How one should live.

No, it would be saying that we cannot objectively determine which outcome issues are morally better.

I know people who had abortions (shush, Iamb)- and thought this was morally acceptable - and one who did not have one though she had not wanted to become pregant- because she thought it was immoral. She refused to get an abortion despite dreading the pregnancy, the child, et… I cannot determine, despite all outcomes who was morally correct.

Can you give us an outline of the formula for determining outcome measurement.

You missed my OP. The whole point of the OP was to prove that reality with more than one person always causes problems.

Abortion is simple. If there’s a cosmic messiah, this being would by definition be impossible to abort. The rest of it hinges on the mothers determination that she cannot be a hands on parent in her capacity, and doesn’t trust anyone else to raise her own child. But those are approaching micro proofs. My OP is a meta proof…

If everyone lives a 100% consensual reality, by hallucination their own reality from an infinite number of eternal forms i the manner it suits them, even consendually deciding they only want 80% of the reality to be consensual for them… and it is just as hyper-realistic as this reality … then you have objectively solved all subjective issues, and proven an ought for what to strive towards in this world absent that, which can also be calculated (a less zero sum world) and what the goal is - entirely hallucinated reality.

If they do…?

First you have to demonstrate this is the case. That is an ‘is’ proof, but not an easy one.
Second, there is no morality in such a universe. There is no need for one.
Nothing could possibly be immoral. And nothing would be moral. These would be meaningless.
There would simply be preferences.

All that eliminates is true victims.

There are billions of victims, simply because the man or woman down the block either is or is not sexually active with you - zero sum - immoral

Go back to my op.

What this proves is that this world system itself is immoral. Any solution to that, has to, by definition be moral.

There are outcome issues but they are not the same for everyone and so they cannot be universal because they are subjective
For there to be a universal truth everyone would have to accept and live their life by the same moral code without exception

And I’m giving you that moral code based on your own standard - everyone living out their preferences unimpeded - until that occurs, society should move to a less zero sum system.

This is not rigorous enough to be a universal truth based on a moral code that is acceptable to everyone
Not everyone can live their lives without either imposing on someone else or someone imposing on them

Like I stated earlier, you can choose to use the exact consciousness signature from the eternal form or change it, you can make it as easy or difficult as you prefer. Who are you to tell people that they need to be domineering or dominated … that’s for them to decide.

Do they have the moral right to dominate me when I do not want to be dominated
Do I not have the moral right to resist all domination of me that is against my will

I wasn’t talking about this world. I was talking about completely hallucinated realities.

Since this is the apex of what ought one do, absent that manifesting, working to alleviate zero sum in this world is congruent with the apex. Different contexts, different rules.

It reminds me of a Sikh story where one person is chosen to harm no life, so the others use brooms to sweep away ants (which are likely killed) so that this person is kept pure. They know their ideal and try to manifest it in this world.

Exactly.
The question is a statement of his own capacity to question.
He taunts: do I not question? This is what the will to power does in the type Iambiguous.

Which is good literature. Would it not be worth reading his undoing step by step, discovering the evil power of honesty?

Ultimately the good needs to be defined to be proven different. But the good by that time is gone. Whats problematic about the approach is that it is really a one sided question; “was the killing inevitable?” This is the tragedy behind it all, the fact that there are only conflicting goods; the will to power allows only conflicting entities. Pain is the answer. Regret, remorse, deep melancholy, this is what Dasein becomes when it questions its right to self-value, to bias; to try to “solve” the given of bias is just misguided, the results desolate.

I contend that Iamb’s question is resolved in this dialogue.

“You are fond of him Spiros. You should have had a son.”
“But then I would have had a wife.”

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1eDuFlOl-c[/youtube]

If goods weren’t conflicting there would be no way of knowing them as goods.
Instead of just causing a great deal of pain for the beauty to shine through, all would a priori be lost.

“Goods” are always conflicting. Nietzsche quickly solved this. But I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t read him.

I will say that as soon as Nietzsche effortlessly defined good he made clear that he wasn’t a moralist. And indeed: can anyone say good taste is “good?”

Nietzsche wasn’t good. He was just the first decent human being.

Or, you know, wasn’t good on purpose.

Well said.
It clarifies good as the dirtiest word of all.

Except when used not addressing man, where it retains its pristine original meaning effortlessly.

“Good” becomes dirty when applied to man.
Good pie is great. Good apples, yum. A good man?
Thats your one excuse to run.

But whenever they stand over someones grave and say ‘he was a good man’, there was nothing else to say.
“No harm done” on the tombstone.
Good by life is different from good in death.
Like chicken is good in death, where a cat is good in life.
Chickens even really don’t seem to mind the prospect of death as gravely as say pigs or ducks. In the first moments they don’t even notice that they’re dead. There must not be a very stark change.

I’m going to be perfectly honest, you guys are shoveling shit.

Who thinks they’d be most suited to debate me?

I will debate you that morality is objective.

Could you give some examples of how one should live based on the OP. Actual situations lived as one should as opposed to other options.

I don’t get the OP. Here it seems you are saying reality is immoral. I don’t know what that means. Is this a version of the problem of evil?