I am absolute morality itself.

[Leo Gura]

But @Razard86's defintion is pretty close to mine.

[jimwell]

6 hours ago, Razard86 said:

1. Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want. 

Generally good. But reality is complex. Some people want what you don't want, and vice versa. You think nobody wants to be punched in the face? Ask the masochists. Nobody wants his wife to be fucked by other men? You'll be surprised by the number of cuckolds out there.

 

6 hours ago, Razard86 said:

2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want.

There are times when you can't know what others might not want.

[bambi]

Just now, jimwell said:

Generally good. But reality is complex. Some people want what you don't want, and vice versa. You think nobody wants to be punched in the face? Ask the masochists. Nobody wants his wife to be fucked by other men? You'll be surprised by the number of cuckolds out there.

 

There are times when you can't know what others might not want.

All of the things you list are from low levels of conciousness and seperation. These moral axioms are a good place to start though, its essentially the golden rule from religion or ethics of reciprocity.

Ultimately all self-destructive behaviour is immoral, and acting out of pain/seperation to others is immoral, but this wont be obvious to people at lower levels, so the law of reciprocity is the best and most simple start.

[Vibes]

@Leo Gura As a child I used to not care about killing mosquitos, then I started caring and stopped killing them, and now I'm back at killing them. But I do it in the quickest painless way possible, and my justification is that I could get a disease and they fuck with my sleep. By killing them I'm obviously prioritizing my life and well being, if I don't I'll have bad consequences that could even end my life.

In the case of justifying genocide in Gaza, I can see how they explain to themselves but at the same time I know it's wrong you know. And here is where it gets tricky. Why does the child kill and tortures bugs out of fun with no remorse? Doesn't her have this build in compass inside that feels wrong to harm other? Or is it created by society and implemented in her?

So if it is totally relative and invented, I'll still abide by these morals because it feels more right while being human... Maybe next life I'll be a crocodile-eating-child and have no problem with it.

Edited May 28 by Vibes

[Water by the River]

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I am ABSOLUTE MORALITY itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility ?

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

1. Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want. 

2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want.

3. Lastly, do not think or speak or act out an experience you don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

It depends, if you are an Apache the morality is: Kill all the Comanches, if possible by torturing them by having dogs devour their intestines or by dragging them among cacti. Then enslave their women and have many children with them. If one bothers you, exchange her for a horse or cut off her nose. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_pipe

 

This lovely unique place here never gets old.

Selling peace pipes by the River

[strika]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's pretty good.

But how would you apply that in complex situations such as:

• Driving your car kills bugs
• Driving your car adds to climate change
• Buying cheap products supports slave labor
• Using fertilizer to grow you fruits kills animals and pollutes the water
• Getting your electricity from wind trubines kills birds
• Consuming porn might contribute to exploitation of women in that industry
• Etc

Genuinely curious how your system handles that.

1. This is a harder one, but try to get to the point where you are light enough of a being that you transcend physical 3D world so that you can just walk through things, basically you become like a ghost in a way, this is harder to do practically but it's possible, and no you don't need to die to do it, you can do it while still living in this worldly avatar.

2. Don't drive a car. Instead walk, run, teleport or fly (not with a plane but literally speaking with your body, this one is also practically harder but can be done, it's connected to the previous point about becoming lighter)

3.  Don't buy products, if you need something materialize it, in other words spawn it, again just like previous 2 points this one also includes going beyond the physical reality aka doing white magic.

4. Don't grow fruits, don't eat, do breatharianism.

5. This is a harder one, but i'm looking at it more from the perspective of needing electricity for the sake of using internet to be able to help others, if we just talk from the point of needing electricity for survival then i would say just transcend survival, hard one to do but possible too.

6. Watching porn in big 2024 is crazy ngl, this is a simple one, semen retention is the way to go, the 2nd most important aspect of a human's life.

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But @Razard86's defintion is pretty close to mine.

It seems like utilitarianism is true. You want to maximize well-being and reduce suffering and selfishness. A true utilitarian will have the same definition that you just gave: Morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes to others.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Water by the River said:

This lovely unique place here never gets old.

Selling peace pipes by the River

Yes, sometimes they smoked the pipe of peace, but Manitou quickly got bored and created some circumstance so that what was appropriate and fun would be to unearth the ax of war. The same thing happened to Odin, Tyr, Ares, Mars and others. Fortunately, Jesus Christ arrived and brought peace and love to the world.

[Davino]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's just impossible to say. It can't be done like that. Society has to negotiate all those rules through an infinitely messy quasi-democratic corrupt process.

That's basically what the last 5000 years of civilization have been.

That's true. I thought it was a good thought experiment anyway

Just to think about law from ground zero. Today I just finished a university course on the philosophy of law through the perspective of Schleiermacher and it was extremely interesting. It made me think from the bare bones about what law is and how it connects with sociology, morality, philosophy and spirituality. I was curious to know your thoughts on law from a philosophical standpoint as I have never heard you talk about such tenet despite all your politics and sociology videos. In this line was the thought experiment, I didn't ask you to make a new American constitution yet.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But my defintion can be applied at the local level by each actor if they desire. And it will have to be applied incrementally, bit by bit, not as any kind of leap to perfection. And everyone will have their own ideas of where they want to draw lines for themselves, based on their capacities, life situation, and level of development.

You see but that's a commune like style of law, let me explain, it's from the ground up, very individualistic and messy; you can't realistically legislate a country like that. This is the reason why I was particularly asking how you would implement your morality in a lawful way (because it would force you to think in new ways) and that would be an interesting translation from abstract morality/principles into tangible legislation. Before I took this course I never thought about the deep implications law actually has; I just took it for granted.

 

 

[integral]

@Razard86 A sovereign entity that wants to rape and be raped would apply these laws with integrity, with morality.

Never giving someone else an experience that they wouldn’t want is dependent on whether you can understand that person’s experience.

A dog cannot understand these laws, does that make a dog immoral?

The laws assume the sovereign entity has the faculties to apply the laws. And judges morality based on it.

There need to be a fourth law

4) The higher ones capacity the higher ones moral responsibility. 

Edited May 28 by integral

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

It seems like utilitarianism is true. You want to maximize well-being and reduce suffering and selfishness. A true utilitarian will have the same definition that you just gave: Morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes to others.

I don't think they're the same.

Utilitarianism is more about maximizing benefit for a large group of people, which can lead to stuff like killing a few of them for a larger benefit for the whole. My scheme says nothing like that.

[UnbornTao]

Stating that one is absolute morality isn't saying much, is it? If morality is relative and constructed, I don't see how your nature could be that. Why would you bring up 'absolute' when morality relates to life, experience, and action? Do you perhaps mean universal or broadly applicable?

Also, it's easy for formulations like this to become 'rules' set in stone or to be taken as an ideal. For example, chances are that you've been hurt by someone and have attempted to hurt them back, even if subtly. The thing is, there are many forms of suffering that we actually "desire" or like and actively partake in, albeit unconsciously. This is because we get something out of them and think them necessary, which is why we experience--generate--them in the first place. Would we want to impose these onto others?

Your model would be hard to follow in practice, I'd imagine. As a construction, though, it sounds appealing and intelligent. It's a positive direction, even if it isn't perfectly met.

Edited May 29 by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

The really profound question arises once you realize that morality is relative.

But then you'll still be left with the question of how relative morality relates to higher consciousness and truth.

Even though morality is relative, higher consciousness and truth still has a pretty big impact on one's personal moral conduct in the world. And then that also has collective political ramifications.

So the question for you guys to contemplate is: How does Truth and Consciousness connect to relative morality? And it is all as purely relative as you think? If so, then how come Truth and Consciousness tends to compel people to improve their behavior?

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Vibroverse]

7 hours ago, jimwell said:

Generally good. But reality is complex. Some people want what you don't want, and vice versa. You think nobody wants to be punched in the face? Ask the masochists. Nobody wants his wife to be fucked by other men? You'll be surprised by the number of cuckolds out there.

 

There are times when you can't know what others might not want.

The masochist said "hurt me" to the sadist, and the sadist sad "no". 

 

Edited May 28 by Vibroverse

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think they're the same.

Utilitarianism is more about maximizing benefit for a large group of people, which can lead to stuff like killing a few of them for a larger benefit for the whole. My scheme says nothing like that.

"All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes others."

After your definition wouldn't it be moral to kill hitler to save a lot of people?

(A): you selfishly want to kill hitler, that's morally also good. 

(B): you selfishly dont want to kill hitler, but it would be moral to do so otherwise you cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

Edited May 28 by Jannes

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

So the question for you guys to contemplate is: How does Truth and Consciousness connect to relative morality? And it is all as purely relative as you think? If so, then how come Truth and Consciousness tends to compel people to improve their behavior?

I heard that in experienced some people who just didn't have a set of morals because of upbringing for example and then experienced infinite love with a psychedelic suddenly just gained morality through that experience. 

Thanks for the question Leo, this style of teaching really speaks to me!

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Jannes said:

"All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes others."

After your definition wouldn't it be moral to kill hitler to save a lot of people?

(A): you selfishly want to kill hitler, that's morally also good. 

(B): you selfishly dont want to kill hitler, but it would be moral to do so otherwise you cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

Wanting to kill someone IS your selfishness at work.

Not killing Hitler is not selfish, unless you have some twisted reasons.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

So the question for you guys to contemplate is: How does Truth and Consciousness connect to relative morality? And it is all as purely relative as you think? If so, then how come Truth and Consciousness tends to compel people to improve their behavior?

What initially comes to mind: if we take Truth to mean that everything is one, that you're the only thing in existence, then every evil act you commit is against yourself, which doesn't make sense. Though this misses some nuance, such as when you're at that level, 'evil', 'bad', etc cease to hold any meaning. Perhaps that's where consciousness comes in, you're wise enough to realize that after this experience you'll come back to ordinary human reality where it does matter.

[Jannes]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Wanting to kill someone IS your selfishness at work.

Not killing Hitler is not selfish, unless you don't do it for selfish reasons which is odd.

I dont think I get it.

My action in killing hitler would cause a lot less people to die so it would reduce the harm to others. 

[Vibes]

9 minutes ago, Jannes said:

I dont think I get it.

My action in killing hitler would cause a lot less people to die so it would reduce the harm to others. 

But at a higher level God is the creator, so by you choosing to save people by killing hitler would be you interfering with life=selfishness anyway. Maybe at a lesser degree, but still.

I always thought about killing vs not killing as a mean for doing good. For example, if you see an ant agonizing on the ground, would it be better to finish it or let it agonize to death? I mostly choose to kill it so the suffering ends, but sometimes it just feels more right to not intervene.

Edited May 28 by Vibes