Scholar

Leo why are most philosophers moral objectivists?

34 posts in this topic

I've noticed that most people who are interested in philosophy and who study philosophy are moral objectivists. I would be curious on Leos take for why this is, because it is very strange to me. I cannot really follow the arguments because many times they just look like elaborate labyrinths of mental acrobatis to somehow arrive at the conclusion they are seeking to arrive at.

It looks more like a language game than anything else, a lot of it just looks like people are indoctronated into certain schools of thoughts and then make it their jobs to rationalize those positions.

 

What do you think Leo?

@Leo Gura

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

People are afraid of living in a world with no rules. :x

Yes but I feel like there must be some more indepth explanation for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes but I feel like there must be some more indepth explanation for this.

stage blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scholar reality is moral. because People can't go Meta will think reality is realitve. they take the  position of objectivism. I develop a 7 stages of consciousness people grow Spritualy and morally. reality works on perfect balance, on laws and moral values. Leo gura is wrong about morality but soon or after he will realize that reality is moral when he go Meta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way are they moral objectivists? Sometimes they will make so many concessions to relativity that it becomes absurd to call them objectivists.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ilja said:

stage blue

There are objectivists who are stage orange and green.

Edited by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-bias.

It is a rare mind that is willing to examine and surrender all of its biases.

What ego is willing to admit that the rape of one's daughter is not objectively bad? The ego-mind has a hard time seeing through such biases and projections.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Self-bias.

It is a rare mind that is willing to examine and surrender all of its biases.

What ego is willing to admit that the rape of one's daughter is not objectively bad?

Can you go into detail where the objectivists make the mistake or overlook something in terms of their positions and rationalization? You studied philosophy so maybe you can point exactly to the arguments their provide for realism and objectivism that are not sound. Where are they going wrong, where is the point of bias turning them blind? I would be very interested in a more in depth explanation for this.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/53402/what-makes-moral-realism-so-popular-a-standpoint

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/31f0gn/why_are_the_majority_of_philosophers_moral/

 

I don't quite understand why atheists will so easily bite the bullet on moral subjectivism but philosophers won't. I don't actually think this is about it being hard to admit that what is considered evil is objectively evil, because this doesn't quite track with how people in general adopt the position of subjectivism.

To me it looks like the way philosophy is done is in some form fundamentally flawed, but at the same time it is tricky to reveal this because it is so well hidden in the vagueness of language. When I talk to philosophers it is hard to communicate my positions because there are so many assumptions they make that I fundamentally don't agree with, and I end up being called an absurdist or obscurist, a nihilist and so forth.

 

From my point of view it looks like Philosophers just completely rely on the argumentation of previous philosophers and they kind of pick who they like most and then self-indoctronate themselves into that position and start defending and arguing for it. It just seems like the fact that none of it can be tested means that they can create any elaborate mental scheme they want.

Edited by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Self-bias.

It is a rare mind that is willing to examine and surrender all of its biases.

What ego is willing to admit that the rape of one's daughter is not objectively bad? The ego-mind has a hard time seeing through such biases and projections.

you are wrong. I don't agree on this one. isn't self actualizing oneself also self biase? in order to civilization enhance, morality is needed. imagine your computer being immoral when you want to need it to work some specific task and do the opposite. imagine your computer do the opposite of what you type, then how do you reconcile this? is it moral or immoral? @Leo Gura your applying infinite consciousness for lower consciousness stages. that only lead and being end up mental masterbation. the other thing you shouldn't advocate such thing to the world. this kind of mentality will get the world hell. morality has stages. the universe is moral. People unable to go Meta conclude reality is immoral.

7 stages of consciousness Sprial developments. how morality developed. 

read here 

https://spritanimal.blogspot.com/2021/02/consciousness-sprial_14.html?m=1

Edited by Conscious life
long text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scholar it is how it is taught in unis. Have you seen how most engineers see their laws as objective?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ilja said:

@Scholar it is how it is taught in unis. Have you seen how most engineers see their laws as objective?

 

Yes but I think that there is even a meaningful difference between the laws engineers have and the ideas philosophers tend to hold. You can test and use engineering laws consistently, in this sense it is objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

When I talk to philosophers it is hard to communicate my positions because there are so many assumptions they make that I fundamentally don't agree with, and I end up being called an absurdist or obscurist, a nihilist and so forth.

Hello, I'm a nihilist. Maybe you're one too. It doesn't mean you've adopted the fanciful ideology of some dead nihilist. Being an absurdist isn't so bad either by the way.

The fundamental error of most philosophers is as far as I can tell basically the same as Leo's, so I wouldn't expect Leo to teach it to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I end up being called an absurdist or obscurist, a nihilist and so forth.

Because in a sense, you are, actually.


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Because in a sense, you are, actually.

Yes but these terms are used in a derogatory manner to invalidate what I am saying rather than contend with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura it's not necessarily bad but necessary, because we are survivalist creatures. so individual self-preservation is projected into the crowd, hence rape being considered bad. 


"We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."

-- The Upanishads

Encyclopedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes but these terms are used in a derogatory manner to invalidate what I am saying rather than contend with it.

You aren't discussing with tier two minds, so naturally that should be the norm. People at tier one value survival/ideology, not being/truth. They cannot comprehend what being is or how to value it. Hell! They don't even recognize that they value survival. They're completely blind to their identity, so you shouldn't be surprised.

Edited by Gesundheit

If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes but I think that there is even a meaningful difference between the laws engineers have and the ideas philosophers tend to hold. You can test and use engineering laws consistently, in this sense it is objective.

but it's taught in the same tone under academy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "all is relative so anything goes" leaves out any ground for how you should orient yourself.

But also saying "love is good and should be pursued and that's the truth" is just not true. All conceptual truth is context dependent and that context is always self-referential or grounded in assumptions.

Both of these ideas are limited but there is a way to reconcile the two:

Ground your morals in will. Affirm that there is no objective right or wrong. Then, ground your morals in your will. Affirm that you will pursue love, not because it's objectively better than hate, not for any reason whatsoever. Just affirm it. 

Morals always comes from will weather you are conscious of it or not.

Until philosophers understand what I just said they will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

@Leo Gura When you just say "everything goes" you are missing a piece of this puzzle. The piece that says "but I assert love and I hope you will be inspired to do so to"


The road to God is paved with bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, martins name said:

Saying "all is relative so anything goes" leaves out any ground for how you should orient yourself.

But also saying "love is good and should be pursued and that's the truth" is just not true. All conceptual truth is context dependent and that context is always self-referential or grounded in assumptions.

Both of these ideas are limited but there is a way to reconcile the two:

Ground your morals in will. Affirm that there is no objective right or wrong. Then, ground your morals in your will. Affirm that you will pursue love, not because it's objectively better than hate, not for any reason whatsoever. Just affirm it. 

Morals always comes from will weather you are conscious of it or not.

Until philosophers understand what I just said they will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

@Leo Gura When you just say "everything goes" you are missing a piece of this puzzle. The piece that says "but I assert love and I hope you will be inspired to do so to"

Yes, the philosophers seek to create a machinery of manipulation, to align the Good with the Will. Yet, the Will and the Good are one and the same, so it is a recognition of this Truth that will align the mind with the Mind.

The Good will prosper not when there is the tyranny of the Will, but rather simply if the Will is surrendered to the Good. When that happens, Grace naturally follows. It follows because it is that which we are and have always been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now