desire is by simultaneously stilling the mind through self-discipline and engaging oneself in a higher form of activity. However, abstinence from action is regarded as being just as detrimental as extreme indulgence. According to the Bhagavad Gita, the goal of life is to free the mind and intellect from their complexities and to focus them on the glory of the Self by dedicating one's actions to the divine. This goal can be achieved through the Yogas of meditation, action, devotion and knowledge. In the sixth chapter, Krishna describes the best Yogi as one who constantly meditates upon him^[45] - which is understood to mean thinking of either Krishna personally, or the supreme Brahman - with different schools of Hindu thought giving varying points of view.

 

Krishna summarizes the Yogas through eighteen chapters. Three yogas in particular have been emphasized by commentators:

 

Bhakti Yoga or Devotion,

Karma Yoga or Selfless Action

Jnana Yoga or Self Transcending Knowledge

While each path differs, their fundamental goal is the same - to realize Brahman (the Divine Essence) as being the ultimate truth upon which our material universe rests, that the body is temporal, and that the Supreme Soul (Paramatman) is infinite. Yoga's aim (moksha) is to escape from the cycle of reincarnation through realization of the ultimate reality. There are three stages to self-realization enunciated from the Bhagavad Gita:

 

Brahman - The impersonal universal energy

Paramatma - The Supreme Soul sitting in the heart of every living entity.

Bhagavan - God as a personality, with a transcendental form.

Truth is to be EXPLORED till you reach THE TRUTH. If you have reached THE TRUTH, you should automatically understand the mystery of God and why he does not show up in front of us like SUPER MAN. The Truth which all are seeking is actually an illusion of honest opinions. There is no such thing as PERFECTION. Perfection is defined by ones own CAPABILITY/ABILITY/BENCHMARK. If perfection is attained, whats the point of evolution ? Perfection is the only GOD's business.

 

Indeed, how can anyone say (or imply) forcing something upon another is wrong when merely saying that it is wrong is itself forcing morals upon someone? I don't think you truly believe what you said. For a person who believes that there is no right and wrong, i would not expect them to be engaging themselves in this topic.

 

There are many truths, yes; but truth is objective, not dictated but pointed out.

 

Correct.

[kobra500 1]

I will PM you the video also Truefusion, or perhaps I'll post it here now it supports embedding videos straight in, Incidently you don't need to quote biblical verses I did read your post, I'm normally too lazy to quote but I will here:

 

Homosexuality implies lack of production on its own; it is incapble of producing young on its own. This is an absolute consequence of homosexuality. Creatures were designed to produce and multiply, and so homosexuality deviates from the natural?which implies that it is impossible to be born gay. Such a natural production brings joy and other positive feelings to the now family which would otherwise not have been present with homosexuality. Such a natural production is required for any such joy to be present and for any advancement of the race.

Right Okay, the key sentence is

Creatures were designed to produce and multiply

Creatures were not designed, they evolved. Okay you could argue that being Gay isn't an evolutionary advantage in terms of spreading your genes because obviously homosexual couples can spread said genes. But how is it impossible, it's possible to be born mentally ill, even if you conclude that homosexuality is like this then it is still possible. It's possible to be born infertile, and I repeat are you saying that infertile people or people who cannot have children are lesser, is the ability to reproduce with your partner make you lesser. Creatures evolved to multiply because evolution requires that creatures reproduce for it to work, but that doesn't make people who don't reproduce lesser, evolution doesn't make the Best survive but the ones that work in their environment. Of course I'm not saying that Environmental factors don't affect people, but people love who they love and it's clear that gays have always existed and will always exist as part of ALL mammals at least and we're just animals as well. But you ask why I appear to assume the bible? I don't think It's a red herring, it's easy to call something a red herring. You cannot give an argument that isn't religious which is a good argument against homosexuality, okay you've said that "Creatures were designed to multiply" but the concept of design is supernatural in of itself, Creatures weren't designed, that implies and intelligence, I can hear the biblical undertones, your opinions are almost always biblical.

 

And Joy to be present for advancement of the race? what does that even mean? Also I didn't quite get your last two sentences. And as for the video, I can't find it, it's on youtube I think one of the person I'm subbed to favourited it so I'll look through it.

[kobra500 1]

I found the video, I had to change what I was searching for. I won't embed it, I'd rather actually link it, it's funny at least.

[http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Edited June 11, 2010 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[Baniboy 3]

1. True, what may be deemed beneficial to the creature may be, in actuality, selfish, and hence not morally right. But any goal is separate of the moral. You give the example of child rape. What is our goal there? You don't seem to explicitly state one, though it is obvious the goal of the rapist. Shall we assume it is to prevent some form of child abuse for the one who is against child abuse (like one would expect)? So what if we state that as one of our reasons for trying to prevent child abuse is due to the fact that child abuse causes unbeneficial and painful structural modification to the child? Would me wanting to prevent child abuse mean that the child will have unbeneficial and painful structural modification, and that if i do not try to prevent it, that the child will not have unbeneficial and painful structural modification? Right and wrong deal with action, sure, but there need not be an act in progress for a moral to exist.
2. Concerning us, i wouldn't say our bodies change according to our environments, shaping us to what we are, especially if this concerns something metaphysical. If we can only become ''ourselves'' after the external molding, then why weren't we ''ourselves'' before then? Isn't it the case that our original self is truly us? For how can we be ourselves if we are being molded by something externally? We would not be ourselves but whatever the wishes of the external force would have us be.

3. Perhaps we need to make clear what selfishness is before we continue using the word loosely. What is selfishness? Isn't it where one person gains the most benefit when things are subject to himself? If someone does something that benefits people equally, can it be called selfish? Let us come back to the child rape scenario. My goal, for example, is to prevent child rape, something i want to accomplish. And so when accomplishing it, i find satisfaction. But is this selfish? Who gains more, me or any child i prevent from getting abused? Can you truly tell me, then, that all acts, therefore, are selfish? If so, then i would have to ask you what you call ''selfishness.'' It is not impossible to stop and think what is best for the other; in fact, i'm pretty sure that is something that occurs with most parents.

4. Concerning overpopulation: The earth is fully capable of supporting the population; the people just need to know the meaning of moderation. The lack of moderation implies selfishness. Perhaps one of the reasons for fasting is in support of moderation. Overpopulation, therefore, is not morally wrong, nor merely wrong.

5. By the way, Baniboy, tell me a truth that isn't dependent on reality.

1. ^^ to the biological drives I mentioned earlier. The fact that we feel child abuse is wrong is because of human nature (= sympathy), the way we rationalize the wrongness of it lies in the destruction caused to the child. Then we don't have to explain it further, because you know, causing pain to someone is wrong (don't remind me of the silly exceptions I'm fully aware of). And that is what I'm talking about. No sight of absolute morals yet..

2. Aww cmon, didn't you already fail to prove metaphysicality in another thread?
So, you feel like you're not yourself if you're molded by the environment? Does that make you feel like you're not very special? Maybe one's self is what they're regardless of if it being genetic or environment-based. Maybe one should be able to accept him or herself as he/she is so he/she doesn't need the feel to explain why they have a certain type of personality because they were born that way.

3. What I meant by selfishness up there was an act that we decide on by the programming that is perfected to benefit ourselves, as a population and as an individual. In your example, we have to look at the reason why you want to prevent child rape. So, tell me...

4. An environment has a carrying capacity. And the stress produced by a population is to be considered as it is now to estimate it in the future. Therefor overpopulation is going to be a problem, as people are not moderate. And I never meant overpopulation is "right/wrong", but only pointed out that it wouldn't be exactly beneficial to the population. If you do think causing a population collapse is wrong, then it is. If you think overpopulation so that most die is a more effective way to reduce population and therefore more beneficial to the overall population (new start), then that okay, too. It depends on what you want to accomplish and how. Depends on perspective.

So after failing to give me an example of an absolute case, you decide to ask me to give you an example of a truth that isn't dependent on reality. I define truth as a fact that has been verified (okay not exactly my definition... all hail google). Usually to verify you have to test. You test in reality to get results, don't you? So it is dependent on reality. Is this what you were asking for?

As for homosexuality and it being natural or not. I've always had a problem with the word "natural". Because it's always used in such a stupid sense, and often not thought about it's meaning. If you want to say normal or mainstream, don't say natural. Always amazed at how people disguise things behind the word natural.

Now sorry imma go kill a stupid fly that has been bugging me for hours...

[sukhi 2]

Very good post Baniboy .. you have answered things that i wanted to and have put logic in the debate.Most of our views are based on self - interest which we tend to call as moral values. But when viewed from totally earth point of view we look at many other factors and not just humans because we are a total system. Population works very well for humans as they have more hands .. they feel they have conquered earth by the law of the more you are the sucessful your species is. But hey we are much less in numbers than bacteria or algae in biomass and numbers So do we say we need to reproduce more and more to make our Ego inflate with the fact that we are everywhere. It wont happen like that. Earth works in cause and effect and many big animals came and went and were reduced to bones by earth. I think humans are no special they are just a species which have been given a temporay home and that our moral values are for our advantage like moral values for any animals are for their advantage !

[truefusion 3]

Creatures were not designed, they evolved. Okay you could argue that being Gay isn't an evolutionary advantage in terms of spreading your genes because obviously homosexual couples can spread said genes. But how is it impossible, it's possible to be born mentally ill, even if you conclude that homosexuality is like this then it is still possible. It's possible to be born infertile, and I repeat are you saying that infertile people or people who cannot have children are lesser, is the ability to reproduce with your partner make you lesser. Creatures evolved to multiply because evolution requires that creatures reproduce for it to work, but that doesn't make people who don't reproduce lesser, evolution doesn't make the Best survive but the ones that work in their environment. Of course I'm not saying that Environmental factors don't affect people, but people love who they love and it's clear that gays have always existed and will always exist as part of ALL mammals at least and we're just animals as well. But you ask why I appear to assume the bible? I don't think It's a red herring, it's easy to call something a red herring. You cannot give an argument that isn't religious which is a good argument against homosexuality, okay you've said that "Creatures were designed to multiply" but the concept of design is supernatural in of itself, Creatures weren't designed, that implies and intelligence, I can hear the biblical undertones, your opinions are almost always biblical.

 

And Joy to be present for advancement of the race? what does that even mean? Also I didn't quite get your last two sentences.

 

It is possible to be born many ways, yes, but whether we like it or not, love is a choice. Though the video you link to has the female say ''you can't just choose who to love,'' you very well can choose who to love. In fact, there is no other way for humans to love; they have to choose to love. When anwiii said there is nothing that implies that it is unnatural to be born gay, i think he may have been thinking, ''What if there was only one person in existence, and it was a he?'' True, it requires the existence of females to be able to conclude that homosexuality is unnatural. The reason why i do not find the argument ''animals do it too'' to be sufficient enough to prove that homosexuality is natural, is because of the fact that animals will also hump inanimate objects. Why would a dog hump their owners leg? Why would they hump something like a towel or mop or pillow? Because it is natural? That would be absurd. Indeed, them humping just about anything they come into contact with isn't what is natural. The only thing natural about it is that they have sexual urges which they cannot control, and therefore they commit homosexual acts because a male of the same species just so happened to be the closest thing (note, therefore, the rarity of seeing two female animals committing homosexual acts). It is not because they are born gay, it is because they were born with the inability to control their urges. However, us humans are capable of controlling our urges; it just so happens that most people do not choose to keep them under control.

 

Being born impaired, without the ability to reproduce, et cetera, as i have told anwiii, does not make the person any lesser (than me). I do not consider homosexuals any lesser (than me).

 

It is a red herring, because there is nothing relevant for you to logically conclude from my statements that show i have taken my argument(s) from the Bible. While it may be the case that the term ''design'' implies a designer, my argument is not dependent on that. As you say, i could have very well have mentioned ''evolved to be so,'' where the rest of my argument would not crumble due to such a minor change.

 

My ending sentences concerned itself with two consequences: (1) parental joy and (2) human advancement; not joyful advancement (that would indeed sound weird).

 

^^ to the biological drives I mentioned earlier. The fact that we feel child abuse is wrong is because of human nature (= sympathy), the way we rationalize the wrongness of it lies in the destruction caused to the child. Then we don't have to explain it further, because you know, causing pain to someone is wrong (don't remind me of the silly exceptions I'm fully aware of). And that is what I'm talking about. No sight of absolute morals yet..

 

Aww cmon, didn't you already fail to prove metaphysicality in another thread?

So, you feel like you're not yourself if you're molded by the environment? Does that make you feel like you're not very special? Maybe one's self is what they're regardless of if it being genetic or environment-based. Maybe one should be able to accept him or herself as he/she is so he/she doesn't need the feel to explain why they have a certain type of personality because they were born that way.

 

What I meant by selfishness up there was an act that we decide on by the programming that is perfected to benefit ourselves, as a population and as an individual. In your example, we have to look at the reason why you want to prevent child rape. So, tell me...

 

An environment has a carrying capacity. And the stress produced by a population is to be considered as it is now to estimate it in the future. Therefor overpopulation is going to be a problem, as people are not moderate. And I never meant overpopulation is "right/wrong", but only pointed out that it wouldn't be exactly beneficial to the population. If you do think causing a population collapse is wrong, then it is. If you think overpopulation so that most die is a more effective way to reduce population and therefore more beneficial to the overall population (new start), then that okay, too. It depends on what you want to accomplish and how. Depends on perspective.

 

So after failing to give me an example of an absolute case, you decide to ask me to give you an example of a truth that isn't dependent on reality. I define truth as a fact that has been verified (okay not exactly my definition... all hail google). Usually to verify you have to test. You test in reality to get results, don't you? So it is dependent on reality. Is this what you were asking for?

 

As for homosexuality and it being natural or not. I've always had a problem with the word "natural". Because it's always used in such a stupid sense, and often not thought about it's meaning. If you want to say normal or mainstream, don't say natural. Always amazed at how people disguise things behind the word natural.

 

I am going to reconstruct my argument that would help determine an absolute moral, as it seems that it may not be capable of being properly understood.

 

''Absolute morals'': that which implies a consequence (though it can imply more than one and these consequences can be absolute, that is, always present) where a standard of living is derived from, where the moral is the only possible conclusion and is wholly beneficial to what it relates to.

''Moral'': same as above, the only difference being that it is not necessarily the only possible conclusion.

I still maintain the same definition for ''absolute consequences.''

Therefore, my example would be murder. I claim murder is an absolute wrong (an ''immoral''). Murder is the killing of an innocent person, therefore the absolute consequence of murder is that an innocent person was killed. The innocence of the person (the one that would be dead) is what makes the moral.

 

You are probably at this point thinking, ''Okay, so what makes it wrong?'' But that is improper to the scenario. The proper question is, ''What makes it right to kill an innocent person?'' The life of another is not your property, and so you do not have the authority to take it so easily. You might argue, ''Is killing the murderer, then, morally right?'' The murderer, of course, would be guilty of taking life, and therefore loses the right to live, for losing the right to live is equal to in weight as taking someone else's life. ''What about in cases of war?'' Those engaging in war basically know the intentions of the other. While the war may have been started for foolish or wrong reasons, only one side would have the right to defend (though this may depend on the scenario, for the one attacking could be attacking due to something wrong that the other side has done), but anyone not engaging in war but that dies as a consequence of it, those who killed them would be guilty of murder.

 

I don't remember any previous thread where i failed to prove something that is metaphysical. I do, however, remember proving the existence of the metaphysical conscious in another thread. Nevertheless, isn't a moral metatphysical? But if i have been molded externally from a previous state, then i do not see how i can be myself. And i would agree that one should accept who they really are, not what they have become.

 

I do not see how preventing child abuse would be selfish. Because i don't want that happening to me? Okay, it didn't happen to me. You know what i would do if it were selfishness? I would walk away; it didn't happen to me, why should anyone else matter? That is selfishness, that is evil. Merely using the reason ''i wouldn't want it to happen to me'' is not in itself selfish.

 

My request for truth that is not dependent on reality i know to be a request that is impossible to fulfill, and so i stated it in hopes of you picking up what you yourself have asked of us. You asked for something that is wrong that doesn't deal with us (i.e. that isn't dependent on us). That is an impossibility; however, providing a moral that is dependent on us doesn't make it false.

[anwiii 17]

It is possible to be born many ways, yes, but whether we like it or not, love is a choice. Though the video you link to has the female say ''you can't just choose who to love,'' you very well can choose who to love. In fact, there is no other way for humans to love; they have to choose to love. When anwiii said there is nothing that implies that it is unnatural to be born gay, i think he may have been thinking, ''What if there was only one person in existence, and it was a he?''

what?!? you claim to tell everyone what you think i meant but you claims are all wrong. it's no wonder you seem so confused sometimes in what you write. haha i wasn't even thinking if there was only 1 other man in the universe. haha! i don't how you can twist peoples words so easily! i laughed pretty hard on that one.

 

anyway, i just found out where the difference of opinion lies. you think love is a choice. this is where i have to strongly differ. we don't have a choice in who we love because i believe love is part of people's nature already when we are born and een before we are born. we DO however have the choice NOT to love. you of all people know what jesus said in turning the other cheek. that is a good example of free will.

 

now believe it or not, i love freely. it's in my nature. i never made a choice to love....ever. it's just something that comes natural so i am speaking of my own experience. i have have however made choices not to love....or better put, love to different degrees. you, my friend, are underestimating love and the power behind it because it is a part of nature. not a choice.

 

so something funny popped up in my mind when you said what you did. here is an example exertp in what you are saying. one day, true fusion meets some woman. their relationship progresses in to something special and one day she says those magic words, "i love you" and because he has made the choice to love her, he says those words back". her only response to HIS words that she can say is "thank you" since it was a personal choice. which in the end, was nothing more than just a favor to her. it's like someone choosing to buy me a present for christmas. i think thank you is in order. so. a bit of advice true fusion, dig deeper in the things you think you know, or never EVER tell a woman you love them because it was your choice to do it.

 

a person who says love is a choice says a lot about that person and part of their personal background. now SELFISH love is a whole other type of love......and THAT CAN be a choice. not a very good one though but i don't believe you were talking about selfish love.

 

but i really don't get your point where you can still say homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. all it is is two men or two women who fall in love even if it is by their own choice. in fact, you ARE saying you are better than them when you say acts like that are immoral and you would never lower yourself to do that. again though. selfish love is different. it's wrong. the acts of so-called love for self gratification only cannot be considered love.....but you see those relationships in homosexuals and heterosexuals a like. it's not just pinned down on the gays relationships.

 

your whole basis for your arguement is the act of something that you think is unnatural. you can't bear children being a homosexual, therefore it is wrong. so in actuality, you believe strongly in pro creation. but wouldn't your logic also dictate that if we don't do what is natural(pro create), we are therefore doing something unnatural? so two heterosexuals who don't procreate are effectively doing something that homosexuals are. knowlingly engaging in an act NOT to do something that is supposed to be natural.....pro creation.

[truefusion 3]

what?!? you claim to tell everyone what you think i meant but you claims are all wrong. it's no wonder you seem so confused sometimes in what you write. haha i wasn't even thinking if there was only 1 other man in the universe. haha! i don't how you can twist peoples words so easily! i laughed pretty hard on that one.

 

anyway, i just found out where the difference of opinion lies. you think love is a choice. this is where i have to strongly differ. we don't have a choice in who we love because i believe love is part of people's nature already when we are born and een before we are born. we DO however have the choice NOT to love. you of all people know what jesus said in turning the other cheek. that is a good example of free will.

 

now believe it or not, i love freely. it's in my nature. i never made a choice to love....ever. it's just something that comes natural so i am speaking of my own experience. i have have however made choices not to love....or better put, love to different degrees. you, my friend, are underestimating love and the power behind it because it is a part of nature. not a choice.

 

so something funny popped up in my mind when you said what you did. here is an example exertp in what you are saying. one day, true fusion meets some woman. their relationship progresses in to something special and one day she says those magic words, ''i love you'' and because he has made the choice to love her, he says those words back. her only response to HIS words that she can say is ''thank you'' since it was a personal choice. which in the end, was nothing more than just a favor to her. it's like someone choosing to buy me a present for christmas. i think thank you is in order. so. a bit of advice true fusion, dig deeper in the things you think you know, or never EVER tell a woman you love them because it was your choice to do it.

 

a person who says love is a choice says a lot about that person and part of their personal background. now SELFISH love is a whole other type of love......and THAT CAN be a choice. not a very good one though but i don't believe you were talking about selfish love.

 

but i really don't get your point where you can still say homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. all it is is two men or two women who fall in love even if it is by their own choice. in fact, you ARE saying you are better than them when you say acts like that are immoral and you would never lower yourself to do that. again though. selfish love is different. it's wrong. the acts of so-called love for self gratification only cannot be considered love.....but you see those relationships in homosexuals and heterosexuals a like. it's not just pinned down on the gays relationships.

 

your whole basis for your arguement is the act of something that you think is unnatural. you can't bear children being a homosexual, therefore it is wrong. so in actuality, you believe strongly in pro creation. but wouldn't your logic also dictate that if we don't do what is natural(pro create), we are therefore doing something unnatural? so two heterosexuals who don't procreate are effectively doing something that homosexuals are. knowlingly engaging in an act NOT to do something that is supposed to be natural.....pro creation.

 

It is not a claim if i said ''i think.'' You acknowledge that i said ''i think,'' so it cannot be said that i made a claim. But, please, leave us not in the dark as to what the logic behind your statement was. It would not be charitable for any of us to be left wandering about, wondering what your reasons for stating that it is impossible to conclude that homosexuality is unnatural was.

 

I do agree that it is natural to show affection, but only to the one you are willing to show affection to. It is reasonable to show affection to just about anyone if no one has given you a reason to do otherwise. If loving everyone equally were such a simple task, no one would have trouble doing so. Other emotions get in the way of love which therefore prevent love; the body cannot hold (i.e. express) more than one emotion at any given time. You can grow to love someone; you can grow to hate someone; you can grow to be patient; you can grow to be impatient. Unconditional love is not something that is easily accomplished with humans. For the very thing that attracted you to someone can quickly disappear by an unattractive act from the very same person you were attracted to.

 

I understand the power of love. I also understand that love is tied to two other things: hope and faith. If either one starts to decrease, it takes down the others with them. If you lose hope, then you will also lose either faith, love or both; if you lose faith, then you will also lose either love, hope or both; and if you lose love, then you will also lose either hope, faith or both. That is why losing love is dangerous, that is why depression is often what follows after losing love. It is like having lost everything (though you can still regain them).

 

I do not really understand the scenario which has ''popped in [your] mind,'' especially since the scenario implies that she did not have the choice to love me but it was just something that could not be avoided for her. However, i think i can get a glimpse of what you were thinking when you say i would have told her i loved her because i wanted (chose) to love her. That is, i think you are implying that she does not see my love as genuine or meaningful, that i am providing merely a service. But could you imagine if it were impossible for me to choose who to love? Uncontrollable adultery would be present, that is, assuming my natural love and her natural love managed to link us up. For if i had not the choice to love, what would stop this natural love from jumping from person to person? Sure, it would then at least be unconditional love (though some might see it as ''conditional love'' without any explanation on why they went along with someone else), and even if i had uncontrollably committed adultery, it wouldn't matter since the one that loves me would not care whether or not my natural love chose her or not, as they can only express unconditional love (assuming they haven't already been unwillingly guided elsewhere). And with all this, what makes this natural love, therefore, any different than being able to choose who to love? How, then, can anyone claim either or?

 

I do not think selfish love is possible, as they are two contradicting terms. Indeed, as you say, it would be merely so-called. However, that may bring up the question, ''Does conditional and unconditional love exist then?'' The complications therefore present in the ability to choose who to love and the inability to choose who to love but love regardless, can only confuse the matter when determining if either exist, let alone if even love exists. But i'm not going to dive into that matter right now.

 

Morality if to be brought out logically would be dependent on consequences. Being unnatural is not itself morally wrong, but whether the consequences of its unnatural abilities yield to a moral or immoral conclusion. I did not say homosexuality is morally wrong simply because it is unnatural, but of the consequences of its unnaturabilty. While it may be difficult to separate the two since the consequences are dependent on it, i cannot say that it is merely for simply being unnatural.

[OpaQue 15]

truefusion

In fact, there is no other way for humans to love; they have to choose to love.

 

 

LOVE is not an emotion.. its your entire being. and if it is an emotion, it must be the MOTHER of all emotions. I feel the basis of all emotions is love. Love for women, Love for Money, Love for good house, Love for Fame etc. etc. I am happy that this topic has now reached "Love". i feel, its easier to explain moral values using examples of Love.

 

According to TrueFusion, Love and its wide spectrum of colors is to be discovered/explored by us following the rules of the society we live in. I feel, it is because of this, Worldwide - Sex is legally allowed above a certain age. Even though when humans did not learn and continued indulging in all wrong ways till we gave birth to AIDS. However, we had a solution even to that and still, none of us learnt. A Disease which can take your LIFE is there among humans and still even after education... there are thousands who get caught by this lethal disease. The people who make Contraceptives and Protection (for safety) themselves claim... Things can go wrong!!. This sounds even worse than having drugs like Cigs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

The TRUTH is LOVE is far dangerous than we think and it NEEDS continuous effort w/ learning attitude to keep up with the mental and physical commitment given during any relationship.

 

About HomoSexuality

If you have Strength/Courage/Guts to declare yourself GAY to public. Please go ahead, Because you truly deserve to be *person*-sexual... Kindly, find other mates who are as BOLD as you and ENJOY your stuff with doors closed! However, if Gays start asking Public Display of AFFECTION (rights).... now thats a problem - what say truefusion. ?

 

--tell me a truth that isn't dependent on reality.--

My request for truth that is not dependent on reality i know to be a request that is impossible to fulfill, and so i stated it in hopes of you picking up what you yourself have asked of us.

Intuition

Telepathy

Hypnotism

OBE

Super/Sub/consciousness

Will Power

Dreams / Visions

[Baniboy 3]

1. I am going to reconstruct my argument that would help determine an absolute moral, as it seems that it may not be capable of being properly understood.

''Absolute morals'': that which implies a consequence (though it can imply more than one and these consequences can be absolute, that is, always present) where a standard of living is derived from, where the moral is the only possible conclusion and is wholly beneficial to what it relates to.

''Moral'': same as above, the only difference being that it is not necessarily the only possible conclusion.

I still maintain the same definition for ''absolute consequences.''

Therefore, my example would be murder. I claim murder is an absolute wrong (an ''immoral''). Murder is the killing of an innocent person, therefore the absolute consequence of murder is that an innocent person was killed. The innocence of the person (the one that would be dead) is what makes the moral.

 

2. You are probably at this point thinking, ''Okay, so what makes it wrong?'' But that is improper to the scenario. The proper question is, ''What makes it right to kill an innocent person?'' The life of another is not your property, and so you do not have the authority to take it so easily. You might argue, ''Is killing the murderer, then, morally right?'' The murderer, of course, would be guilty of taking life, and therefore loses the right to live, for losing the right to live is equal to in weight as taking someone else's life. ''What about in cases of war?'' Those engaging in war basically know the intentions of the other. While the war may have been started for foolish or wrong reasons, only one side would have the right to defend (though this may depend on the scenario, for the one attacking could be attacking due to something wrong that the other side has done), but anyone not engaging in war but that dies as a consequence of it, those who killed them would be guilty of murder.

 

3. I don't remember any previous thread where i failed to prove something that is metaphysical. I do, however, remember proving the existence of the metaphysical conscious in another thread. Nevertheless, isn't a moral metatphysical? But if i have been molded externally from a previous state, then i do not see how i can be myself. And i would agree that one should accept who they really are, not what they have become.

 

4. I do not see how preventing child abuse would be selfish. Because i don't want that happening to me? Okay, it didn't happen to me. You know what i would do if it were selfishness? I would walk away; it didn't happen to me, why should anyone else matter? That is selfishness, that is evil. Merely using the reason ''i wouldn't want it to happen to me'' is not in itself selfish.

 

5. My request for truth that is not dependent on reality i know to be a request that is impossible to fulfill, and so i stated it in hopes of you picking up what you yourself have asked of us. You asked for something that is wrong that doesn't deal with us (i.e. that isn't dependent on us). That is an impossibility; however, providing a moral that is dependent on us doesn't make it false.

 

1. You automatically assume that the death of an innocent person is WRONG, and you conclude that because it's wrong, it makes murder wrong (?) And you fail to prove why death of an innocent person isn't a good thing, that is what I'm hunting here. BTW if you are going to say that the consequence doesn't have to be bad for the action to be wrong, don't bother. Also, why do you give new definitions to words? Murder by definition is an intentional and premeditated kill. Innocence isn't mentioned. It's like I suddenly started calling milk ice cream and expect everyone to go along. But, I'll go along...

 

2. No that is not improper or proper, that is dodging the question by norms. Just because you can't answer doesn't make it okay to change the question. If something isn't right, is it automatically wrong? So you can't answer what makes it wrong? That is why you changed the question, right? So you can use your assumptions (which are yet again based on your subjective point of view) about the value of life to make it wrong, it seems.

 

3. The reason might be because you left that one unreplied. And if you mean the thread about free will, no you didn't. You practically said that physical events don't need physical causes, which you failed to give examples of.

 

4. I never said it is selfish as in how stealing from someone for your own self is selfish. I simply wrote a hypothesis about the cause of what makes you feel it's right or wrong. And you're mixing sympathy with selfishness here. I said it's built into us.

 

5. I was fully aware that I'm asking for something you can't give me. That was the whole purpose. I did say that in hope of you picking up that there aren't any absolute morals. By absolute I was seeking for something that is always wrong, independent from your point of view ie. you have something by which you can prove it is wrong. Okay I may have misused some words up there and probably going to hear from that later since I know you like to twist my words, but I can't express myself fully right now.

 

Anyway, I'm going on a vacation soon and I'll be back in august, so I won't be able to reply until I come back.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Baniboy (see edit history)