Are judgements of any act entirely subjective?

[Neuro]

I have to agree with Neuro that morals of any kind are subjective and differs from society to society. In my personal opinion, 'morals', or what we understand under the concept, is an ages-old thing that helps to ensure the survival of the species. For instance, in the Abrahamic tradition, the 10 Commandments are said to be the foundation of morals. Humans are social animals. All the 10 Commandments does is to formulate and ensure the smooth cooperation between humans in a social environment. And back in the day when the 10 Commandments were taken much more literally than today, anyone not following them won't last long.

 

Shag your neighbour's wife, and he'll likely club you to death. It has nothing to do with religion, the religious decree against hanky-panky with the neighbour's wife is simply the formalising of common sense in a social setup. It has everything to do with survival. But this will depend on the physical circumstances, so that non-Abrahamic traditions have completely different sets of morals.

 

As a hypothetical example, let's say in some imaginary environment where some sort of berry grows that renders men either infertile or with very low sperm counts. They might end up with some sort of 'Commandment' from their specific deity that specifically orders them to let your wife shag around as much as possible. If only for the odd chance that she might be impregnated by one of the few males that can still do it. It won't say that specifically, but that'll be the end effect. And they will have absolutely no idea why the colonising Europeans tell them to stop this debauchery. What the Europeans are telling them is wrong, and against their shagadelic religion.

 

Yeah - morals are completely subjective, and simply the formalising of social rules and regulations - which differes from society to society in any case.

 

As such, that which is 100% subjective is equal. If numbers in the positive represent good systems of morality, and numbers in the negative represent bad systems of morality, all moral systems are smack dab in the center at zero, equal. They are in this position because they are all equally subjective.

 

In terms of morality, Hitler = Christ = Satan = Stalin = Churchill = Pope = Buddha = Me = You.

[Boerseun]

In terms of morality, Hitler = Christ = Satan = Stalin = Churchill = Pope = Buddha = Me = You.

I agree wholeheartedly with that notion, but in my view, morals are society-based. In other words, Hitler = Christ = Satan = Stalin etc., but only when you look at it objectively from above. When you're in a specific society, the morals in that specific society rules supreme, and if you don't subscribe to it, you won't last long. Someone subscribing to the Jewish morality wouldn't have lasted long in Hitler Germany.

 

For example, Hitler =/ Stalin when you're in 1938 Germany or Russia. But when you look at it objectively from above, they're equally good/bad (depending on the rules running your particular society, which shapes your morals). But in general, any set of morals which ensures the survival of that specific race/religion/society, is as good as any others. The argument might actually be made that a set of morals which doesn't frown on pre-marital or extra-marital sex which will allow for adherents to procreate more might even be a superior set of morals than a more conservative one (like Christianity) which does frown upon it. There are many yardsticks, but seen objectively, they are all identical and the same.

[Neuro]

You agree on the thesis of the argument.

 

You require subjective morality to declare universal morality and that is where you run into problems later in your post. All morality is subjective, thus, any attempt at creating boundaries of what is good and what isn't is still equal. The morality that supported Hitler's actions is equal to a system of morality that is built entirely on the survival of your species or the happiness of your populace. It doesn't matter, it is all equal.

 

If you think for a second that you can identify certain moral that is universal, then by all means find me a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, and a Stoic that will agree with at least one of them. Even then, I won't be convinced becuase I too am human and will be sure to disagree with you which will thus render your universal moral broken.

 

Defining morals as good or bad based on how well they supply the populace with X is to make a subjective statement, thus, it is no more logical or good than any other moral system.

[Boerseun]

Defining morals as good or bad based on how well they supply the populace with X is to make a subjective statement, thus, it is no more logical or good than any other moral system.

No, I think not. If we consider morals as a system ensuring a religion/nation/populace's survival, then it's clearly not subjective. Death, after all, is pretty much a binary condition. You're either dead or you're not. 1 or 0, on or off, alive or dead. Pretty much objective, I'd say, and very Darwinian.

[Neuro]

No, I think not. If we consider morals as a system ensuring a religion/nation/populace's survival, then it's clearly not subjective. Death, after all, is pretty much a binary condition. You're either dead or you're not. 1 or 0, on or off, alive or dead. Pretty much objective, I'd say, and very Darwinian.

Interesting take except for this...

If we consider morals as a system ensuring

Subjective. We can consider morals as a system with any goal, what makes your consideration right? Nothing.

 

Most moral systems, though all subjective, are geared towards ensuring the protection of something. Hitler wanted genetically German dominance. Christians want christian dominance. It is still all the same. Wanting personal dominance over others, and thus, having no morality to restrict your actions, is in no way any different.

 

The more one disagrees with the thesis, the more incorrect one becomes.

 

I think what is interesting about this discussion is that you are either going to agree that all acts are meaningless and devoid of divine purpose, or you are not going to agree to such and claim that there is something special about your belief. To say that all morality is equal is to look at the species from a third person point of view. To stop judging actions with the mind of the pack which is entirely subjective to which pack you are in.

 

When looking at the species and subjecting your thoughts to no individual packs thinking, you are forced to agree that there is no right or wrong and there is no good or evil. These are elements that do not exist in the universe. With this mind set, you are lead to think in away akin to stoic philosophers.

 

All morality is equal. All actions are meaningless. No drive has purpose. No sexual orientation or act is bad. No act of murder on a small or grand scale is significant. It just doesn't matter.

[Buffy]

Most moral systems, though all subjective, are geared towards ensuring the protection of something. Hitler wanted genetically German dominance. Christians want christian dominance. It is still all the same. Wanting personal dominance over others, and thus, having no morality to restrict your actions, is in no way any different.

Seeing only "personal dominance" as a motivation behind moral codes is not unexpected based on your worldview. Unfortunately, you're projecting your odd and self-centered definition of reality on the rest of the human race.

 

Moral codes are artifacts of *social* groups, not individuals. Some are better than others, but they *evolve* within *groups* and become *accepted*. Those who choose to violate those moral codes are considered outcasts by society.

 

Is that "subjective?" Of course it is! But you know what? That *doesn't matter*. Social groups decide what is right and wrong, and some enforce those codes. That some disagree with the majority is a truism that has persisted throughout (and probably before) human history.

 

Laws and moral codes survive because they are accepted by the majority. Those that are unfair to the majority--Nazism, Communism, Mesoamerican religions emphasizing sacrifice--eventually fall by the wayside, thus succumbing to the evolution of the social organism.

 

You can call them unfair because you feel persecuted by them, but to call all of them "morally equivalent" is a complete misrepresentation of this clearly evolutionary process.

All morality is equal. All actions are meaningless. No drive has purpose. No sexual orientation or act is bad. No act of murder on a small or grand scale is significant. It just doesn't matter.

Its obvious that morality doesn't matter to you. It does matter to the rest of us. That seems to threaten you immensely. The rest of us want to get along together, so we work together to form laws and morals and make judgements that we can all live with.

 

Those who insist on behaving in ways that violate those laws and morals do end up getting punished. Is that absolutely good or absolutely evil? No, and as I said *it doesn't matter*. We are a social organism and it works toward its survival. What is "right" is what ensures that survival. It also turns out that we've learned that concepts like "fairness" and "kindness" contribute strongly to a healthy society, and those concepts are thus associated with good. Actions that are considered immoral do matter because they harm the organism. These actions include hatred and harm to other individuals, and the reaction of society to these actions range from aprobation to punishment, depending on how harmful to society the action is.

 

Trying to define the morality as a purely individual choice does nothing more than provide a disengenuous mechanism for trying to justify immoral acts.

 

You're free to try, but don't be surprised at how society reacts to your actions, and please don't bore us with claims that such reactions are "unfair" or "unjustifiable."

 

The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am, :eek:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Subjective. We can consider morals as a system with any goal, what makes your consideration right? Nothing.

What goal would you assign to morals? Say morals are goalless. Say there's no point to them. Say you live in a society with Moral Set A. Say you wipe your *** off on it, and you go with Moral Set B or no morals at all. How successful would you be in that society? Pretty soon, you'll see your ***. Countries around the world habitually incarcerate individuals who don't adhere to the morals pertaining to that specific society, some even get executed for it. Your adherence to morals governing society determines in a big way your success in that society. Kennedy's biggest hurdle to being elected President was the fact that he was a Roman Catholic, not his stance on world affairs, for instance. If you have any other take on the goal of adhering to morals, please share it.

Most moral systems, though all subjective, are geared towards ensuring the protection of something. Hitler wanted genetically German dominance. Christians want christian dominance. It is still all the same. Wanting personal dominance over others, and thus, having no morality to restrict your actions, is in no way any different.

Morals in order to ensure the dominance of one society over another exactly proves my point of it being a Darwinian survival tool. Same with racism, genocide, etc. They're not like us, so we will hate and despise and kill them.

The more one disagrees with the thesis, the more incorrect one becomes.

Subjective, innit?

I think what is interesting about this discussion is that you are either going to agree that all acts are meaningless and devoid of divine purpose, or you are not going to agree to such and claim that there is something special about your belief.

Of course there's no divine purpose to acts. Who brought God into this discussion? The Commandments are simply tools to order and structure society, using the concept of 'God' as the authority in the absence of a strong central government. And acts are , indeed meaningless in the Grand Scheme of Things. But that's no reason not to enjoy the ride, and make your transition from Birth to eventual Death as frictionless as possible by subscribing to the societal morals in your neck of the woods. They are not the same as the morals driving people in my valley, but I won't claim moral supremacy - like you said, they are all valid but different; the question is purely whether you want to be stoned to death or not. If not, adhere to the morals or move to another valley. Or, you can pull a Martin Luther and change the morals governing your country. That takes balls, but morals are in no way static, as history has shown us.

To say that all morality is equal is to look at the species from a third person point of view. To stop judging actions with the mind of the pack which is entirely subjective to which pack you are in.

'Zactly.

When looking at the species and subjecting your thoughts to no individual packs thinking, you are forced to agree that there is no right or wrong and there is no good or evil. These are elements that do not exist in the universe. With this mind set, you are lead to think in away akin to stoic philosophers.

That's what I've been saying in my post which you've objected to. But then ask yourself, from the 3rd person view, what are the purpose of morals under those in which they operate other than Darwinian survival tools? The opinion of which, you've called subjective in your above post.

All morality is equal.

Quite. But those that are impractical, tend to die out. Those that work, survive. There is no 'good' or 'bad' morals, there's simply those that ensure survival (of the morality meme) and those that don't.

All actions are meaningless.

'Meaningless' meaning what? If I practice kicking a ball every day and I end up in the National Soccer Team and end up scoring the crucial goal in the World Cup Finals, and that was my goal all along, then surely my act of practicing has meaning in that context. If the context you're talking about is what action can have an affect on the eventual destiny of the universe, then surely no human action has any meaning. But you didn't define the context in which you say action has no meaning, so your easy dismissal of any meaning is subjective. Don't fall into your own trap, now.

No drive has purpose.

Same as the above. Define in what context you talk about 'purpose'. Purpose to what? To practice soccer, or to influence the whole universe?

No sexual orientation or act is bad. No act of murder on a small or grand scale is significant. It just doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter when you're in the objective 3rd person's point of view we discussed above. Unfortunately, nobody is in that position. Everybody is personally involved in some sort of society where what they do is conceived as 'good' or 'bad'. In which case you're quite wrong. Your only way out of this is to maroon yourself on some deserted island where you'll be 100% of the population. You will then define the ruling morality in Neuroland, and you can do damn well as you please. Anywhere else, and you'll soon be banished from society by not adhering to the ruling morals. You'll be banished to jail where society have been isolating those that don't agree on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of governing morality for thousands of years. If you disagree so strongly on that point, you might even be executed for it. Not that it's a good or bad thing, of course. But the morality meme must protect itself from opposing viewpoints such as yours.

[Neuro]

Seeing only "personal dominance" as a motivation behind moral codes is not unexpected based on your worldview. Unfortunately, you're projecting your odd and self-centered definition of reality on the rest of the human race.

That is not it at all. I was referring to the morality used by various religions that seems indirectly geared to promote their own dominance and ensure they reign supreme over other religions at some point. I was also pointing at the morality of Hitler and his Germany. I was also pointing at my own morality. Indirect drives towards dominance are somewhat of a trait found in many moral systems.

 

Way to be hostile and attack me as a human being at every chance you could. Bravo.

 

Moral codes are artifacts of *social* groups, not individuals.

Wrong. Morality is subject to group interpretations, subgroup interpretations, and individual interpretations.

 

Some are better than others, but they *evolve* within *groups* and become *accepted

Really? Some moral codes are better than others? Scientifically?

 

Those who choose to violate those moral codes are considered outcasts by society.

Clearly no one here is lacking in an understanding of what morality is. However, you seem to think the earth and all of humanity represent one society, I am afraid that just isn’t true. We do not live in a world with one moral system that has existed like an immortal constitution, amended through the ages. It just isn’t the case.

 

Your liberal Christian western morality that leads you to think equality is great is in no way a divine definition of morality. It may be socially recognized in our societies, but that is because we are from the same society, and ultimately it is subject to change in the future which will lead to the morality of the present being demonized as immoral. Getting the picture yet?

 

Is that "subjective?" Of course it is! But you know what? That *doesn't matter*.

It may not matter to you, but in the eye of science, it renders all morality equal because no morality is either right or wrong. All moralities are the same brand of generic subjective opinionated trash.

 

In your opinion, you believe your current morality to be universal. It is not. In fact, female Islamic devout may spit on the fact that you would sooner get a divorce than subject yourself to daily beatings at the hand a husband. Why is your morality more accurate than theirs? It isn’t. Your values are different, it is all subjective. All morality is subjective. It renders all forms of morality equal because they are all equally subjective.

 

You aren’t really here to argue it seems, you just sort of say EQUALITY AND LOVE ARE SO *OBVIOUSLY* UNIVERSAL! They aren’t.

 

Social groups decide what is right and wrong, and some enforce those codes. That some disagree with the majority is a truism that has persisted throughout (and probably before) human history.

No one was lacking in what a definition of morality and moral codes was.

Laws and moral codes survive because they are accepted by the majority.

They do not survive. Prooftext: history.

Those that are unfair to the majority--Nazism, Communism, Mesoamerican religions emphasizing sacrifice--eventually fall by the wayside, thus succumbing to the evolution of the social organism.

Untrue. Fascism, Communism, Marxism, and so on are still widely debated topics and may one day rise again if the conditions are right. History at times appears to be cyclical. Lastly, the fact that you are simply pointing to rise and fall regimes with rise and fall moralities and are in fact a member of a group that has a relatively new morality (less than 50 years old) shows that this entire discussion is on my side.

 

You can call them unfair because you feel persecuted by them, but to call all of them "morally equivalent" is a complete misrepresentation of this clearly evolutionary process.

Using evolution to support your religion – now that is a new tactic!

 

When have I *EVER* said I felt oppressed or in an unfair situation because my society is mean to me? Why don’t you refrain from the personal insults please, k?

 

The process is not evolutionary. It is ever changing, but it is not ever evolving or advancing and it is not going in one direction. This concept of yours represents the bias of your opinion – you seem to think your morality is divinely appreciated and that eventually the whole earth will agree with your individual interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. *THIS* *IS* *NOT* *GOING* *TO* *HAPPEN*.

 

If you still think morality has been ever evolving, try to exclude your own morality from the picture and look at how other moral systems have gotten to their stage. Did they all evolve in the same direction? Islam doesn’t seem to fit that bill and happens to be spreading like wild fire across Africa, Asia, and Europe. So much for that theory!

 

Its obvious that morality doesn't matter to you. It does matter to the rest of us. That seems to threaten you immensely.

Over speculating what I feel “threatened” by when I’ve not once said I feel threatened by anything.

The rest of us want to get along together, so we work together to form laws and morals and make judgements that we can all live with.

Well aren’t you just the perfect little flag waving American! Fact is: Humanity is not united, and humanity is not uniting. Morality is not evolving in a way that suggests all morality of the world is heading in your moralities direction.

 

If global morality is not evolving on a single evolutionary path and is in fact evolving in billions of different directions then there *IS*NO*UNIVERSAL*MORALITY* despite the fact that even this universal morality would be entirely subjective, thus equal to that of Hitler and Satan!

 

 

Those who insist on behaving in ways that violate those laws and morals do end up getting punished. Is that absolutely good or absolutely evil? No, and as I said *it doesn't matter*. We are a social organism and it works toward its survival. What is "right" is what ensures that survival. It also turns out that we've learned that concepts like "fairness" and "kindness" contribute strongly to a healthy society, and those concepts are thus associated with good. Actions that are considered immoral do matter because they harm the organism. These actions include hatred and harm to other individuals, and the reaction of society to these actions range from aprobation to punishment, depending on how harmful to society the action is.

 

Trying to define the morality as a purely individual choice does nothing more than provide a disengenuous mechanism for trying to justify immoral acts.

 

You're free to try, but don't be surprised at how society reacts to your actions, and please don't bore us with claims that such reactions are "unfair" or "unjustifiable."

 

The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me

That is a whole lot of nothing. Oh yes, almost forgot, there are some subtle personal attacks in there, too.

[pgrmdave]

The process is not evolutionary. It is ever changing, but it is not ever evolving or advancing and it is not going in one direction. This concept of yours represents the bias of your opinion – you seem to think your morality is divinely appreciated and that eventually the whole earth will agree with your individual interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. *THIS* *IS* *NOT* *GOING* *TO* *HAPPEN*.

 

Evolution isn't a linear process. Morals 'evolve' because they change with the times. Try looking up the scientific definition of evolution. Maybe your science lags behind your philosophy?

 

Fact is: Humanity is not united, and humanity is not uniting. Morality is not evolving in a way that suggests all morality of the world is heading in your moralities direction.

 

She didn't say that. She said that the rest of us want to get along within our social groups. All societies have moralities. These morals are necessary for the society to survive as a culture. Can you point to a society that survived without any morals?

 

 

If global morality is not evolving on a single evolutionary path and is in fact evolving in billions of different directions then there *IS*NO*UNIVERSAL*MORALITY* despite the fact that even this universal morality would be entirely subjective, thus equal to that of Hitler and Satan!

 

We're all in agreement that it is subjective. However, you seem to think that evolution should lead to perfection. It doesn't. It simply leads to something that works at the time. Okay, so we know that morality is subjective, but because it is not decided by the individual, but by the group, all that really matters is the particular morality of the group to which you happen to belong.

[Neuro]

You either agree that all morality is equal or you try to say that some moral systems are special and better than others on no scientific grounds what so ever. To make that argument requires a god clause and this is a scientific forum.

She didn't say that. She said that the rest of us want to get along within our social groups. All societies have moralities. These morals are necessary for the society to survive as a culture. Can you point to a society that survived without any morals?

Change does not equal evolution. Morals change, that is all they do over time. No moral of today is more-true or divinely-reasoned than any moral of yesterday.

She didn't say that. She said that the rest of us want to get along within our social groups. All societies have moralities. These morals are necessary for the society to survive as a culture. Can you point to a society that survived without any morals?

That is fine and well. Yes, all societies have morals. Yes, these morals *may* be designed to prolong the society (which is in effect, eventual dominance, as I’ve said). However! All moral systems from all societies are equal because moral systems DO*NOT*HAVE any *special* goal of prolonging the species or society, they may have no goal at all, they may just be a bag of arbitrary rules, there is no distinguishing between a good and a bad moral because they are *ALL* entirely subjective. ALL EQUAL

 

If you wish to continue your arguments, please think them through.

-You cannot use the words ‘designed’ or ‘intended-for’ when referring to ‘what=morality-is’ because to use such words requires a god clause.

-If you are going to state an inevitable goal of morality, please ask yourself if this goal is exactly the same as the goal of every individual’s morality on the surface of the earth (6 billion people) and every society that has ever existed. Otherwise, your idea of a goal of morality is subjective, incorrect, and non-scientific.

-Morality is not evolving. It simply changes over time and can be invented by anyone at anytime for any reason.

-You cannot enter this discussion with the belief that your moral system is anything but a product of your life. If you believe your morals are the true morals of mankind then you require a belief in divine reasoning to come to that conclusion. You cannot scientifically argue that any moral is correct because such requires the support of the divine. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

 

If what you are going to say is 100% subjective and can only be true if god supports individual phrases of your post, then if we subtract god from the equation your post is defenseless and left to be equal to every other take on morality, including that of Hitler.

 

If you are going to argue that morality is ever approaching a certain point of perfection, morality is universal, certain morals are good because they support a certain cause, and so on, then please provide scientific backing that supports what you are saying. Please prove that what you are saying is not entirely subjective.

[pgrmdave]

Nobody but you has brought up a god. Let's take your post and look at it closely.

You cannot use the words ‘designed’ or ‘intended-for’ when referring to ‘what=morality-is’ because to use such words requires a god clause.

 

This is not entirely true. I can design my own system of morals, and then it will be clear what it is intended for. I don't think that morality requires that there be a god, nor is a god the only one who can design moralities. Remember, we all seem to agree that all moralities are subjective. You haven't encountered argument there.

 

If you are going to state an inevitable goal of morality, please ask yourself if this goal is exactly the same as the goal of every individual’s morality on the surface of the earth (6 billion people) and every society that has ever existed.

You're right, to an extent. If I make a general statement of all moralities, they must hold true for every system of morals. I said that morals are necessary for societies. Perhaps you didn't realize that means that only applies to societies' moralities, not necessarily individuals' moralities. Which means, we can look at any culture, or any group, and the moralities do serve to help the culture survive. You have yet to provide any evidence that this is not true. Please think about this.

 

Otherwise, your idea of a goal of morality is subjective, incorrect, and non-scientific.

Why does subjective mean incorrect? If I state that my favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla, it is subjective but is it incorrect? If I state that I think that murder is wrong, it is subjective, but is it incorrect? You haven't made any arguments showing this relationship, you merely state it as though it's an obvious truth.

 

Morality is not evolving. It simply changes over time

Yeah. It's changing over time due to external and internal pressures. That's evolution. What do you think evolution is?

 

You cannot enter this discussion with the belief that your moral system is anything but a product of your life. If you believe your morals are the true morals of mankind then you require a belief in divine reasoning to come to that conclusion. You cannot scientifically argue that any moral is correct because such requires the support of the divine. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

Who is this directed towards? We've all AGREED with you here! I've never seen somebody fight so hard with people who are agreeing with them.

 

If you are going to argue that morality is ever approaching a certain point of perfection, morality is universal, certain morals are good because they support a certain cause, and so on, then please provide scientific backing that supports what you are saying. Please prove that what you are saying is not entirely subjective.

Nobody has said that morality is approaching perfection, although we have said that there are certain morals that seem to be universal to societies. If we can agree that societies which last longer are better (social darwinism), then societies which don't last long can be seen as worse. While it is only one factor, a society's morality is a factor in their survival or death.

 

For example, the shakers were not permitted to have children as per their morality. Their society died out, eventually. Clearly that moral does not help a society survive. At the same time, if a society were overrun with sexually transmitted diseases, a morality that limited sexual partners would help a society.

[Pyrotex]

...Theory: Right, wrong, morality, and ethical standards -- All false concepts that are entirely subjective.....

First of all, a concept cannot be "false"--nor can it be "true". Statements of identity, comparison, attribute, logic, etc, may be evaluated to "true" or "false".

"That door is green" is true.

"Your mother is a virgin" is false.

 

But right, wrong, morality, and ethical standards cannot take on values of "true" or "false".

 

Are they subjective? A proper answer would be: for the most part. But then, so is everything outside a few narrow realms of logic and science. That they are subjective is not very meaningful.

 

What concepts ARE is "useful", "not useful", "profitable", "not profitable", etc.

 

Right, wrong, morality, and ethical standards have proven over the last few (tens of) thousands of years to be "useful" and "profitable" -- to an overwhelmingly large (though not total) degree. These concepts have had to compete with other behavioral concepts for a long time, and the ones that have been adopted, and "canonized" by successful cultures typically tend to be those we refer to as "Right, wrong, morality, and ethical standards".

 

That these concepts are subjective is moot. That they are unprovable is moot. That they are useful and profitable--and have survived competition with other concepts in a myriad of different cultures over the millenia, is a testament to their value. They are powerful "tools" in the creation and maintenance of civilization.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the teachings of Christ as opposed to Christianity he summarized subjective judgement of acts, as needing to be based on "love your neighbor as yourselff" (do onto others as you would have then do onto you). He did not give specifics he only gave these simple guidelines. "learn from me, I am gentle and humble or heart. I shall give rest to your souls,.. my burden is easy and my yoke is light"

 

If you look at these guidelines from a practical point of view, it pulls subjectivity out of the little cranial box of the individual mind and requires touching reality before making decisions. For example, if I had the impulse and could justify stealing, it would imply that my neighbor has the right to steal from me (do onto each other) I wouldn't want him stealing from me so I should not steal. The guideline doesn't say this but it is a logical conclusion based on the simple guidelines.

 

Another example is, most people have some type of fetish. For some it may require buying shoes, others like chocolates, etc.. The guidelines would imply that fetish equals fetish. Or, I wouldn't want one to judge me by something silly that harms noone, I will not judge my neighbors silly choice, that does not harm me or anyone else.

 

What happened instead, was the simple guidelines were twisted and perverted by religious and social laws. Some changed the guideline to, " do onto others before they do onto you". This guideline is a product of a twisted mind operating only in their little subjective box.

 

Or, my neighbor neighbors thinks just like me, so I will think for them. I hate apples, so he must also hate apples, therefore I will make it a sin. If one went outside the box and asked the neighbor, he may tell you he likes apples and that your judgement of sin was only intended for you. You might tell him the same about something different he has a inner polarization with.

 

St Paul said, "I am convinced that all things are good, nothing is to be rejected.. If one think something is evil, to him it is evil " . "let no one be your judge with respect to drink, food, festivals, etc...." But history shows that religious and social leaders would continue to impose little box subjectivities onto others. If they had stayed within the original guidelines and thought outside their little subjective box (of personal subjectivity) they may have learned this.

 

Modern culture is seeking a way to break the yoke of subjective sin that has been created by religion (doctrines of men) so one can live freely, while also respecting this same right for others. Maybe people are finally getting smart enough to live by the simple guidelines.