Pretty much, I thought I understood what you were saying at first, which is why I said I agreed with you, but then you argued it was similar to math, which lost me.

The absence of "definitive" morality does not lead to the absence of morality. Indeed, it makes the problem of deciding what to do - which is what morality seems to be about - even more difficult, since there can be no "definitive" rules. — Banno

Well put, it makes way more sense when you explain it that way, because even when I was trying to make my argument, I had to make exceptions to try make a point, because I knew that harming others can't be justified as morally right in any way, which defeats the argument all together. I've only been posting since this morning but its pretty fun, its like sparring but with words lol.

I doubt I'm the strongest Christian supporter on this forum, I don't denounce the religion in any way, and I personally do believe that there are wrong ways to live, I was simply curious to see what others have to say on this matter.

Sorry if I come off as rude, but I'm confused as to what mathematics and true or false have to do with correct or false beliefs.

Thank you for pointing that out, I need to double check what I'm about to post before actually posting it, and maybe have a bit more conviction when arguing a topic. The way Bitter Crank put his argument, I found it hard to support my own argument afterwards.

1) on whether you believe there is a foundational or transcendent purpose to life. If so, then obviously there is a right or wrong way of living. And 2) most people have a worldview which holds values. If they live in a way those values are subverted then you could say they have gone in the wrong direction subject to their value system. — Tom Storm

The only wrong way to live is to be at odds with your values is what I take from this, correct me if I'm wrong.

What would you constitute as false beliefs and correct beliefs?

If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are false then I would say that your lifestyle is wrong necessarily. If the beliefs that you base your lifestyle upon are correct then I would say that your lifestyle is right necessarily. — Average

False and correct according to what though? An individual's beliefs? If that's the case, I agree with you entirely.

This approach will definitely not avoid moral reprehensibility. "Lifestyle" involves choices that affect others in material ways. — Bitter Crank

You make an extremely valid point that I hadn't considered before. Funny story btw, as morally reprehensible as it is.

I understand that there are morally reprehensible things an individual can do, especially to another human being, however I supposed I'm narrowing the argument down to lifestyle.

These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. Don't you think? — javi2541997

Absolutely, but the question is, is safe the right way to live? You make a good point, I mostly agree with what you are saying, good and bad are terms determined by the general public, however I'm arguing that good and bad should be determined by the individual not the masses, such as if a person wanted to live fast and die young, is it morally wrong for them to do so? I know that societal rules have a general purpose in keeping order and values and such, but if someone wanted to live a fully hedonistic life, why shouldn't they?

Great question, I myself don't have a definitive answer, but I believe that some words and concepts can't be explained in their entirety. It is wholly dependent on the topic at hand, such as abstract topics, where the definition is used to help understand the meaning of the word in a practical, everyday use. However, I believe some words have more meaning than the surface level definition. Such as intelligence, we have a practical definition provided by google, however its difficult to measure how intelligent someone is exactly, we just know that they could be considered intelligent.

Maybe it is, but I haven't come up with a better definition for intelligence myself, mainly because its elusive nature is entangled with an individual's performance and success. So google's definition appears to be a decent standard to start from in my eyes.

Why do you believe intelligence is connected to the ability to outperform others? — Average

Perhaps outperform isn't the best word to use in this situation, but by going off of google's definition(which is not the best way to go about it, I use it simply to argue from a standpoint), is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills at a high level. So if someone has performed at a high level of intelligence, compared to someone who is less intelligence, he has "outperformed" them. (I don't mean outperform literally, but simply as a means of describing someone who is performing at a higher level).

Without peers wouldn't intelligence be impossible according to this argument? Isn't He also the dumbest person? — Average

Yes, he is the most intelligent person but also the dumbest, and the standard to which to compare intelligence to. Its contradictory, but its all true, because to whom can he look to and say, "I can out perform them"? No one but himself the day before.

Do you mean that intelligence is similar to calling someone short or tall? In other words you're tall if your taller than most people and you're short if you're shorter than most people? — Average

Good point also, however i believe someone is considered tall if they are higher than the average height of their sex, for men I believe it is 5'9", and women 5'6"(I'm less knowledgeable about this height for obvious reasons). So since there is an average to compare it to, some one who is considered (male) 5'10" is considered tall, while someone who is of the same sex and is 5'6" could be considered short. However if someone who is 5'9"(average) is in the room surrounded by people who are 6' and taller, then they could be considered short.
While intelligence is a bit harder to measure, since most are intelligent in their own ways, it could potentially be compared to height in a way, however the most difficult question is how to accurately determine if someone is intelligent. It may not be definitively possible, IQ is one of the best bets we have and even it does not accurately describe someone's intelligence.

According to your definition of intelligence he couldn't possible be intelligent because intelligence is by definition "the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level" something he is unable to do. — Average

Good point. To clarify, I use Google's definition.

An intelligent person is considered intelligent because they outperform their peers — Jake Hen

Well even if he is stunted mentally somehow, since he is isolated with no one to compare it to, he is the most intelligent person, however if another person joined him in his cell, who happens to know how to read and write (Lets consider that the previous person doesn't), cell mate 2 could be considered intelligent, since his companion is less able to apply and learn knowledge. Cell mate 2's ability is considered high level, since he performs at a higher level compared to cell mate 1.

Couldn't someone who was unable to apply knowledge or learn knowledge due to some twist of fate still be intelligent? — Average

Hard to say, theoretically yes, but without intelligence on display, he couldn't be considered intelligent in my eyes, because considering someone as intelligent is a social title, as it is dependent on those around said intelligent person.

For example someone who was imprisoned in a dark dungeon and therefore unable to learn or apply knowledge at a "high level". — Average

Technically he is and isn't the most intelligent person in his surroundings, because in isolation, to whom does he compare his intelligence to? He is the intelligence standard.

High level is considered above the average skill and learning rate of the general public. If someone considered themselves intelligent, but was not as skillful or efficient compared to the public, is he still intelligent?

Is this what you believe? — Average

Yes, for now, I definitely don't have all the answers, this is the most rational thing I could come up with. An intelligent person is considered intelligent because they outperform their peers. Even someone who could be considered "Stupid" now, could be considered intelligent 100 years ago.

I'm interested in intelligence. — Average

It seems like the surface level observation is that intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level (google), but at what rate depends on those around said intelligent person. If everyone is considered intelligent, then theoretically no one is considered intelligent, because to what could they compare their intelligence to? Only those who perform at a higher level could potentially be considered intelligent.

Please forgive me if I'm coming across as dismissive or pretentious because that is not my intention. — Average

No worries, i understand where you are coming from, perhaps we can discuss this another time.

No it doesn't. I believe that what is good and bad for individuals can be determined objectively. — Average

You make an interesting point.

Do you a reason why you believe this? — Average

Why should the belief of those around you determine what is good and bad for you? An individual is just that, an individual, who theoretically has the ability to ascertain what is beneficial to them. And what constitutes beneficial for said individual? Well it depends on what they value most in life, no? If a person values material pleasure over immaterial ones then the best thing for them would be to material wealth in any form they choose. I don't believe this to be true at all, I could deliver anecdotes and instances where this is not the case, but it still doesn't make their values any less valid. In a nutshell, good and bad are subjective to everyone, some gain their morals from the those around them and others form them from their own individual experiences.

Cancel Culture exists, on both right and left wing side, and it's awful. Not because it brings to light foul things someone might have done ignorantly or purposefully in the past, but because it tries to use these past events to attempt to deplatform the opposition. It uses the misdeed at face value as justification to censor the opposition, which takes away from the misdeed itself. No one benefits from this, and the fact that you want to argue that it doesn't exist is confusing. Either you decide to turn a blind eye to it or you are truly ignorant to it entirely. It's not like this is a new phenomenon either, defaming opposition has been a tactic since the Roman republic.

Some people aim to get high by using heroin but does the mere fact that you were aiming for that outcome make it good for you? — Average

"Good for you" is determined by the individual, if someone wants to burn out on drugs and die an early death, that may have been the best decision for said person at the given time and mindset he was in. I am no judge.

Does the mere fact that you disagree with other people make your opinion correct? — Average

Not at all, and maybe I just fail to see your point but I don't see how this is related to moral right and wrong as opposed to fact or fiction.

What if the result you were aiming for is bad for you? — Average

How could it bad for you if that is what you were aiming for? Perhaps what others consider as "bad" you consider a blessing.

Generally they are and they aren't. Paul said, "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." Basically, early Christianity began incorporating philosophy into its dogma to combat pagan critics of the religion. And knowing that Christianity came to dominate Western Europe, they silenced many pagan philosophies that argued with Christian Ideals, so philosophy became synonymous with religion. Which is probably why he believes that.