# Observant vs Intelligent vs book smart



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

MisterPerfect said:


> Religion has a set of rules you must follow and what is defined as right and wrong by religious standards. However this is reinforced by the threat of going to hell or heaven when you die. Something a lot of people dont know is behaving unkindly to other people can have negative effects even if you dont believe God or the Devil are the ones deciding your fate. So not believing in religion is not a free ticket to become an ASSHOLE, like a lot of Atheists seem to assume. Im not Christian so I dont have to follow any of your rules. Well if you actually examined those rules in realistic sense you might figure out why some of this is wise if god said it or not. You dont have to follow anything, we all have free will, however actions have consequences its called cause and effect.
> 
> Also what I said is fact and being raised Christian I would know at least a few of them. I really dont like when people use religion to argue anything. I also can justify a lot of religious teachings without bringing up religion at all. Now if someone says "I can not do this and this because its against my religion" than it might be better to just respect that. "My religion says I cant drink caffeinated beverages" well are we really going to be a jerk since this guy chooses to not drink Caffeine? Be like "Why dont you drink Coffee like the rest of us idiot". Its the same thing as wearing a green shirt, is wearing a green shirt really pissing off someone so badly that they have to start shoving coffee down this persons throat? Isnt that extremely petty.
> 
> ...


Stop lecturing me like you're some kind of mentor/teacher/guru and stop ranting. Also people don't really care what you like and don't like (sycophants don't count as people).


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

Dismissing arguments on the grounds of morality:

Many laws are based on morals alone. Morals don't make sense to psychopaths. Rejecting someone else`s morals is just you expressing your own morals, or lack of.

Abortion is the act of killing something. Some people call killing murder, others call smearing shit on your dick healthy...


----------



## Muskaan (Jan 27, 2016)

MisterPerfect said:


> Knowing right or wrong is irrelevant, some people simply dont care about it. Also Morality is subjective.


Our morality as well as perspective may be subjective but good and bad or right and wrong is universal.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Muskaan said:


> Our morality as well as perspective may be subjective but good and bad or right and wrong is universal.


Right and wrong is subjective.


----------



## Muskaan (Jan 27, 2016)

MisterPerfect said:


> Right and wrong is subjective.


How? Please do not drag Religion or God in the argument. Humanity is all about People. 

I agree to your point that, an action which do not harm oneself and other people and is done simply because one wants to do it, is not 'wrong'. It's the matter of one's preference and that is subjective. It is the reason, why every human being is different and the world is so diverse in its culture and customs. 

But whenever that action or convention has a 'bad' (deteriorating, disrupting, declining the healthy flow of life), influence on oneself and other people that action or belief is 'wrong'.

'Good' is what uplifts, improves and enriches the life of oneself and others. 

'Assholes' do not care about morality, because they receive a sadistic pleasure from hurting themselves and others (personally I categorize persons like them as mentally unbalanced). To restrict the assholes there is law, judgement etc. whose principles are based on *universal morals* (example: do not kill the born or unborn; do not contaminate nature etc.) Of course it is another thing to discuss, how effective the law is.

A *Perfect World* ruled by righteousness is indeed a dream world. But because it is unachievable, should we just give up aspiring to that goodness? That would be the beginning of the end of the humanity. And people who are mentally healthy, who are creative and not destructive would never stop aspiring to be 'good'. 

This thread was started to discuss intelligence (I suppose) and end up being on morality...:tongue: 

Another aspect of this discussion, is abortion 'right' or 'wrong'? 
Mother Teresa said in her Nobel receiving lecture that, "...I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,...Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between."


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

MisterPerfect said:


> Some people are not stupid, they are just total assholes. You can not change assholes, since an asshole does not give a shit. However being an asshole, is totally different from simply acting like one.


I can assure you that assholes give the most shits. Ask a biologist.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

I will post one last time about morality and why is universal. Their is a list of universal moral code from Dr Kent M. Keith which is sharing by everyone on this planet :


DO NO HARM.

Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you. *One of the oldest universal moral code*

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not falsely accuse others.

Do not commit adultery.

Do not commit incest.

Do not physically or verbally abuse others.

Do not murder.

Do not destroy the natural environment upon which all life depends.


DO GOOD.

Do to others what you would like them to do to you. *Same one of the oldest moral code too
*
Be honest and fair.

Be generous.

Be faithful to your family and friends.

Take care of your children when they are young.

Take care of your parents when they are old.

Take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

Be kind to strangers.

Respect all life.

Protect the natural environment upon which all life depends.

So this are moral code that can be found everywhere despite the culture or religion. Everyone knows it unconsciously, lot of people don't care about some of this moral code, but they know that's this is moraly wrong according to the standards of the right and wrong.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> Right and wrong is subjective.


''Objective morality'' is simplistic.

Morals are ''practices // skill sets'' (i.e., deep routed) within human ecology. 


________________________


By ''objective'', I understand POV invariant (i.e., _non-changing_) *morality* - and thereby, the effect(s) of subjective preferences are minimized. 

---> 

*Objective moral fact(s) include: 
*


Objective moral _agency_ .. (re: us / humans). 

From this, we can derived a moral value --> ''What increases harm / languish / suffering'' - thereby, minimizing good / flourishing of agent(s) is bad. 

What ''decreases'' languish / harm + thereby, elevates *flourishing* (re: of us & sustainability (via) ecology / our surroundings) is _good_.

All ''agents'' (re: us) share the same functional and congenital defects, thus, denying that we must care about each other - is unrealistic.

Thus, morality ''exists'' like socialized / ecology / grammar / math - et al.

*Objective.
*

This, however, does not entail that ''subjective'' morality - is cancelled out or not present. (re: preference / bias) for differentiating practice habits, however, all are functioning toward - maintaining / sustaining + reducing functional defects, of the species.

I also do not entail that ''objective'' is universal - as it is not. But rather, functioning within current localities. 


______________________________



A proprosal for ''objective'' ethics - 

Let's assume, anything that optimizing agency - is good.

Anything that suboptimizing - de/optimizing flourishing - is bad. 

This does not contradict (via) performative actions / subjective bias.


*Ex; (1)*

Is ''denying'' someone euthanasia / preventing flourishing (re: languish) - more harmful for to an agent, than letting not interfering .. ?


*Ex; (2)*

Is ''harming'' ecology / environment(s), that thereby, increase sustainability and flourishing of other us, and other agents, more bad or good ... ?


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> I will post one last time about morality and why is universal. Their is a list of universal moral code from Dr Kent M. Keith which is sharing by everyone on this planet :
> 
> 
> DO NO HARM.
> ...


Examples can be made on every point in this post on why they are subjective and not at all universal. These are just things that have been decided on because they generally work favourably, not because they're somehow inherently present in everyone equally or because they're applicable universally.

For instance, in times of starvation, is it still morally right to take care of the old when it means that wasting resources on them inhibits or even potentially kills others? Not all cultures adhere to taking care of their old, others do.

"Do to others what you would like them to do to you." If someone likes being degraded, does that mean that they should do it to others? Probably not, people are different and have different tastes.

Is it morally right to be kind to a stranger even if it's likely that this stranger intends to kill and rob your family should you let them in? Doesn't seem like a fair decision in regards to your family.

I could go on. What is subjectively right to you based on current information does not necessarily hold up universally if the set of current information changes.

In the end I think it comes down to how willing you are to make sacrifices for the greater good or not. For example in business it can be advantageous not to linger on morals too much as it decreases potential profits. Or, are you willing to ignore the needs of a few to further the needs of the group? I think diversity in human morals is necessary for our survival as a species, it makes us more adaptable. There are always multiple angles to everything.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Blue Soul said:


> Examples can be made on every point in this post on why they are subjective and not at all universal. These are just things that have been decided on because they generally work favourably, not because they're somehow inherently present in everyone equally or because they're applicable universally.


 This moral code are universal in the sense that they are everywhere maybe not equally for every one but people will judge you with this code for sure depend on what they find more important or not. As I said before there are some slight difference from culture but is to specific to make it relevant. Don't get me wrong I don't see this in black and white or an absolute. 



Blue Soul said:


> For instance, in times of starvation, is it still morally right to take care of the old when it means that wasting resources on them inhibits or even potentially kills others? Not all cultures adhere to taking care of their old, others do.


 Yes I agreed, but can you tell me which culture don't adhere to this ? Maybe there is a few culture who don't follow this code, but I don't know one so I wait for your answer.



Blue Soul said:


> "Do to others what you would like them to do to you." If someone likes being degraded, does that mean that they should do it to others? Probably not, people are different and have different tastes.


 You take something specific, which normal person like to be degraded ? I do think people are not very different from each other, well I think yes and no but it's another debate and I don't want to talk about this. 



Blue Soul said:


> Is it morally right to be kind to a stranger even if it's likely that this stranger intends to kill and rob your family should you let them in? Doesn't seem like a fair decision in regards to your family.


 This is not black and white, you act according to the situation. You took a stranger who is morally wrong, so they will not be kind to this strange. "Morality" is a concept, you don't follow this code literary. 



Blue Soul said:


> I could go on. What is subjectively right to you based on current information does not necessarily hold up universally if the set of current information changes.


 So you are saying that moral is relative because moral change from time to time ? But law is based on moral according to the sandards of right and wrong. I agreed that it can change a little bit during age, example of death sentence. Again I think is universal but not absolute.



Blue Soul said:


> In the end I think it comes down to how willing you are to make sacrifices for the greater good or not. For example in business it can be advantageous not to linger on morals too much as it decreases potential profits. Or, are you willing to ignore the needs of a few to further the needs of the group? I think diversity in human morals is necessary for our survival as a species, it makes us more adaptable. There are always multiple angles to everything.


 Yes, I agreed, good point. But the universalism of moral keep us from anarchy, it's maintain order with a set of standard of right and wrong and punishment are given by law to people who don't follow this code of moral.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> This moral code are universal in the sense that they are everywhere maybe not equally for every one but people will judge you with this code for sure depend on what they find more important or not. As I said before there are some slight difference from culture but is to specific to make it relevant. Don't get me wrong I don't see this in black and white or an absolute.
> 
> Yes I agreed, but can you tell me which culture don't adhere to this ? Maybe there is a few culture who don't follow this code, but I don't know one so I wait for your answer.
> 
> ...


You are saying your morals are universal since you believe in them, not everyone is you I am sorry to break it to you.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> This moral code are universal in the sense that they are everywhere maybe not equally for every one but people will judge you with this code for sure depend on what they find more important or not. As I said before there are some slight difference from culture but is to specific to make it relevant. Don't get me wrong I don't see this in black and white or an absolute.
> 
> You take something specific, which normal person like to be degraded ? I do think people are not very different from each other, well I think yes and no but it's another debate and I don't want to talk about this.
> 
> ...


It's a decided objective standard as long as the circumstances of the individual are the same or similar, sure, like a goal to work towards, but that doesn't make it universal. Morality is not a law of the universe, it's something that we invent and learn as we grow up as a part of making life easier and better. That a set of morals are old and/or sees widespread use is not enough to call it "universal" to me. I agree in that it's not an absolute.

Something universal is something that is always without exception true in all cases, and I think morality is not. I'm not saying that it's bad to have an objective moral standard, the world would probably be a less violent place if more people followed it more carefully.



Plumedoux said:


> Yes I agreed, but can you tell me which culture don't adhere to this ? Maybe there is a few culture who don't follow this code, but I don't know one so I wait for your answer.


If you take an old culture from history such as old norse culture, old people in which dementia set in were viewed as an encumbrance to the family and were generally gotten rid off. It was too expensive to deal with in this time when mortality was high enough as it was and people had to divide their resources strategically to survive at all.

In more current cultures there is a skew between Western and many Asian cultures. In the US or European countries it's common that parents are sent off to elderly homes and half-forgotten. In China for instance married couples live with their parents for a time, and when the parents get old they are taken care of by their children. It's a more close-knit family relationship, it's quite admirable and I think Western culture has much to learn from that.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I look for my wisdom in cracker jack boxes.


----------



## shylet_violet (Mar 16, 2016)

Sensational said:


> I look for my wisdom in cracker jack boxes.


How is that?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

shylet_violet said:


> How is that?


It was just my snarky sarcasm regarding mental masturbation and hum drumming shit. Weighing in on the wishy washy mysticism surrounding concepts like enlightenment and unicorn genius abilities. 

Now I am looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and later I will hum while I tap into my Chi. 

I know I know I am so deep. 

Lol see I sound empty and diluted but I assure you the lack of content and volume in most of these discussions is what I am laughing about. The more people verbalize any of this the more I need to just roll over and have a good laugh. 

I would like to perpetuate even more I am a silly meat head with no real content by mocking everything. 

Eh anyways alot of this stuff is like intro 101 shit not heavy. Me is an asshole. Me like to talk in 3rd person cavewoman style to mock shit.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

@Sensational you can includ yourself in the "mental masturbation" and "hum drumming shit", is that what we do in this forum anyway.
Talking about theory about MBTI, ect... But which I find funny is your double standard.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Plumedoux said:


> @Sensational you can includ yourself in the "mental masturbation" and "hum drumming shit", is that what we do in this forum anyway.
> Talking about theory about MBTI, ect... But which I find funny is your double standard.


No shit sherlock


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Sensational said:


> No shit sherlock


You took sarcasm as a second language ?


----------

