That's not a moral judgement. In fact, it's not even a
judgement. The fact of suffering comes first, and we
don't have any choice about being for or against it --
if we like it, or even are merely indifferent to it,
it's not suffering. And I don't "judge" things that
are unnecessary to be bad. It's a purely practical/
logical point that unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.
>>>The only reason to make a
>>>moral judgement is to feel superior. And I'm no better than
>>>those who do so. I don't cling to that particular delusion,
>>>but I'm no better. Just better off.
>
>at others who are more comfortable with the terms, and the debate. You,
>in your denial of the thing called "morality", are pursuing a more and
>more specious argument as you try to prove that some things are
>objectively "right" or "wrong" while denying that there's any such thing
>as "good" and "bad". In for a penny, in for a pound.
I'm not trying to prove that anything is objectively
"right" or "wrong" -- where did I give that impression?
We cling to things that we associate with pleasure and
try to evade things that we think cause suffering. To
say that is merely to describe how things are. My point
is that less clinging and evasion actually means less
suffering -- so I'm making a purely practical suggestion
about the best means of achieving what we all want. Yes,
this is what you "should" do -- but morality doesn't
come into it!
Metta,
-- Robin