Marlon Bundo

[Mountain Man]

You're confusing me with JimL. I have never made this argument. If you think I have, link to it, please.



Since I have never made the argument you accuse me of, I have no response and don't need to defend this. You appear to be either confusing me with JimL, or you're positing a strawman.

You said:

Pedophelia is defined as sexual activity between a mature human being and an immature one. Different cultures set that bound everywhere...

You then tried to patch this up by saying that "different cultures throughout the world set that boundary at different places," but you still haven't explained what's to stop any given culture from setting that boundary were you think they shouldn't, or why it would be objectively wrong for them to do so. You content yourself with the notion that many cultures still consider pedophilia to be "icky" and think that this will be sufficient to stop its acceptance, but there was a time not too long ago that people said the exact same thing about homosexuality.

This is the problem with herd morality: it can and will change on the whims of whoever has the most influence.

[seer]

I've gone back to find where that happened in the discussion, and I'm not seeing it. Care to point it out?

You use two different criterion, you said:

Ahead (morally ahead) of because they are futher along in shifting to acceptance of the LGBTQ community. And yes, because it aligns with my moral framework and the evolving framework of our society.

The first point is meaningless as a standard for moral good or evil, it is only a good, really, because it happens to conform to what you presently think is good or just. In other words acceptance of homosexual behavior is not a good in itself, but merely good because because you just happen to agree.

[Darth Executor]

Recently, I engaged in a discussion in another thread concerning my state of mind about our country, and the upcoming election cycles (2018, 2020). I was told I was a gloomy gus (so to speak). I have to admit my spirits were somewhat lifted when I saw this.

As a background, Marlon Bundo is the pet rabbit of the Pence family. Charlotte (his daughter) wrote a children's book about "a day in the life of the VP." It was illustrated by Mrs. Pence. Last Sunday night, John Oliver's "feature" segment was all about Mike Pence, his political history, and his stance on several social issues, including homosexuality. As a form of protest against that stance, Oliver assembled a team that quickly wrote a competing children's book, which is all about the desire of Marlon Bundo to marry another male bunny called Wesley, and how he overcame the opposition of a remarkably Pence-like stink bug who decreed "boys don't marry boys." An audio book was quickly created, which engages the talents of some big-name gay actors.

As of today, the hard copies of the "protest" book have sold out, and the book tops the Amazon charts, eclipsing even Comey's new book. All of the proceeds of BOTH books are going to charity. Pence's book is going to an art therapy program (Tracy's Kids) and a nonprofit dedicated to ending human trafficking. The protest book proceeds are going to AIDS United and the Trevor Project.

I bought five copies of the protest book and will give them out as gifts. Now that I know the proceeds from the Pence book are also going to charity, I'm giving thought to buying at least one. But I was very heartened to see that Ms. Charlotte bought a copy of the protest book. It gives me hope that such a huge outpouring of support for the LGBTQ community can happen today, and even the daughter of a man like Mr. Pence can act as she has.

Dirtbag carpedm decries the lack of civility in politics, then PAYS MONEY to subsidize nasty attacks on a perfectly civil politician and his family. My opinion of you, which wasn't that high to begin with, just took another serious dive.

[carpedm9587]

You said:

Yes, I did - and then noted that it was very sloppy English and clarified it in the next post. It should have said, "different cultures set that bound at different ages."

You then tried to patch this up by saying that "different cultures throughout the world set that boundary at different places," but you still haven't explained what's to stop any given culture from setting that boundary were you think they shouldn't,

Generally, because people value life and value their children, they develop moral norms that protect those children. The cultural reference is simply a shorthand for the collective mral stance of the members of that culture. That is what typically stops individuals (and hence the culture) from setting the boundary below puberty. Between puberty and about 20, there are examples of cultures pretty much across that spectrum.

or why it would be objectively wrong for them to do so.

How can I claim it would be "objectively wrong" for them to do so when I believe morality is subjectively derived? I can tell you why I believe it is morally wrong, but I cannot claim an objective basis in a subjective moral framework.

You content yourself with the notion that many cultures still consider pedophilia to be "icky" and think that this will be sufficient to stop its acceptance, but there was a time not too long ago that people said the exact same thing about homosexuality.

I don't believe I used the term "icky," (though there is a tendency for some people to derive moral codes on the basis of revulsion, which I consider to be a weak basis at best). I think homosexuality views are changing because people are rapidly seeing that circumstances have changed since it was first expressed as immoral, and people are seeing the flaws in the moral reasoning that leads to it being considered "immoral" in the first place.

This is the problem with herd morality: it can and will change on the whims of whoever has the most influence.

Herd mentality, yes. And there is no doubt that many moral concepts have been derived as a result of "herd mentality." Eventually, reason usually wins out.


While we are on the subject of morality, I made myself a promise when I returned to TWeb - that I would not return to the type of vitriolic post I was promne to with certain posters the last time I was here. Although I have largely kept that promise, if there is someone here I am more likely to have slipped into the occasional sarcastic/sardonic post, it is probably you. And I have certainly teased you on more than one occasion. That is not in keeping with that promise, so I am apologizing for those posts. I will work harder to keep my promise. I wish I could claim I will be perfect at it - but I can only claim I will try.

[carpedm9587]

You use two different criterion, you said:

So the two criteria are a) my moral framework and b) society's moral framework? Is that how you are reading that?

Let me see if I can be clearer. The general shift towards acceptance of the LGBTQ community is seen by me as "moving forwards" because it aligns with my moral code. If I thought as you do, I would probably see it as "moving backwards," as I presume is your view. Now that the majority of people have a moral code (related to this) that aligns with mine, it can generally be said that "society" sees people who shift their moral stance in this way are "moving forward" as well, and society sees itself as moving forward as the laws continue to shift and the number of people who adopt this moral code continues to increase. But, truth be told, "society" doesn't think anything. It's the people who make up a society that are doing the thinking.

The first point is meaningless as a standard for moral good or evil, it is only a good, really, because it happens to conform to what you presently think is good or just. In other words acceptance of homosexual behavior is not a good in itself, but merely good because because you just happen to agree.

Of COURSE acceptance of homosexuality is not "morally good in itself." That suggests an objective moral framework where there is none. You appear to simply (again) be objecting that subjective morality is not objective. We already both agree that is true. I don't understand your need to keep reminding us/me.

BTW - although I have been less likely to post sarcastically or to tease you than I have MM, I have engaged in that a few times since my return. I just want to apologize for those times where I have, and renew my commitment to keeping the discussion positive and about the issues.

[carpedm9587]

Dirtbag carpedm decries the lack of civility in politics, then PAYS MONEY to subsidize nasty attacks on a perfectly civil politician and his family. My opinion of you, which wasn't that high to begin with, just took another serious dive.

The book does not parody anyone in person. It parodies a single point of view: Pence's anti-homosexualiy stance. At no point does it take aim at his family or even name the VP (though Mr. Stink Bug does bear a passing similarity to Mr. Pence). You might want to read the book.

As for the rest, I cannot say I ever expected to be viewed by you in a positive light...

Too bad. I'm a really nice guy.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, I did - and then noted that it was very sloppy English and clarified it in the next post. It should have said, "different cultures set that bound at different ages."



Generally, because people value life and value their children, they develop moral norms that protect those children. The cultural reference is simply a shorthand for the collective mral stance of the members of that culture. That is what typically stops individuals (and hence the culture) from setting the boundary below puberty. Between puberty and about 20, there are examples of cultures pretty much across that spectrum.



How can I claim it would be "objectively wrong" for them to do so when I believe morality is subjectively derived? I can tell you why I believe it is morally wrong, but I cannot claim an objective basis in a subjective moral framework.



I don't believe I used the term "icky," (though there is a tendency for some people to derive moral codes on the basis of revulsion, which I consider to be a weak basis at best). I think homosexuality views are changing because people are rapidly seeing that circumstances have changed since it was first expressed as immoral, and people are seeing the flaws in the moral reasoning that leads to it being considered "immoral" in the first place.



Herd mentality, yes. And there is no doubt that many moral concepts have been derived as a result of "herd mentality." Eventually, reason usually wins out.


While we are on the subject of morality, I made myself a promise when I returned to TWeb - that I would not return to the type of vitriolic post I was promne to with certain posters the last time I was here. Although I have largely kept that promise, if there is someone here I am more likely to have slipped into the occasional sarcastic/sardonic post, it is probably you. And I have certainly teased you on more than one occasion. That is not in keeping with that promise, so I am apologizing for those posts. I will work harder to keep my promise. I wish I could claim I will be perfect at it - but I can only claim I will try.

First of all, I have little patience for this debate tactic where an argument is sliced and diced and each piece addressed individually, in some cases line by line, with little regard for the larger context. It tends to obscure rather than clarify, which I often suspect is the intent.

Secondly, your "argument", essentially, is to describe how things are rather than explain why they ought to be that way as opposed to another. You say that views on homosexuality "are changing because people are rapidly seeing that circumstances have changed since it was first expressed as immoral, and people are seeing the flaws in the moral reasoning that leads to it being considered 'immoral' in the first place," but that exact same reasoning can be used to defend pedophilia, or bestiality, or indeed any other act that you might personally find offensive. For that matter, uber-atheist Richard Dawkins recently suggested that we might consider consuming lab-grown human flesh to see if we can overcome the "taboo" against cannibalism!

When you reject the only foundation on which objective moral reasoning can be based, you end up in the world of moral relativism where literally anything and everything becomes permissible and defensible. This is where you find yourself and why you are repeatedly stymied whenever the conversation shifts to the topic of moral philosophy.

[carpedm9587]

First of all, I have little patience for this debate tactic where an argument is sliced and diced and each piece addressed individually, in some cases line by line, with little regard for the larger context. It tends to obscure rather than clarify, which I often suspect is the intent.

It's not. I read the entire post, then go back and start at the beginning and inject responses where they fit in the flow of the discussion, so they are associated witht he things I am responding to.

Secondly, your "argument", essentially, is to describe how things are rather than explain why they ought to be that way as opposed to another.

Ought to be? They are the way they are. Why would I think they "ought to be" different?

You say that views on homosexuality "are changing because people are rapidly seeing that circumstances have changed since it was first expressed as immoral, and people are seeing the flaws in the moral reasoning that leads to it being considered 'immoral' in the first place," but that exact same reasoning can be used to defend pedophilia, or bestiality, or indeed any other act that you might personally find offensive.

No, I don't think they "can be." If you think they can be, then I suggest you put forward the line of reasoning and we can look at it. Since my stance on bestiality will likely be problematic in that discussion, I suggest you use pedophilia.

For that matter, uber-atheist Richard Dawkins recently suggested that we might consider consuming lab-grown human flesh to see if we can overcome the "taboo" against cannibalism!

The act of eating human flesh is itself, IMO, but has no moral component. It is usually the method of obtaining that flesh that is morally objectionable. If you think otherwise, then lets look at your argument.

Meanwhile, if Dawkins is trying to deal with the general protein shortage, I'd prefer we begin with insects, myself.

When you reject the only foundation on which objective moral reasoning can be based, you end up in the world of moral relativism where literally anything and everything becomes permissible and defensible.

No - you don't. If you think that is the case, let's examine some specific moral code.

This is where you find yourself and why you are repeatedly stymied whenever the conversation shifts to the topic of moral philosophy.

I actually haven't been stymied once, that I know of. I am asked questions, I respond to them, and we move on. Indeed, I have pointed out that the stymied one, AFAICT, is the objective moralist. Besides not being able to get away from the subjective nature of their own morality, they also simply don't have an argument. The only argument repeatedly put forward reduces to "moral subjectivism is not objective." As I have noted multiple times, that is not an argument. It's a repetition of a definition. We all agree that moral subjectivism is not objective. When that gets nowhere, then the argument usually shifts to arguments from outrage (i.e., you can't say killing Jews is wrong) or ridicule (i.e., it's merely an opinion). It is indeed an opinion. It's just not "merely" one.

[Teallaura]

...



I never raised Gandhi or King at all, as far as I can tell. You did.

...

Page 1

Actually - it is not about mindless hatred. It is about objecting to a position that discriminates against a group of people. MLK was not about "mindless hatred." Gandhi was not about mindless hatred. Those who are standing up for people who are gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, or queer are not engaging in "mindless hatred." They are defending those who should be defended.

[carpedm9587]

Page 1

You're right - and I can see how you came away with that impression. I was responding to the "liberal's mindless hatred" statement. I was not attempting to compare MLK or Gandhi to John Oliver.

I have to admit - I am very tired of listening to both sides describe each other as engaging in "mindless hatred." From where I sit - both sides are hating an awful lot. My wife and I just went to see "Paul, The Apostle of Christ." Yes, it's just a movie. But I was struck by the forceful insistence Paul had on love being the ONLY way; that violent words and violent actions are not in the spirit of Christ, and not what Christ wanted. Then I come back here to see people who claim the banner of Christ threaten to wage physical war on those who do not agree with them - and call those who do not agree with them "haters." The Christians of the first century faced true persecution...and many of them were moved to martyrdom for their faith. That does not appear to be the spirit of many modern Christians - especially those who are more "evangelical" in their beliefs. Hatred is not responded to with love...it is responded to with more hatred.

Charlotte Pence is a young lady who earned my respect this week - which is why I bought her book. Instead of responding with vitriol at the protest book - she recognized that it was benefitting charities, and she went out and bought it. Because of her example, I did the same.

I hope THAT spirit becomes more common in our country and in our world.

[JimL]

Moral frameworks are built upon the things we value, as I have said multiple times.

And as human beings, fundamentally speaking, we all value the same things?

They are derived by applying reasoning to our actions and the consequences for the things we value.

See above.

If you and I value the same things in nearly the same ways, but we have derived different moral codes, there is a good chance that one of us has faulty reasoning, so we can try to resolve our differences in that way.

So do you agree that right morals are derived of sound reason with respect to fundamental human values?

If we do NOT value the same things in the same way, then looking for flawed moral reasoning is not helpful;

But again, fundamentally, as human beings, we do value the same things.

instead we need to convince the other of the benefits/advantages of valuing differently. That may or may not be possible, and is not always arrived at through reasoning.

But again, we don't need to convince anyone that not being murdered is better than being murdered, or raped, or robbed etc etc.

[Tassman]

The first point is meaningless as a standard for moral good or evil, it is only a good, really, because it happens to conform to what you presently think is good or just. In other words acceptance of homosexual behavior is not a good in itself, but merely good because because you just happen to agree.

NO

[carpedm9587]

And as human beings, fundamentally speaking, we all value the same things?

See above.

There are basic things we tend to value in common (i.e., life, liberty, happiness, health, etc.). We don't all value them proportionately (i.e, some value life over liberty, some value liberty over life, etc.). As we move further from the core things, we begin to see more variation (i.e., prosperity, companionship, etc.)

So do you agree that right morals are derived of sound reason with respect to fundamental human values?

But again, fundamentally, as human beings, we do value the same things.

What an individual will perceive as a "right" moral will be based on reasoning upon the things they value with respect to the proportions to which they value them. While there is a high degree of similitude in what we value, it can differ more or less significantly from culture to culture, and from group to group within a culture. For example, all Americans do not value the same way. There are large swaths of the population that value god, and large swaths that do not. For those who do, the degree to which they value god varies widely. When you look at the more evangelical Christians, they tend to value god above all other things they value, resulting in a significantly different moral code.

But again, we don't need to convince anyone that not being murdered is better than being murdered, or raped, or robbed etc etc.

Using words like raped and murdered is tautological, since both are defined as an illegal/immoral action. Murder is illicit killing. So "murder is wrong" translates to "illicit killing is illicit." That statement is true by definition, and doesn't really tell us anything. Robbed, again, is a concetpt that depends on the concept of personal property. A culture or group that doe snto value personal property won't even see "robbing" as possible.

[Sparko]

I would say the most useful way of talking/thinking about "morality" is that it's a measure of the extent to which we value other people in general. A person who values everyone else is a benevolent/"good" person, while a person who negatively values everyone else is a malevolent/"bad" person, and a person who places zero value on others is a psychopath/"bad" person.

Thus when we take a particular action, the morality of that particular action lies in the extent to which it is driven by wishing to harm/hurt others in the mind of the person acting, as a result of how much they value others.

Now you just have to define "value"

A slave owner values people a great deal.

[Sparko]

Of course. But they are not preferences in the same way "pizza" is a preference. They are deeply rooted preferences like "I value life." and "I value liberty" and "I value happiness." The things we value, we seek to protect. So our moral reasoning is, "if I value life, doing X will protect/enhance life, so it is moral. Doing Y will threaten/diminish life, so it is immoral." We only use the term "morality" in relation to these core values - which are not easily changed. I know no one who uses the term "morality" in reference to pizza.

But carpe, if you are correct about what morals are, just values that have evolved that help in survival, then they are actually just preferences like what food is best. The fact that you recognize that they are NOT the same, that values such as other people's lives, show that you are attaching objective values to morality, even while denying it out of the other side of your mouth. Why is is wrong to murder a stranger? Why does his life have value to you?

There is no objective value nor is there an objective moral code. The reality is, most of us value life. Most of us value liberty. Our common human condition leads us to value similar things. But what we value is not always identical and the order in which we value is not the same person-to-person. The more similar are the things we value, the more similar our moral codes will be as a result.

So again you are saying that morals are just shared preferences then. There is nothing actually 'wrong' with murdering people, it just so happens most people share a value that is it not something we should do. The actual killing has no value attached to it, good or bad. If most people shared the value that murdering people to take their stuff was good, then it would be good.