tadmjones

Intentionally harm without necessity, and with malice. And an added connotation, among others, that wanton action ignorant of or purposefully ignorant of possible harmful consequences is unethical. At least that is the impression I have of a more general and overarching frame of the moral character of principles of dharma. Morality tainted by Abrahamic religions and rejected on the basis of the concept of sin. Where as Krishna was not justifying or prompting Arjuna to take action against sin/sinners, but to perform his duty as situated in possible action or inaction for positive ends as against negative ones.

You do know that dharmic principles are based on the idea that intentionally causing harm is ‘wrong’ and that heeding the principles are appropriate to one’s self to avoid negative consequences to the self.

Stephen Yes I can imagine drawing such a sketch, but I don’t somehow associate the ‘knowing’ with a visual image that ‘provides’ the authentification of the knowing ? Corpus callosum variation ,perhaps? Those with internal visual imagery ‘deficiencies ‘ maybe have access to spatial reasoning ‘output’ without seeing the sausage being made, lol.

You think the principles of dharma are incorrect , but they do exist as principles and millions of people for thousands of years have lived by them. Everything of religious origin should be shunned? Moral rational people would not or should not experience reverence for a story about the ideal man in flesh and bone , whose tenets if followed would bring one to a state nearer perfection?

Multinational alliances would need to be in place and acted on for a world war. War between individual nation states usually involve territorial expansion/control as a result or most likely intention regardless rhetoric used by regimes to instigate populations.

Sorry , yes I have a habit of not using the quote feature 'enough'.

All true based on a strict materialism. Non strict materialism has concepts like dharmic principles that incorporate ideas that allow for distinctions of relationship between consciousness and the gross physical realm. A 'space(as the kids say)' for nature to have an identity that allows for cognition of the appearance and experience of physicality without dispensing with the reality of the subjectivity of experience(consciousness). When you say 'rational consciousness' do you see volitional as concomitant to 'rationality' ?

"Is" is reducible or determinate assuming the ability to identify facts as existent and set, an unchangable aspect of reality(physical, objective) , "ought" is conditional , A is not A ?

“Indeed, on close inspection one sees that by far the greater number of educated people still desire convictions from a thinker and nothing but convictions, and that only a small minority want certainty. The former want to be forcibly carried away in order thereby to obtain an increase of strength; the latter few have the real interest which disregards personal advantages and the increase of strength also. The former class, who greatly predominate, are always reckoned upon when the thinker comports himself and labels himself as a genius, and thus views himself as a higher being to whom authority belongs. In so far as genius of this kind upholds the ardour of convictions, and arouses distrust of the cautious and modest spirit of science, it is an enemy of truth, however much it may think itself the wooer thereof.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits

I’ve noticed it a few times in other posts on the forum and thought it was an editing/formatting snafu. We are certain there aren’t any hidden emojicons?

Really, how so?

The poster evaluated an individual's self described self observation as an example of a proper result flowing from a proper application of principle, I was suggesting the poster more closely evaluate the source of the report of having achieved a paragon status of rationality.

So volitional consciousness is the acme or apex of naturally occurring phenomenon, not 'outside' of nature? Your wording seems to leave open the possibility that cancer is evil, but I don't think that is what you intended to express.

Theory is applied philosophy, science is a method to test a theory against reality. Premises are context, they may be incorrect against wider contexts, incongruent when integrated into a wider , or the widest context, but premises aren't/can't be 'out of context'.

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?