First Principles

I think you somehow believe that the true reality of an act is changed based on our subjective feeling about it. Of course some people think killing an innocent person is okay. What I am suprised, puzzled, and saddened by is you seem to agree with them. You seem to say because they thought it was good it really was. That is dangerous nonsense. Acts are morally good or evil objectively and the subjective opinion of the person cannot change the reality or make killing innocent people good.

Quote: FrGamble

One of them is right and the other is wrong, sometimes you need better facts, a different perspective, or history to show us who is who. The fact remains there is evil and good. They are not truly the same and no amount of subjective opinion can change that.

The state of Israel was founded by terrorism, against Palestinians and others, in the post-WW2 years. Menachem Begin was the leader of the Irgun, an organization denounced as terrorist by Albert Einstein, among many others.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Quote: Evenbob

It comes down to that thing you like to pretend
that you don't understand, subjective reality.

I suspect that there is just reality, aside from it being subjective, or objective. Otherwise, what would "subjective fantasy" versus "objective fantasy" mean? And, that the universe, itself, isn't reality, but, that reality is just a part of the universe.

Quote: Evenbob

They are
reference points, they help us make sense of a
world in a universe that doesn't give one whit
about what we do.

As for understanding "objective reality" versus "subjective reality", here is another quote off the internet.

Quote:

Does objective reality exist? It seems a majority of people assume that there exists an objective reality in which all of us exist, with facts that are universally true and are more than just matters of opinion. However, a growing minority of people argue that there is no such thing as objective reality and that everything is subjective, and that anything can be questioned or legitimately disagreed with, even facts that used to have near-universal agreement.

This raises the question about who is right about the nature of reality, if reality even exists. Is there an objective reality that we are all a part of? Does objective reality truly exist?

What is the difference between objective and subjective reality actually? Before we get into the discussion, let us make sure that the concepts of objective and subjective are clear. An objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind. Subjective reality, on the other hand, means that something is actual depending on the mind. Let's have an example of subjective reality. Someone walks by a flower and experiences the beauty of the flower. Would you say that the experience of beauty is dependent or independent of the mind? Would the experience of the form in general of the flower be dependent on the mind? Let's consider an example of objective reality: While no one is nearby, a meteor crashes into a car, putting it on flames, leaving only a pile of ashes. Is any of these events depending on some mind? It is actually hard to state a purely objective reality example, as one needs to describe it in concepts that are interpreted by the mind. You see the difficulty? Anything related to experience, like form, weight, heat, color, beauty, etc, etc is dependent on a mind. So we could say, that objective reality is formless. Only when observed by a mind, there is form.

Again, stuff like mistakes exist to us. Eg, 2 + 2 = 5 isn't purely impossible because it could have either very bad, or very good (accidental) consequences for the person who makes the mistake, and, the others involved. Which, in turn, means that stuff like this is based on something. Somewhere, there is a real nothing versus everything. Perhaps, it comes down to being able to connect with the reality that is God. Perhaps, it's God who doesn't care what we do, or, at least, it can't matter to God.

Quote: FrGamble

You seem to say because they thought it was good it really was.

'really was', what does that mean.
The universe doesn't care. It's
only good or bad because we
all agree on it. There is no morality
outside of us, how could there be.
It's a silly notion and can get you
in a lot of trouble, as a Church has
shown over the centuries. Petending
there are moral voices outside of
yourself is the recipe for doing
whatever you feel like doing.

Someone should do a study on the psychoses/giftedness of talking to yourself and others in the first, second, and third or other -person. Which person is "hearing voices"? By which voice are the most murders committed? How about misdemeanors? Did Hitler talk to himself? How about Putin? How about Einstein? As there must have been a lot of voices in his head. Is an idea a voice? How about a feeling?

Quote: Evenbob

'really was', what does that mean.
The universe doesn't care. It's
only good or bad because we
all agree on it. There is no morality
outside of us, how could there be.
It's a silly notion and can get you
in a lot of trouble, as a Church has
shown over the centuries. Petending
there are moral voices outside of
yourself is the recipe for doing
whatever you feel like doing.

The only time the Church has gotten itself in trouble is when people in it thought like you - that there was no morality outside of them and they could just make it up. It's actually how all the problems of the world began! The universe might not care but the God who created an orderly and intelligble universe very much cares.

But wait see how you draw me into your silly arguement. If the universe cares or not what does that have to do with something being objectively and universally evil? You seem to be evading. You've already claimed that violating a human beings rights is an evil thing. What if everyone in the world besides you thought it was a good thing to violate another human beings rights? Would that make violating human rights a good thing, or would it still be evil? Don't ask the universe, ask yourself and think about it.

Quote: FrGamble

The only time the Church has gotten itself in trouble is when people in it thought like you - that there was no morality outside of them and they could just make it up.

We are ALWAYS making it up! The
worst of it comes when you get
some body of religious nuts who
think they get morality orders from
an outside source, so that gives it
validity and gets them off the hook.
Hey, it's not our idea to do an
Inquisition, this is gods idea, we're
just his henchmen. Don't blame us.

When your morality is outside of
you, there goes all personal
responsibility. That's why prisons
in the US are chock full of
Xtions, and almost empty of atheists.
We take responsibility for what we do,
we have no god or devil to blame
everything on.

Quote: Evenbob

That's why prisons
in the US are chock full of
Xtions, and almost empty of atheists.
We take responsibility for what we do,
we have no god or devil to blame
everything on.

Okay, I was wondering what "Xtions" meant. I guess that I can now reasonably assume that you meant Xtians. And, that, maybe, you spell it thus as a subconscious(?) slur of some sort against religion. Excitations comes to my mind.

Anyway, about the prison statistics, something like that would be interesting if you could reasonably prove it out a bit. As with the voices stuff about being worse in one form of delivery and manner than another. Perhaps, "outside voices" and other influences are, sometimes, more beneficial. Eg, where would we be if everyone was left to self-school themselves?

Without any sort of o-u-t-s-i-d-e (unbiased) representations, it all sounds like "extremism" w/o any real punch. Endrocrination (sic)? Objective fantasy? Almost Trumpian, err, Tpeon. Say, global warming could be gowarballming.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/

https://www.pewforum.org/2012/03/22/prison-chaplains-exec/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/american-atheists-religious-european-christians/560936/

One other thing, while it's on my mind. Even where there more theists than atheists in prison, then what? Prisoners aren't exactly known for telling the truth, or following the usual procedures of things. Perhaps, they were/are more corrupt than theistic. As well, the old cliche is that corrupt persons "find religion" once they go to jail. Moreover, what if there are more religious sorts of people than there are per se atheists, to begin with?

Oh, well, carry on. For every force, there is an equal and opposite force. It's just not me.

While I do not think FrGamble is right, I do think he has a point. When like minded people agree, they work together to create a community. That is what makes us human. But at the same time, communities (and civilizations) have been built on radically different principles. That, too, is part of being human. Even within the same community we can work together on some things, and be completely at odds with each other on other things.

First principles have eluded the greatest thinkers, other than as differing points of view: “I think, therefore I am.” “Dasein exists. Furthermore, Dasein is an entity which in each case I myself am. Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, and belongs to it as the condition which makes authenticity and inauthenticity possible.” (Dasein translates sort of as “being there”, being along with presence.) Descartes says that his existence is primal, while Heidegger says that existing is not possible without the world to exist within. Both work as ways to understand the world. Sometimes.

I think it is important to see the big picture, and I don’t mean that as some wishy-washy compromise. The big picture is that we make up the rules. Sorry FrG, but that’s how I see it. WITHIN the rules we make up, we try to do what we think is the right thing: “Thou shalt not kill, that should be pretty easy to get everyone to agree with.” But then someone says that we should be able to kill someone who killed someone else, and of course it’s okay for a bunch of us to get together and put on all the same uniforms and kill a bunch of guys who put on different uniforms.,. It gets messy fast.

But we try. As a species, in general, we are wired to organize. Even junkies hang together to share the buzz. So, I would feel pretty safe in calling that the first First Principle. People organize.

FrG, what you are talking about are what I would call Second Principles: people agree on their common denominator, and organize to best preserve it. So, it’s not that I think you are wrong. I only think you didn’t step back far enough.

Quote: Mosca

(Dasein translates sort of as “being there”, being along with presence.) .

Heidegger got this concept by studying
Taoist and zen philosophy, something
he never denied. A zen master lives
both in his subjective reality, the one
that likes soccer on TV and playing
cards, and the objective reality that
is the world we live in. He has the
ability to separate the two, which
he tries to teach others to do.

It's also called transcendence,
or enlightenment. It's all about
experiencing authentic existence,
which is possible but very difficult
because we live mostly in the
subjective reality we create minute
by minute. A zen master tries to
snap you out of this mindset by
giving you mind twisting puzzles
that have no real solution.