17 ms·

> You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundament

> You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you No, I'm saying something even more extreme. I'm saying that ultimately, morality does not depend on any point of view (mine or anyone else's) in much the same way that what is ultimately true doesn't depend on any point of view. Immorality is simply ignorance doing its thing. I'm in no way free of ignorance, but I am actively trying to reduce it. > I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity. Yes, there is an incredible and fascinating variety in humanity. Situations, points of view, emotions, agendas - all can be extremely complex and nuanced and very dependent on conditioning or "starting conditions". Yet, I think you'll find that compassion is something that is understood in any culture (as is fear), and the ability to empathize with someone else's situation (be it in another culture or another species) is not as far fetched as you make it seem. You've obviously given some thought to your claims (which these days is refreshing), and as someone who always wants to get to the truth of things, I'll gladly give up everything I believe in if it is incorrect, but then again my understanding wasn't acquired overnight, so if you're also as keen to dig deeper and see what comes up I'll be happy to correspond further.

white-flame 9y ago
I don't know if you'll read this as it's been a while, but you're just repeating what I said. Your morals are axiomatic, and as ground truth they can't be supported by anything other than their supposed self-apparentness. Your second half simply restates my "sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained", as that's all we're talking about here: How various harm "feels" when you see them carried out. This empathizing you base things on is hugely selective even within you. You aren't empathizing with the plight of plants or insects, for instance. If you empathized with everything equally, then you'd be crippled by any amount of perceived harm, which is pervasive. Everybody is empathetic & compassionate, but to different situations. This has a ton to do with culture and normality. People constantly misconstrue their sensitivities with morals.

white-flame 9y ago

I don't know if you'll read this as it's been a while, but you're just repeating what I said. Your morals are axiomatic, and as ground truth they can't be supported by anything other than their supposed self-apparentness. Your second half simply restates my "sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained", as that's all we're talking about here: How various harm "feels" when you see them carried out. This empathizing you base things on is hugely selective even within you. You aren't empathizing with the plight of plants or insects, for instance. If you empathized with everything equally, then you'd be crippled by any amount of perceived harm, which is pervasive. Everybody is empathetic & compassionate, but to different situations. This has a ton to do with culture and normality. People constantly misconstrue their sensitivities with morals.