Objective Triadic Moral Progression System (OTMPS)

[Echogem222]

Most Abstract Level: Basic Objective Morals

Needed and Needless Suffering:

Definition:
- Needed Suffering: This encompasses unavoidable sufferings such as death and illness which are actually experienced.
- Needless Suffering: This involves avoidable sufferings that are always circumvented. For instance, averting harm by choosing not to commit violence when provoked is avoiding needless suffering (if needless suffering did not exist, it would be impossible to avoid it or not avoid it, because it just wouldn't apply to that situation [In other words, you can't avoid what doesn't exist]).

Objectivity:
- These are considered as fundamental, immutable truths about the nature of human existence and morality, serving as the foundational pillars of the moral system.

Role:
- They provide the initial moral compass, upon which more advanced and nuanced moral principles and norms are developed, interpreted, and applied.

Intermediate Level: Advanced Objective Morals

Scaled Suffering Framework:

Development:
- This level evolves to assess the significance and meaning behind sufferings, forming a scale between meaningful and meaningless sufferings. For example, defending oneself leading to causing harm would be seen as meaningful suffering, whereas harm stemming from unprovoked aggression and nothing else would not only be meaningless, but also impossible to occur, for if this were not the case, everyone would always cause harm to others when not provoked. However, though it's impossible to truly experience/cause fully meaningless suffering, this still sets a scale, because partially meaningless suffering is possible to experience/cause.

Flexibility:
- Grounded in basic objective morals, this level offers room for interpretations and adaptations, accommodating diverse moral perspectives, contexts, and dilemmas.

Transition:
- Serving as the mediator, this level refines and contextualizes the foundational moral truths into more applicable, discerning moral norms and ethical guidelines.

Specific Level: Practical Moral Norms (still under construction)

Detailed Ethical Guidelines and Laws:
- This level applies and manifests the advanced objective morals in specific, structured norms, rules, or laws.
- It is tailored to guide behaviors, decisions, and actions in various contexts and situations.
- It may have variable degrees of objectivity, subjectivity, specificity, and flexibility, allowing adaptations, modifications, and refinements according to different circumstances.

Philosophical Considerations:

1. Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:
- The transition from objective, immutable morals to more structured, nuanced, and applied morals involves considerations on the balance between objectivity and subjectivity, universality and context-specificity.

2. Moral Epistemology:
- Understanding how we know, interpret, and apply the objective morals at different levels involves considerations on moral knowledge, reasoning, and justification.

3. Moral Development:
- The progression from basic to advanced morals involves considerations on the development, refinement, and evolution of moral understandings, principles, and norms over time and across different contexts.

 

[dybmh]

Needless Suffering: This involves avoidable sufferings that are always circumvented.

This is a debate forum. I have the same objection to this ( what's stated above ) as I had in the last thread you posted here using the term "needless suffering". The definition does not match reality. There is suffering which is both NOT needed and is also NOT circumvented.

I stopped reading after this, because, if your initial definitions do not match reality, there is no reason to proceed further than that.

 

[Echogem222]

This is a debate forum.

Yet you'd rather just state your opinion that you're right and refuse to debate. Funny. (yes, I remember our conversation last time, but if you have nothing to add this time, why bother even replying??)

 

[dybmh]

Yet you'd rather just state your opinion that you're right and refuse to debate. Funny. (yes, I remember our conversation last time, but if you have nothing to add this time, why bother even replying??)

I'm not refusing to debate. We can debate it again. Since nothing had changed, it seemed like my objection from the last thread was ignored. Also, I honestly thought you would remember my objections. I brought memorable examples of needless suffering that was not circumvented. Some incredibly gruesome stories. And I have more to add if you want.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm not refusing to debate. We can debate it again. Since nothing had changed, it seemed like my objection from the last thread was ignored. Also, I honestly thought you would remember my objections. I brought memorable examples of needless suffering that was not circumvented. Some incredibly gruesome stories. And I have more to add if you want.

I remember them perfectly fine, but you see, you never actually understood the point I was trying to make correctly back then, so if you actually read this post, you might actually realize this time, just what point I'm trying to make.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm not refusing to debate. We can debate it again. Since nothing had changed, it seemed like my objection from the last thread was ignored. Also, I honestly thought you would remember my objections. I brought memorable examples of needless suffering that was not circumvented. Some incredibly gruesome stories. And I have more to add if you want.

This part: "Most Abstract Level: Basic Objective Morals" is just like stating that a rock exists, it's not stating how that rock exists in relation to us, or this world, etc. It's just stating that the rock exists, not why it matters.

This part: "Intermediate Level: Advanced Objective Morals" sets a scale of meaning, which allows us to better understand the point of suffering, but it still isn't enough to fully apply that meaning to our lives.

This part: "Specific Level: Practical Moral Norms" Is where an actual full application to our lives is made, an actual law or laws using the Intermediate level and the most abstract level as its basis.

But please don't just read this and think that you don't need to actually read my post, because I am just summarizing it (and it's not even that long).

 

[dybmh]

I remember them perfectly fine, but you see, you never actually understood the point I was trying to make correctly back then, so if you actually read this post, you might actually realize this time, just what point I'm trying to make.

Sorry, I'm not interested in skipping the failed definition. I did indeed read the previous thread, I tried to understand the points you were making. But none of them made sense to me because of the faulty definitions. So, it seems like I did the right thing to be brief in my reply. State my objection, and let you converse with anyone else if they are able to make sense of it in spite of the problem I am observing.

This part: "Most Abstract Level: Basic Objective Morals" is just like stating that a rock exists, it's not stating how that rock exists in relation to us, or this world, etc. It's just stating that the rock exists, not why it matters.

This part: "Intermediate Level: Advanced Objective Morals" sets a scale of meaning, which allows us to better understand the point of suffering, but it still isn't enough to fully apply that meaning to our lives.

This part: "Specific Level: Practical Moral Norms" Is where an actual full application to our lives is made, an actual law or laws using the Intermediate level and the most abstract level as its basis.

But please don't just read this and think that you don't need to actually read my post, because I am just summarizing it (and it's not even that long).

Is the term / concept "needless suffering" needed ( ) for any of these topics? If so, I see no reason to try read those sections if the required concept doesn't match reality.

 

[Echogem222]

Sorry, I'm not interested in skipping the failed definition. I did indeed read the previous thread, I tried to understand the points you were making. But none of them made sense to me because of the faulty definitions. So, it seems like I did the right thing to be brief in my reply. State my objection, and let you converse with anyone else if they are able to make sense of it in spite of the problem I am observing.



Is the term / concept "needless suffering" needed ( ) for any of these topics? If so, I see no reason to try read those sections if the required concept doesn't match reality.

Fine, I'll stop wasting my time with you then.

 

[dybmh]

Fine, I'll stop wasting my time with you then.

It's no different from last time. There's no hard feelings or harsh judgements. I sincerely hope you get to have the conversations you're looking for here. I posted by objection, briefly.