YN

Then properly define "obedience"...

Do you want to do another debate after this

Helloooooo

Doing as told(your orginal definition for the word "obedient"): following someone's commands.
Meeting expectations: mutual responsibilities you agree on before a relationship. Doesn't necessarily mean one person obeying another.
For an example, husband and wife both expect each other to be honest with the other. Neither is "obeying" the other. They are both meeting a shared expectation.

On your counter to my negotiations example,
Who do you think is obeying whom then?(since you said negotiations didn't contradict obedience)...
Is it the husband obeying the wife? But he still got his car as he wished.
Is it the wife obeying the husband? But she still managed to save enough money as she wished.
Neither obeyed anyone. Both reached a compromise.
That's "negotiation".
If you call that obedience, then you changed the definition once again from doing as told to meeting expectations to just a broad ambiguous term, which would be near impossible to debate with.

One more question: what distinguishes a obedience relationship from a cooperation relationship

Let's give you an example of relationships with mutual respect and negotiations..
Say a husband wants to spend the family's entire savings on an expensive sports car.
The wife refuses because they have children to support and other more important financial decisions to make.

In your situation, she obeys him, and the family loses all their savings.
In the relationship with mutual decision making, they discuss it and negotiate and eventually agree to buy a cheaper car while keeping enough savings for the family.

Neither partner simply obeyed each other and yet the relationship remained successful due to mutual agreement.

Does your claim that relationship require obedience account for this example?

Meeting expectations is not doing as told.
You changed the definition of "obedience" again, either restate it or drop "obedience", the term, as a whole.
"Being useful means being obedient"
No. Someone can be useful without being "obedient" they can be supportive and caring and reliable, without being "obedient"(doing as told as you said).

You are saying that "either you're obedient or relationship fails" but that's false.
Relationships CAN have mutual respect and shared decision making and still be successful.

You're idea that being obedient saves a marriage is merely a possibility. It's not always true. Other scenarios can be true too. The husband being obedient could save the marriage, the wife being obedient could save the marriage, both partners mutually agreeing to each other could save the marriage.

Keyword: could. Because where have you shown me that obedience is "necessary"?

And last but not the least,
Your arguments were indeed challenged.
The definition of obedient, your contridiction in judging abuse, and your exceptions. I challenged all that. You didn’t respond to any of those.

Can you respond to the arguments I made rather than restating your conclusion? You know, that is the whole point of debating, bringing in arguments instead of calling a detailed counterargument "yapping".

So...you are saying obedience is conditional? Would you like to refine your orginal definition then?
You've abandoned the idea that obedience is justified because "it preserves the marriage"(as you said in your argument in the only round)...in your example, the marriage with the criminal ends anyway...
Thus, preserving the marriage is not the reason after all, and "doing as told" isn't actually your definition of obedient.

In your argument you also said that "My opponent might say some ** like "what if man wants something bad or is abusive", but reality is, it's not woman's job to think and judge that."

But the wife seems to be able to determine what's morally right and what's not in your criminal husband situation. If that's the case, then that argument you made doesn't hold up because the woman does judge and think that and you are okay with it because "she can leave and pursue another man"

And let's take this further. The husband sincerely believes something is moral, and the wife sincerely believes it's immoral. What happens then? If she may not refuse, that means your exception for the criminal husband disappears.

If he tells her to do a crime, should she do it? What if he gives her two contradictory instructions? Should the woman do "immoral acts" If he tells her to?

Hmm...does this mean the woman should do "immoral acts" If her man tells her to do so?
As in, he tells her to commit a crime, should she do it? What if he gives her two contradictory instructions? What would she do then?

Me

You could define your terms in the description.. you know...

Define "obedient"...

Also, by the way, this is not "unique" to hinduism, the same concepts exist in other eastern 'religions'. However, I've not explored them...

"My eventual reading list grows"
I saved myself hours of pondering by watching an hour of lecture videos online about advaita vedanta and reading opinionated books. But, if you want to finish it quick. Read tattvbodh(for beginners)+ Bhagvad Gita(the oversimplified short ones for understanding hinduism).

You can find it online, get the easily readable shorter once.

Also, a square and a triangle are unable to suffer. They are made up things from human tendency to notice patterns in nature and use them for their advantage.

I suggest the vedas too(rigveda). But do NOT start with it. It is mostly just hymns and is symbolic about ethics.
The problem with all this is that hinduism is not structured in that way. Philosophies constantly contridict each other and hinduism has many schools of thoughts. There is no fixed creed to it. Ultimately, they all center around dharma. That is, eternal duty(your 'role' as a human). A commonly misunderstood term which is commonly found in eastern religions.

Mahabharata? That's a good start, most people I know start there, but it is more story and ethics than philosophy. I would've suggested upanishads but they are too complex...even I am unable to grasp them completely...but I'd recommend reading Advaita Vedanta. But I think being taught about it my someone with an expertise(free online) makes it much easier. I want to study hinduism deeply, but that is probably impossible in my lifetime. Maybe I can. You don't need to master everything like a textbook. Just understand it surface level and it's message/core idea on non duality.

Just because health is context dependent does not mean it is "not objective".
Even in a GIVEN system, health still has objective criteria. Health is how well a system functions with relation to their structure. For the octopus, is it functioning how it is 'designed', is that aligned with its biological process?

Now on morality,
Just like how health depends on organism and its environment, morality depends on the mind and its experience.
AND, just like health, once that system is defined, better/worse becomes objective.

I get you, but experience is not arbitrary. In the comment, I wasn't saying torture is objectively wrong in the universe. I was saying that torture produces negative conscious states and outcomes for the well being of the beings. Whether they prefer it or not is irrelevant. A person being tortured, say physically, will regardless have wounds or possibly face death, even if they prefer this, this is objectively bad for their BEING.
Humans also have a massive overlap on psychology..ALMOST no one prefers extreme suffering for their own sake.
Atzecs weren't loving suffering, they believed that the suffering let them achieve a higher goal.
Suffering is still treated as a COST, not as "good".

Also, something can be evolutionary useful, but still cause massive suffering. Cannabilism or violence, yes, helped in survival. But what did it do to the conscious experience?

Could you explain more on the error you saw in his(sam harris) book?

Next, you misunderstood what tat tvam asi(thou art that, you are that) is...not that "you and I are same individual"(just too simplified)...no.

It's saying the distinction between the self and reality is not fundamental.. waves and ocean analogy is the best I can give. Waves may look separate, but are not separate from the ocean in substance. There is 'nothing' "separating" reality. It's about non duality.
Stoicism isn't even close tbh.
(I was refering to Advaita vedanta)
Advaita vedanta questions the reality of individuality.
Stoicism already accepts individuality.

"I am fond of my Ego and Idea of self" so is everyone. Advaita vedanta acknowledges this. The "self" is an illusion. Everyone is a 'you'. Everyone is also an 'I'. You are also a 'you' and so am I. But 'I' just an illusion here. Because as said, we are all 'you', who think we are 'I'.

The 'I' is a mistake of cognition. By this I am not saying you, me, or anyone else, is "non existent"(impossible in my view), but rather they are DEPENDENT realities.

BASICALLY, anyone, and everyone, is no different from brahman(the non dual consciousness).

I find this liberating since I understand that my TRUE identity is not 'I' or my ego, but the SELF of all beings.

One more, little bit unrelated, but have you heard of "We are Brahman"(simplified)? Or "Tat Tvam Asi"? If so, what are your thoughts on it? It is saying consciousness, or reality is an ocean and "WE" are just waves. It is too complicated to explain...

Do we really need objective truth to justify moral claims?

Even if morality is subjective, do you agree that some states are worse than others on outcomes to conscious beings? Torture vs wellbeing? There is indeed a difference in experiencing torture vs experiencing peace. You could say "it depends on the person", but is there a difference in the outcome of these two experiences? If so, which one is better or worse for society?

Another thought, do we really need objective morality? If we can define objective facts about subjective experience(consciousness), and the universal-ish pattern of avoidance "certain experiences" exists, so can't we conclude that morality is organizing behavior around unwanted things? This is a contrast from Sam Harris's "well being has right/wrong answers". It asserts morality is just based on shared preferences.

I see, well, I loved the book, but it's your opinion! Thank you for taking my suggestion.

According to Sam, living creatures care about experience, and morality is just the optimization of those experiences.
Well being, according to him, is comparable to health. The lack of a perfect definition for well being is often brought up by critics. To address that concern, What does it mean to be considered healthy? Can today's healthy be tomorrow's healthy? Yet, health is still objective.
Objectivity is also open to discussion, unlike something subjective. If morality is subjective, then it cannot be tested, measured, or even debated. If it is objective, it is open to arguments and counter arguments. You do not need a perfect agreement for objective standard. Just like medicine.
You should read the book(my suggestion).

Okay. I see.
I am fine. I just wanted to challange my thoughts. that's all. I relate to your guilt part, I'm often afraid I misunderstand people or misguide them.
I see you checked my profile. Glad you were curious. When I say hindu, I just resonate with the philosophy they offer and "dharma" and all. Does not mean I 'practice' it. Just saying because people assume I do.
I put life priority as survive because it is the most accurate, right? I exist(have being) to exist(survive) seems fitting to me.
Finally, What a compassionate person you are! I'm glad you enjoyed the debate.
Also, have you read the "moral landscape"?

Hopefully...I try to do well. Sometimes I get frustrated due to thinking too much. I used to agree with moral subjectivity too. I was never a nihilist, but it is easily defendable in my view. it is still logically flawed in my opinion.
Anyway, why do you ask? Also, hope you enjoyed the debate, you challenged my ideas well :)

You say suffering doesn’t exist, but also claim people cannot reach the state you are in and you call them 'NPCs'. This suggests that people do experience suffering, you just dismiss them as 'NPCs'.
Regardless, pain, grief and distress are real and observable experiences. Changing goals is cope. If someone loses a loved one, they will still experience grief, even if they accept the loss later.
Your definition of God is so vague and flexible that it becomes meaningless. Sure, you can become god, as long as you make the definition vague and 'you' as possible.
Your claims on 'abandoning reality' and other claims aren't testable and are unfalsifiable. I am not obligated to accept them(unless provided with evidence).

Then why do we have a universal human experience of physical and emotional pain?
If someone loses a loved one, do they just change their goals? How is that going to undo the grief?

Okay. Why do you think that way about suffering?