Are We Born With Morals?

[BreezeWood]

.
most everyone has a guiding light - how to reach its source has a lot to do with ever finding it. evil is not allowed from above for ever to free one's spirit.

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

 

[Moonglow]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

 

[Crepitus]

Or do we learn them? I think we learn them because Humans are capable of great goodness as well as great evil when unchecked by those around them. Society's agreed upon morality (understood rules of decency) is the definition of morality. Today, the largest 'agreed upon' definition of morality is the MSM and Hollywood.

Morals are strictly a product of your environment.

 

[james bond]

Take a morality quiz. I got a Morality Award, but it wasn't high-high.

Morality Quiz

Do you have a strong moral compass, or do you say 'hard pass' to being moral? Test yourself now with this quiz. Just choose what you'd do for each question.

www.allthetests.com

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

 

[Moonglow]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

 

[esalla]

Or do we learn them? I think we learn them because Humans are capable of great goodness as well as great evil when unchecked by those around them. Society's agreed upon morality (understood rules of decency) is the definition of morality. Today, the largest 'agreed upon' definition of morality is the MSM and Hollywood.

We are born with the knowledge of how our parents lived their lives before we are born. Before you react the scientific term is epigenetics and it destroys darwinism

 

[Moonglow]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.

The standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.

 

[Moonglow]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.

The standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.

Yet the Bible is loaded with morals and character's who broke those laws by subjecting themselves to emotional outburst or genuine curiosity. And those morals change on each religion because they are subjective to perspective of people.

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.

The standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.

Yet the Bible is loaded with morals and character's who broke those laws by subjecting themselves to emotional outburst or genuine curiosity. And those morals change on each religion because they are subjective to perspective of people.

The Bible is a how to book; how to live and how not to live and provides examples of both. Again... morals do not change, perception of morals change. Morals are independent of man. Morals are standards and standards exist for logical reasons.

 

[ding]

Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.

Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.

People are subjective, to moral perspectives

Correct. The morals themselves are not. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed independent of man and based upon logic.

If they can't be anything more than what we want them to be then why are their people in prison and our leaders are whoremongers yet retain their office?

Let me approach it from another angle. Do you believe that logic exists independent of man? Is logic a phenomenon all its own? Do you believe that man can make logic prove anything he wants logic to prove? Or do you believe that logic proves what is?

 

[ding]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

 

[BreezeWood]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

.
which one -

are you saying math has multiple consequences as logic, not the same ... right vs wrong is not a theorem.

 

[ding]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

.
which one -

are you saying math has multiple consequences as logic, not the same ... right vs wrong is not a theorem.

Which one what?

I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.

 

[Taz]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

.
which one -

are you saying math has multiple consequences as logic, not the same ... right vs wrong is not a theorem.

Which one what?

I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.

Logic and truth are subjective.

 

[ding]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

.
which one -

are you saying math has multiple consequences as logic, not the same ... right vs wrong is not a theorem.

Which one what?

I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.

Logic and truth are subjective.

Not possible.

The definition of subjective is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Logic and truth does not have personal feelings, tastes or opinions. Logic and truth just are. What you are trying to say is that man's perception of logic and truth is subjective. Man can have personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Logic and truth cannot.

 

[Taz]

Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.

Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.

.
which one -

are you saying math has multiple consequences as logic, not the same ... right vs wrong is not a theorem.

Which one what?

I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.

Logic and truth are subjective.

Not possible.

The definition of subjective is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Logic and truth does not have personal feelings, tastes or opinions. Logic and truth just are. What you are trying to say is that man's perception of logic and truth is subjective. Man can have personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Logic and truth cannot.

You use your own messed up logic to try to prove your nonsense, meaning that it's only logical to you.
And everyone's truth is different as well.