(08-01-2013 09:37 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: It depends on how you define morality. My understanding of morality is that good equates to the well being of conscious minds, while bad equates to the suffering of conscious minds. So the moral path to take in every situation is the one that causes the least suffering and results in the highest state of well being. So no, morality in this sense is not subjective.
Then I have to define what I mean by the well being of conscious minds. This should be obvious but I'll spell it out with an example for you people (trolls) that don't get it.
Would you rather have your hand on a extremely hot frying pan for ten minutes, or on a room temperature one?
Obviously, thanks to evolution, the conscious mind interprets pain as a negative experience. So this is considered suffering while a pleasant feeling (So long as it is not damaging to our physical health) is considered to benefit the conscious minds well being.
Perhaps you could say you believe that the suffering of conscious minds is actually a good thing. Then I would just call you a psychopath and be done with it.
Your trying to say morality is subjective and that only God can give us a true moral code. Well which version of god's true moral code are we to use? The bible's? then perhaps the majority of people on this forum should be stoned to death. Also, when your kids curse at you or hit you, your morally obligated to stone them to death. Maybe I do fancy this idea, I can keep you both as slaves, and beat you to near death whenever I wish. Maybe then you would have sense enough to know it was a horrible idea.
morality is anything one makes it to be.
Psychopathy is only "bad" due to what pop culture says, little else.