Morality

Well from what I took from your premise is that morality is relative . How does subjectiveness come into play? Well that's how I understand and interpret relativity as another term for subjectiveness. All we're really talking about here is something occurring dependent on another. Something being what it is based on another. In this topic, something is deemed immoral due to the idea which is subjective-ness of another. While something else is deemed moral by the idea which is the subjectivity of another. Meaning there is no solid criteria or foundation across the board to follow. Depending on who you ask you will get different input on every specific subject concerning what's called ethics. So with no foundation, criteria or standard, it's all plastic so to speak. Meaning like genetics that alter and adapt the organism according to it's environment , the government changes laws according to who is in office as the society votes them in. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about the "reap what you sew" statement. You pretty much reiterated what was basically in my last post. In essence you get out what you put in and that's as straightforward as it goes. People can decide anything they want to like choosing objectively between what to do and what not to do. As it was put forth, there is cause and effect in everything. So just simply understand it this way as much as possible. An action that one chooses begets a result. That's it, an action that one chooses begets a result. Whether one will accept why is there a particular result in the first place regardless of anything we do, hopefully one will be heuristic to find out. So people make all kinds of choices. Does that mean that there isn't a specific criteria required to be followed just because we can make choices? Like a choice to go outside , oppose and defy the order of things. Which will go into how does morality get it's criteria ? How has it been fashioned into a manual of instructions for good deeds minus evil? Murder was mentioned as being understood as something wrong to do. How do we figure that? Then it was mentioned direct killing or indirect killing is not wrong or entirely wrong. Well how is this determined besides with an insubstantial, insufficient , inadequate explanation of an idea that humans have ? See that has yet to be elaborated on in reference to this relative morality notion. I have already explained and you can re-read the previous post to get clarity. I have given an exposition on how it's been concluded that morality would have objective regulations. See when it's all relative, there really is no clear understanding on what morality is based on. Morals change from person to person. They as in individuals ,put into exactly what they get out which is decision making. Those decisions are different between everyone based on their individual ideas. It's what they believe to be wrong or not. So with all this inconsistency , morality is abstract. How can something be wrong here and not wrong there?? It's one or other other. It either exists or it doesn't . The dividing line is erased or is just blurred. As far as when we are talking about nature , what is meant when the word nature is used? I've understood it to be everything under the natural and not being taught or manipulated. So how does nature relate to morality? Well, morality is the identification of do's and dont's. How do we come to decide do one thing and not the other or not doing one thing and or opposed to something period? It's based on decision making which comes from the faculties of our brains. Which is the natural process in how our organs function. The whole point of discussion is, does morality have a firm fundamental basis or does the basis stop at one's opinion? I'm holding the position that when we look at morality as being only as meaningful as the way one single person sees it, there's truly a loss in cause in the value of positively affecting all collectively. If we're not all on one accord, that's usually where conflict arises. So the topic of this subject of not being more than relativity , or more meaning than what we give it if we decide to give it any at all, what we do or not do in life doesn't matter at least in essential principle. Except the result shows anything that we do changes the reality of us doing whatever we're doing to continue doing or perhaps never doing again(permanent cessation). Even this idea based on relativity and doing things any old kind of way won't prosper without universal rules.