- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Messages
- 201
- Thread Author
- #1
Man strives for that which is true, what is, objective. When we work, we do that which is efficient & effective. When looking for something we expect to find something. When the topic of objective truth & morality is brought to the table the issue that we often find are rolling eyes and one could say "we've heard this many times", but why is it we have not come to a conclusion? Why have we not reached an answer that is correct? For what we search for is what is correct, true and verifiable not satisfactory or based on opinion. My point for this topic is that there is objective morals and truth- I make this declaration because I often find many dismissive of the concept or even go as far as to say it does not exist, most of all that the argument made are often short sited and do not see the whole picture. Most people see with their eyes and do not balance abstractions well, this means that when people think of morals they assume that because other people have different cultures and beliefs therefore morality itself surely must not exist & when truth is discussed it is treated rudely and without proper clarity as a matter of fact the truth is something we always search. When we look through lies, we seek after the truth, but what is that exactly? We are looking for that which occurred, thus it can be said "truth is that which has occurred", however we may be dissatisfied with the matter, mainly due to the reason of the matter that we find ourselves close, very close to the reality at hand.
I will be clear and say the definitions to the matter:
Truth changeth not.
Right- That which does not cause harm to other sentient beings.
Wrong- That which does cause harm to other sentient beings.
But say you "if this is so, why do others not act upon this definition?" And to this I say we can live in contradiction with reality, but not without consequence to our health and others, and the environment. Any man who would declare there is no morals either lies with such terrible audacity that he himself betrays himself or is such a fool that he chooses to not look abusing reason to absurdity.
I will be clear and say the definitions to the matter:
Truth changeth not.
Right- That which does not cause harm to other sentient beings.
Wrong- That which does cause harm to other sentient beings.
But say you "if this is so, why do others not act upon this definition?" And to this I say we can live in contradiction with reality, but not without consequence to our health and others, and the environment. Any man who would declare there is no morals either lies with such terrible audacity that he himself betrays himself or is such a fool that he chooses to not look abusing reason to absurdity.
Last edited:
