Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Morals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
Morals are strictly a product of your environment.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.
www.allthetests.com
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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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.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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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 darwinismOr 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.
and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.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.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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
The standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.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.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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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 standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.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.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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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.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 standard itself is independent of that. The standard just is. It exists for logical reasons.and are done by subjective means of rationalism or from a lack of rationalism by the individuals perspective.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.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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
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?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?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.People are subjective, to moral perspectivesMorals aren't subjective. People are subjective.Morals are subjective to the perspective of the individual.
.Logic... like truth is waiting to be discovered.
Einstein didn't create E=mc^2. Einstein discovered E=mc^2.
Which one what?.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.
Logic and truth are subjective.Which one what?.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.
I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.
Not possible.Logic and truth are subjective.Which one what?.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.
I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.
You use your own messed up logic to try to prove your nonsense, meaning that it's only logical to you.Not possible.Logic and truth are subjective.Which one what?.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.
I am saying that logic and truth exist independent of man.
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.
