Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Parrot Face]

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” ~ Buddha

You are not your thoughts, feelings, emotions, you are the observer of all this phenomena.
Reality is the residue of thought.
The only real essence of the observer is infinite love.
Everything else is knowledge of vibrational non reality. Dream or illusion.
The true nature of reality is the outcome of the thoughts of the observer.
So, what kind of thoughts are YOU creating?

[hiyymer]

I voted no.

If by objective you mean scientific reality. Morality arises out of the experience of our biological regulation and the illusion of agency. It's pretty similar for every member of the species. It's archetypal, but not objective.

[hiyymer]

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” ~ Buddha

You are not your thoughts, feelings, emotions, you are the observer of all this phenomena.
Reality is the residue of thought.
The only real essence of the observer is infinite love.
Everything else is knowledge of vibrational non reality. Dream or illusion.
The true nature of reality is the outcome of the thoughts of the observer.
So, what kind of thoughts are YOU creating?

I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he lived in 2010.

[Pappa]

NO .

Shall I lock the thread?

No, that would be immoral.

Or evil if DP did it.

[Trolldor]

Maybe.

[Pappa]

Maybe.

Maybe not!!!

[Trolldor]

CONUNDRUM!?

[Parrot Face]

I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he lived in 2010.

Buddha does live in 2010 as an archetypal metaphorical fictional character. Much like you and me.

What's even more strange is how do we know it's 2010 ? .... because the calendar say's so that how

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So, to all you moral relativists (I assume that's what you are if you don't think objective morality exists), could you expand on your position? If a society thought there was nothing wrong with murder (far out example, this would never happen, of course), would murder be morally OK for them? This is always the kind of picture I've had of moral relativism, although as far as I know it could be a strawman.

Not a strawman at all. There have been societies in which murder was permitted (usually within certain parameters - the murder of slaves by their masters being sanctioned, or sacrifices to 'the gods', for instance) and from some moral standpoints, carrying out a death sentence equates to murder, as does waging war, or even eating meat. How's that for moral relativism?

Edit: PS, one could quite justifiably describe the mafia, or similar criminal organisations, as 'a society' also.

[Feral_Punctuation]

Heh. So there have.

[Feral_Punctuation]

Is moral relativism just where you think there is no objective morality, or also that morality depends on the society you're in? If only the former, does that render moral questions completely pointless? To be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining suffering to be morally neutral; my definitions of moral have practically revolved around happiness/suffering, even though there's not neccesarily a reason to think that should be the case. :sighsm:

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

[Trolldor]

It depends.

[Pappa]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

[Trolldor]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

The fact that you have to say 'maybe' means it does.

[Pappa]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

The fact that you have to say 'maybe' means it does.

Maybe that's what I wanted you to think.