@kellyjay saidI have now corrected this numb riff of yours for the umpteenth time and answered a whole slew of other questions head-on. So how about you answer my question? Do any ideas expressed in the course of debates and discussions on this forum qualify as "evil" according to your own definition?
How would you know if your moral compass points only to what you like?
@fmf saidI'm reading them, and I believe comprehending them, you are just inconsistent in
No, you're right. We don't all have a "fixed point", although civil and criminal laws do amount to something like that. Morality isn't really about what we "find agreeable" once we get past the nappy-wearing stage, assuming we are socialized properly. Are you simply not reading/comprehending any of my posts?
your thinking. We cannot have some with fixed points, yet they are all different from
others with fixed points, that simply takes us back to there are no fixed points for
all. That is still having a north that is inconsistent, a fixed point north would be true
for all it wouldn't be a matter of discussion it would be reality and we are looking
for it.
@kellyjay saidYes, we can have "fixed points" that are different from those of others. There are "no fixed points for all". That's part of the human condition. I doubt your own moral assertion that calling someone a fool is "evil" and warrants eternal torture is, or ever will be, a "fixed point for all", no matter how absolutely certain it should be.
We cannot have some with fixed points, yet they are all different from
others with fixed points, that simply takes us back to there are no fixed points for
all.
@kellyjay saidCompasses are personal, unique instruments used for navigation, but a moral compass is oriented by nature and nurture and is used to navigate the moral and ethical landscape of everyday life, while a "real" compass is oriented by magnetic waves and is used by aeroplanes and ships and people walking across mountains. "Moral compass" is a metaphor, KellyJay. Your use of the word "north" is metaphorical and completely subjective.
That is still having a north that is inconsistent, a fixed point north would be true
for all it wouldn't be a matter of discussion it would be reality and we are looking
for it.
@fmf saidIf the points are different they are different, there isn't a true north it is subjective
Yes, we can have "fixed points" that are different from those of others. There are "no fixed points for all". That's part of the human condition. I doubt your own moral assertion that calling someone a fool is "evil" and warrants eternal torture is, or ever will be, a "fixed point for all", no matter how absolutely certain it should be.
then not objective. You fail to comprehend the argument you are making.
@kellyjay saidNo. My thinking is not flawed. I have "fixed points". You have "fixed points". One of your "fixed points" is that "calling someone a fool" is "evil" and deserves eternal torture by a supernatural being. This is not one of my "fixed points". Your moral compass is not the same as mine. Making this bears-poo-in-the-woods observation is not "flawed thinking".
You cannot have different fixed points and say that there are fixed points, ruling
out a fixed point doing that is inconsistent, your thinking is flawed.
@kellyjay saidYou fail to comprehend the argument you are making.
If the points are different they are different, there isn't a true north it is subjective
then not objective. You fail to comprehend the argument you are making.
No, I do not "fail to comprehend" what I am saying, KellyJay.
If you want to call your moral code "north" or "true north" or "objective", then that is your prerogative.
Nothing is stopping you from claiming whatever you want about the source and nature of your morals or the correctness of your moral compass.
I understand the observations/argument I am making 100%.
@fmf saidA compass's only job is to point north. Suggesting that north isn't consistent due to
No. My thinking is not flawed. I have "fixed points". You have "fixed points". One of your "fixed points" is that "calling someone a fool" is "evil" and deserves eternal torture by a supernatural being. This is not one of my "fixed points". Your moral compass is not the same as mine. Making this bears-poo-in-the-woods observation is not "flawed thinking".
the fact compasses all point different directions, say more about the inconsistent
nature of the compasses than north.
@kellyjay saidA compass is an instrument for navigating.
A compass's only job is to point north.
A real compass ~ the thing you are referring to when you use the word "north" ~ is affected by magnetic waves.
A moral compass ~ which is a metaphor for conscience that refers to an instrument for navigating oneself in a landscape in which we must interact with others [the thing that morality governs] is not affected by magnetic waves ["north" etc.]. Your stretching of this metaphor is sophistry on your part.
Instead, a moral compass [which has nothing to do with magnetism or physics] is affected by nature and nurture and a range of stimuli and life lessons learned attendant thereto.
Not magnetic waves, but nature and nurture.
@kellyjay saidYou can imply that your conscience points to your subjective notion of "north" and that mine does not until you go blue in the face, KellyJay.
Suggesting that north isn't consistent due to
the fact compasses all point different directions, say more about the inconsistent
nature of the compasses than north.
@fmf saidBUMP for KellyJay
I have now corrected this numb riff of yours for the umpteenth time and answered a whole slew of other questions head-on. So how about you answer my question? Do any ideas expressed in the course of debates and discussions on this forum qualify as "evil" according to your own definition?
2 edits
@fmf saidIt then goes back to your question about evil. Evil being real, with all moral compasses which are pointing in all directions, some will not recognize evil due to their moral compass! Instead of it pointing away from evil it might be embracing it! Evil as part of reality will be obscured by the inconsistency in how people’s moral compasses are pointing.
No. I am not being "inconsistent in [my] thinking". So, I think you are just not comprehending or pretending not to comprehend.
You want it both ways, being able to say your moral compass is good without anything but those that in some part agree with you and not others, your compass is always pointing towards you, it always stays relative to you.
How do you know you are not also allowing evil to exist in your world without a clear understanding of it due to your compass? Evil being real isn’t a matter of conversational likes and dislikes, personal opinions, moral preferences it is always evil, and not good. You are incredibly inconsistent!