RE: Morality - Subjective or Objective?
Good lengthy read here :)
I think some people push hard for a subjective or relative moralistic view is because they do not like the idea that they are governed by something outside of their control, so they would rather invent a point of view where that does not exist. This of course does not change the truth of the matter, as you have described in your article, you can believe you can fly all you want, but you go jump off that cliff and you will plummet to the bottom. The Laws of the Universe are universal and binding, they do not require your belief or non belief for them to be in effect. If we were wise, we would be spending our time trying to align our time, effort, values into discovering those laws and aligning our will to those laws and the Will of Creation.
Your explanation of "right" being things that align with truth and natural laws and "wrong" being anything that doesn't is a correct definition, but could probably be put simpler in that a right is anything that is not a wrong. It leaves us to only have to define what is wrong... as anything else would be right. If you are a fan of Mark Passio's work, he describes this in detail in his Natural Law series.
I am really glad you spent the time to explain that we are bound by the consequences of our actions whether we like it or not as well as the focus on our internal shadow work that we all need to be doing. You are right that we cannot hope to change things in this external reality (the plane of effects), we need to focus internally, mentally (the plane of causation) to transmute our consciousness from lead into gold.
Great article, thanks so much for sharing!!!
And thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to read this and reply so thoughtfully. It's great to know others are out there who have come to the same conclusion, and are lending their voice to these discussions.
Yes, Passio has done humanity a great service by both explaining natural law thoroughly, and whittling it down to its bare essence. My thoughts on morality have certainly been honed by his contributions, and I believe him to be one of the great teachers of our time.
Part of the cultural indoctrination that politics and media promotes is getting the people to think on a scale far outside their natural scope. A person is Florida is encouraged to consider how problems in California should be addressed, as justified by their mutual participation in the same Federal government. This results in most conversations centering around large-scale "solutions".
When trying to explain how morality is essential to man's survival and thriving, it is often met with resistance; being deemed impractical or utopian due to the seeming impossibility of getting everyone on-board. It seems more prudent to support a widespread control system to account for those who will not adopt a moral stance.
But each individual only has rightful (or even extant) authority over themselves; and the prescription is for that individual person to commit to the internal regulation that morality demands, regardless of what anyone else is doing. I have found it very difficult to get this point across, as people seem to think as though their personal decision will become an immediate replacement for the system currently in place; and deeming it untenable, will reject the personal shift. They then resort to citing the fallacy of the "necessary evil" to justify their own unwillingness to commit to true morality; but in reality, it's simply an excuse to avoid the aforementioned "shadow work" and to remain in fear.
In the final analysis, morality is not about Law; that's just an elementary model of what morality will look like when applied - it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. What morality is ultimately pointing us toward is Love, and viewing it from this advanced perspective irons out all those "grey area" wrinkles that a limited, Law-based conception fails to answer satisfactorily.
Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I had to take a much needed brake from social media for a few days.
Thanks! Yes, I totally agree about Passio. Cultural indoctrination among many things are what fuel our enslavement. I agree these "Big picture solutions" are nothing but the majority imposing its will on the minority. (even if it's a minority of 1). We will never be free as long as people do not understand self ownership nor take responsibility for their own actions as well as the illegitimacy and immorality of government.
Morality and Social decay are inversely proportional. The less morality we have in society the more social decay we will have and vise versa. I realized a long time ago that unfortunately not everyone can be saved or see the light on these issues. If people argue with me with fallacies like that I no longer engage because they are not even open minded enough to consider what you are saying and are more or less a lost cause and not worth the time to help.
That is an interesting perspective about what law is. I will have to give that some more thought but I like your premise. I also agree that love is exactly what morality is pointing us at. Thanks again for your great analysis and insight! :)
Hey, wanna frustrate yourself? Here's a great example of the statist's inability to follow a chain of thought (as I'm sure you've encountered a million times). As Passio has stated, these people are literally broken (in more ways than one). They can’t think. That ability has been crippled by the misuse and atrophy of the relevant organ.
And the deeper problem is that they don't duly value the ability to think clearly. It's way cooler to be a sunglassed hotshot driving a sports car around the circular drive of his mansion than to be a lucid thinker. The philosopher is imagined as one who falls in the well while his eyes are on the stars. As though anything could be more practical than Truth. It's not going to get you the money, or the girl, though, so what use is it? What a deplorable state of depravity man has been conditioned to embody.
I could only watch about half of that before wanting to scream lol. I couldn't imagine how many times they went in an circle in the entire two hour conversation. Some people like that are not capable of seeing outside the purview of government.
It always comes down to "Yeah, but come on, man - we gotta have government." It's just assumed, and all pretense of argumentation is an afterthought. There's a blind spot - that's what it was for me. The second someone shined a light in that area, I immediately realized it. Some are less willing to release the deception. I often think of it as a malicious chemical sitting in the receptor site where imaginative, logical, moral social solutions should reside.