Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[carpedm9587]

Well when I was an unbeliever I didn't see adultery, promiscuity, prostitution or pornography as wrong.

First of all - none of us are "unbelievers." We just believe in different things. If I wanted to, I could call you an "unbeliever" because you do not believe in atheism. I don't because the term is somewhat meaningless. Each of us is an "unbeliever" in more things than we are a "believer" is. You are a "believer" in Christianity, but an unbeliever in everything else (with respect to religions).

Second - you had some interesting positions. So, as an "unbeliever, here's what I think:

Adultery: The moral issue here is betrayal and deceit. If I have a marriage in which both my wife and I have agreed to have other sexual partners and are open about it, no problem. If I have promised fidelity until death do us part, and I secretly betray that, therein lies the moral problem.
Promiscuity: If this means many transient sexual relationships, then the morality lies not in the sex, but the treatment of "other." If I am treating people as objects for my own gratification, there is a problem. If everyone is on the same page, then a casual fling is not that much different from a casual game of golf.
Prostitution: The problem here is, again, having to do with the human person. If a woman or man, of his/her own accord, decides to sell sex as a service, that is his/her right, as it is the right of the other person to access that service. If I do so in defiance of my marriage vows...problem. If the woman/man is being forced into prostitution...problem.
Pornography: Pretty much the same as previous. If someone is being, directly or indirectly, forced into this place - there is a problem. If not, no problem. But that creates a significant problem for the viewer - I have no way of knowing if what I am looking at was forced or not. So, in general, I find pornography to be problematic.

Never liked homosexuality - it is just not what a man does. Taking on the role of a woman.

And that speaks volumes to your level of "disgust" with the sexual act. As far as I can see, your morality is not driven so much by "god's law" as it is by the disgust you hold for a man who enjoys penetration by another man. But your level of disgust does not a morality make. And the fact that I have never heard you express a similar disgust for a woman laying with another woman is telling. I have the impression that something about the "gay man" just offends you as a man - but the same relationship between two women...not so much.

And why should anyone believe and live according to what you believe Jim?

I'll leave this one to Jim...

[carpedm9587]

No, you appeal to the majority to decide what is trivial or not, but what the majority finds important or not does not actually tells us what is trivial or not. You keep using this same fallacy.

Noting that the majority of people will "see your ploy for what it is" is not the same as saying, "your ploy is defined by what the majority think."

That is false Carp, most people don't believe moral relativism, for moral relativism to be tested you would have to have wide spread acceptance of the theory. You can't have the majority of people holding to moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism works. Never mind that fact moral disagreement does not prove moral relativism.

The vast majority of people used to think the earth was the center of the universe, Seer. People can be as blind to internal realities as they are to external ones. I have shown, multiple times, how the so-called "objective/absolute" moralist is kidding themselves, and is actually functioning on a relative/subjective moral plane. I'll let the argument speak for itself.

You really are disingenuous Carp, when you just once again used the majority to support your claim about what is trivial or not.

Go back and read again what you were responding to, Seer. Your response has nothing to do with what I actually said.

None of this one: proves moral relativism, and two: disproves universal moral truths.

Actually, Seer - it does show that all of us practice moral relativism/subjectivism. I note that you are denying it, but not refuting it. And I do not need to disprove universal moral truths. I have noted how moralizing is subjective/relative. If you believe there are universal/objective moral truths, it is your task to demonstrate that they 1) exist and 2) we are bound to them. So far, all you've done is repeat Technique 1-3 to try to refute moral relativism, and dodge/avoid any request that you demonstrate moral absolutism/objectivism.

In this world Carp is wife rape both moral and immoral.

In this life, "wife rape" is immoral - universally.

No Carp, it it reduces all moral statements to triviality. There is no way around it.

There is no way around it to you - because you keep trying to use Technique #2. I suspect you will find most people can easily see the difference between pizza toppings and life. It is based on the root effect of each valuation on us as a person, and the relationship between them. I do not need pizza toppings to have life. I DO need to have life to have pizza toppings.

It doesn't change the fact that the values that you hold are by definition trivial. And when I use an appeal to the majority you dismiss it - yet you use it to define what is trivial or not. Another clear double standard.

As I have noted multiple times, misrepresenting a position does not refute it. I note that the majority will recognize the difference. I do not appeal to the majority to define the difference. I have done that with the relative dependence, which you continue to ignore and cut out of your responses.

Again Carp, you are confusing epistemology with ontology. Even if all creatures were born color blind the color red would still exist and be objective.

Actually, the color "red" is not objective - it's subjective. However, the specific frequencies at which light is reflected, THAT is objective. But the same set of frequencies can be experienced as "red" by one person and "green" by another. Our "receiving equipment" (i.e., eye and brain) make the experience of color subjective. That subjective experience does not alter the objective reality of light reflecting within a particular frequency range.

[seer]

The evolutionary path will only care about "justice" if justice provides a survival benefit. As for your secondary observation, you're wrong. "Justice" implies "fairness," or equitable treatment. The social contract (e.g., the golden rule) applies in any moral framework - and is the very heart of relativistic/subjectivistic moralizing.

That doesn't even make sense, the evolutionary process doesn't even care if we survive or not. And humanity has survived thousands (if not millions) of years with all manner of social inequalities.

You are confusing "justice" with "morality."

No, justice is a moral question.

Back to Technique #1 (yet again).

But it is a fact, there are no right answers. The statement that gays should have full equal rights is both right and wrong, true and false. Trivial...

Objectively - no. But we know that because subjective moralism is not objective. You're not saying anything, Seer - you're just (again) repeating a definition. You have no real alternative. The ONLY objection to subjective/relative moralism is "it's not objective." But that's not an objection - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying, "the problem with blue is it's not green." We already know blue is not green. What you haven't been able to explain why being "not green" is a bad thing. Likewise, you have never explained why "not being objective" is a bad thing. You just keep repeating, over and over, that subjective is not objective - and I have the impression you think you're actually saying something. But you aren't. As far as I can tell, you don't like it because it's "not the way you you do it." So you have two problems:

1) "It's not the way I do it" is not a valid argument against anything.
2) You actually do it the same way (i.e., you too are a subjective/relative moralist - you just don't acknowledge it), so your argument falls kinda flat.

No, I have shown where your system fails. It makes all moral claims trivial. There is no better or worse, no true or false.

[seer]

Noting that the majority of people will "see your ploy for what it is" is not the same as saying, "your ploy is defined by what the majority think."

Oh please Carp, this is a distinction without a difference. The fact is you have been appealing to the majority to make your case in defining what is trivial or not. Your whole argument depended on it.

The vast majority of people used to think the earth was the center of the universe, Seer. People can be as blind to internal realities as they are to external ones. I have shown, multiple times, how the so-called "objective/absolute" moralist is kidding themselves, and is actually functioning on a relative/subjective moral plane. I'll let the argument speak for itself.

That is not the point, which is what would humanity look like, act like, if it largely embraced moral relativism. Until then we can not know, and the fact, like I linked a while back, even atheist philosophers are embracing moral realism more and more. I wonder why that is if moral relativism is so evident and intellectually robust?

Actually, Seer - it does show that all of us practice moral relativism/subjectivism. I note that you are denying it, but not refuting it. And I do not need to disprove universal moral truths. I have noted how moralizing is subjective/relative. If you believe there are universal/objective moral truths, it is your task to demonstrate that they 1) exist and 2) we are bound to them. So far, all you've done is repeat Technique 1-3 to try to refute moral relativism, and dodge/avoid any request that you demonstrate moral absolutism/objectivism.

Actually no, moral relativism makes the positive claim that universal moral truths don't exist. You can not demonstrate that that is a fact.

In this life, "wife rape" is immoral - universally.

An another man says that wife rape, in this life, is moral - universally. So you have your contradiction.

There is no way around it to you - because you keep trying to use Technique #2. I suspect you will find most people can easily see the difference between pizza toppings and life. It is based on the root effect of each valuation on us as a person, and the relationship between them. I do not need pizza toppings to have life. I DO need to have life to have pizza toppings.

Now you are being dense, I was not speaking of pizza toppings, I was speaking of moral statements. If a moral statement (like wife rape is wrong) can be both true and false then the statement itself becomes trivial - it says nothing.

Actually, the color "red" is not objective - it's subjective. However, the specific frequencies at which light is reflected, THAT is objective. But the same set of frequencies can be experienced as "red" by one person and "green" by another. Our "receiving equipment" (i.e., eye and brain) make the experience of color subjective. That subjective experience does not alter the objective reality of light reflecting within a particular frequency range.

Thank you for making my point that you were mixing epistemology with ontology. Universal moral truths could and would exist even if we all subjectively misunderstood those truths. In other words moral disagreements do not logically disprove universal moral truths.

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't even make sense, the evolutionary process doesn't even care if we survive or not. And humanity has survived thousands (if not millions) of years with all manner of social inequalities.

Umm...Seer... that's actually the point of evolution. Of course it cannot "care" because it's not a sentient process. The process simply describes how nature automatically "selects" for the most survivably attribute, but consciously, but by virtue of the simple fact that less survivable attributes die at a faster rate.

No, justice is a moral question.

"Justice" is the social contract within which morality occurs. It does not define morality - it says simply that what your view as "moral" or "immoral" should extend to all. It is, essentially, the "golden rule." It does not tell us what is moral or immoral - it merely tells us how to apply what we believe is moral or immoral. If you think otherwise, try this: describe an application of "justice" that does not, in any way, refer to any other moral precept.

But it is a fact, there are no right answers. The statement that gays should have full equal rights is both right and wrong, true and false. Trivial...

Again - no "absolute/objective" right answers - so you again are repeating Technique #1, which has already been shgown to be meaningless, because all it does is repeat the definition of "subjective/relative."

No, I have shown where your system fails. It makes all moral claims trivial. There is no better or worse, no true or false.

Technique #1 (again). And that does not show that the moral system fails. It just regurgitates a definition. I think you are still not getting this. The claim that subjective/relative morality provides no absolute/objective moral precepts doesn't say anything - it just tells us you understand what it means to be subjective/relative. As I noted before, you clearly grasp that blue is not green. What you have not shown is that "not green" is a bad thing.

[carpedm9587]

Oh please Carp, this is a distinction without a difference. The fact is you have been appealing to the majority to make your case in defining what is trivial or not. Your whole argument depended on it.

I have not "appealed to the majority" even once. I have merely noted that I trust the majority to see through your ploy (Technique #2). I have no argument that depends on the agreement of the majority since I have never suggested that morality is dependent on the majority. Indeed, I have repeatedly said the opposite - the individual is the moral actor. The majority is nothing more than an aggregate of the individual.

That is not the point, which is what would humanity look like, act like, if it largely embraced moral relativism. Until then we can not know, and the fact, like I linked a while back, even atheist philosophers are embracing moral realism more and more. I wonder why that is if moral relativism is so evident and intellectually robust?

The only difference between what we have now and what we would have if the majority embraced "moral relativism/subjectivism" is that more people would accept reality as it is. Nothing else would really change, since morality is already subjective/relative. I've actually outlined how this is so, several times. You keep skipping over that part and going straight to Technigues 1-3 (with 4 added recently).

Actually no, moral relativism makes the positive claim that universal moral truths don't exist. You can not demonstrate that that is a fact.

Moral relativism/subjectivism is a descriptive way of tracing how moralizing works in the human population. It applies to any sentient being. That would include any god, if a god exists. All of this has been outlined in several posts. You keep cutting those parts out and returning to Techniques 1-3 (+4) over and over. Seer, I cannot help it if you do not have a response to the arguments that goes beyond 1) tautologies, 2) ridicule, 3) outrage, and 4) the debate tactic of turning a statement back on the stater.

An another man says that wife rape, in this life, is moral - universally. So you have your contradiction.

There is no contradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. When you shift from one moralizer ot another, you shift the "way." As I have noted before, this is directly analogous to the legal system, and no one says the legal system is in contradiction because two countries may have exactly the opposite legal precepts. It is only a contradiction when you ASSUME (as you do) that morality must be absolute/universal. Then, and only then, you would have a contradiction. But you have not shown this must be true, you have not shown such a moral framework exists, and you have bot shown how moral relativism/subjectivism fails - except to note (over and over again) that it is not absolute/objective.

Now you are being dense, I was not speaking of pizza toppings, I was speaking of moral statements. If a moral statement (like wife rape is wrong) can be both true and false then the statement itself becomes trivial - it says nothing.

...because moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective...which is Technique #1 (yet again), which is a tautology, which says nothing.

Thank you for making my point that you were mixing epistemology with ontology. Universal moral truths could and would exist even if we all subjectively misunderstood those truths. In other words moral disagreements do not logically disprove universal moral truths.

You can put anything in that sentence and make it work, Seer.

Unicorns could and would exist even if we all subjectively misunderstood that truth.
Hogwarts could and would exist even if we all subjectively misunderstood that truth.
The Starship Enterprise could and would exist even if we all subjectively misunderstood that truth.

In general, anything that actually exists could/would exist ecven if we disagreed that it did. That statement does not, however, prove that the claimed thing actually exists.

And I did not say that moral disagreements "disprove" universal moral truths. Actually, it is not possible, as far as I can tell, to disprove such a thing, because the attempt is being made to disprove an existential negative. I also cannot disprove that unicorns exist. That does mean they do. I cannot disprove god exists. That does not mean he/she/it does. I cannot disprove the FSM exists. That also does not mean it does.

You get the idea.

[JimL]

Well when I was an unbeliever I didn't see adultery, promiscuity, prostitution or pornography as wrong. Never liked homosexuality - it is just not what a man does. Taking on the role of a woman.

Okay, now thats what I thought, it's not really about god for you, it's about your personal belief that homosexuality is just wrong. God merely turns that subjective belief of yours into an objective truth for you. I can't help but notice though that it is only male homosexuality that seems to bother you. I find that to be the case with most anti-homosexual males. Funny that. Anyway's, still your only reason is that-"it is just not what a man does, taking on the role of a woman." But that's not true, so once again all you are saying is that you think it's wrong. I get it, you think its wrong, but you're still not giving me the reason upon which you've personally come to that conclusion.

And why should anyone believe and live according to what you believe Jim?

They shouldn't, they should mind their own business.

[Psychic Missile]

You asked why it was immoral, I told you. And why should your opinion matter for anyone who doesn't share it?

You argued that homosexuality should not be brought up in sex ed because you find it objectionable on religious grounds. That argument doesn't make sense since public schools are run and attended by people with a myriad of faiths or the lack thereof. Why should people who don't believe as you do be subjected to your tenets? Why should your preference dictate policy? My opinion matters because it's based on evidence and fact, not mere preference. My opinion can be updated to maintain consistency with humanity's body of knowledge and everyone has free access to the source of my opinion.

[lilpixieofterror]

We definitely have a disagreement on the nature of homsexuality and bisexuality. You apparently see it as a life choice. Actions are things we choose. Identity, not so much. We also apparently have different points of view concerning the effects of bigotry/hatred on society, and I frankly think your view is a bit naive. It took decades (after the civil war) for the civil rights process for black people to begin. That was because of the collective effects of the prejudice of individuals. Meanwhile, people were being lynched, forced to the back of buses, denied jobs, and terrorized in countless ways. To dismiss that as "only has as much effect as you let it," is a little callous, IMO, and amazingly insensitive to history.

Then it took decades after the civil rights era for the same kind of movement to take root for the LGBTQ community. That was because of the collective effects of the prejudice of individuals. You have the privilege of not having to deal with that, assuming you are not black, and not a member of the LGBTQ community, so you can blithely insist that prejudice/racism only affect you if you let it. Unfortunately, it does far more than just that, and its effects continue on.

I have no clue what most of this means, so I have no response.

Not sure where you got the impression that I "can't handle it." Calling it out for the prejudice and bigotry it is doesn't mean I "cannot handle it." I simply will not let such things pass in silence. As Edmund Burke said, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Yes because we all know that calling someone out on a web forum is such a heroic act.

My reference was not to "hurt feelings," though that can be a problem for the very young. When a young teenager is struggling with their sexual identity, and is told their attraction to same-sex partners makes them "sodomizing degenerates," the damage can be quite real. If it comes from enough people, and especially from people of importance (parents, teachers, friends), the damage can be significant. Some children will dig in and fight. Some will end their lives. And pretty much anything in between is possible.

[Tassman]

That God exists,

that He created human sexuality to be shared between a man and a woman,

The problem with this empty assertion is that human sexuality encompasses same-sex orientation as well as heterosexual orientation. You have no right to deny such people their own expression of human sexuality.

a man and his wife in the covenant of marriage.

ALL

What deviates from that, homosexuality, bestiality,

Human adults are able to give informed consent to sexual activity. Animals are unable to give informed consent to sexual activity; neither can children, so just drop your disgusting shock/horror tactics.

adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc... are a violation of that created order and therefore immoral/sinful.

Tell that to the moral reprobate most US evangelicals voted for as president last year, in order to impose their minority views re abortion and homosexuality on the majority, come what may.

[MaxVel]

And therein lies one of the chief advantages that recognizing that morality is relative/subjective brings: a heightened ability to change. As we grow as a species, and begin to rethink old patterns of thinking, the relative/subjective moralist is open to arguments about what is valued and consequent impacts on moralizing. So when the next person comes along who says, "wait, we've been thinking about this all wrong and it is doing harm," the subjective/relative moralist is not locked into binary thinking, and is better able to consider and change. It still takes time and is resisted (we're stubborn humans after all), but the inherent flexibility is there.

The moralist who claims their moral code is absolute/objective can also change, but the mechanism is different. Someone has to say, "wait, we didn't interpret what god wants correctly!" Then there is a long, complex process off reinterpreting what god was "actually saying" to fit the new moral paradigm, and then that becomes the new "absolute." But rethinking what "god wants" is dicey, and is resisted - so you (ironically) end up having theistic moralists hanging on to unjust systems longer than relative/subjective thinkers.

The most modern example of this is homosexuality. The "what god wants" reads as Seer described it above - resulting in homosexuals being labeled "sodomizing degenerates" and denied access to things every other married couple takes for granted (survivor benefits, visitation rights, inheritance rights, even parenting rights). The subjective/relative moralists have recognized this, and realized the basic injustice of treating couples differently on the basis of what is or is not between their legs. We recognize love is love, and holding a position that love between people with the same equipment between their legs is "bad" is really no different than holding a position that love between people with different skin color is "bad." Both are injustices.

But the absolute/objective moralist has this "god-given code" and they have to find a way to reconcile this view with that code. Some sects have accomplished this, but the more conservative the sect that less likely it is to be willing to make this change, perpetuating what most of us (now) have come to realize is a form of bigotry and prejudice. There are still people today who view marriage between a black person and a white person as "bad," but they have been marginalized to the fringes of society, and if they speak that position out loud, they are widely decried by the rest of us. Someday, the same will be true of those who continue to hold the position about same-sex couples, and their voices will not be able to do much harm anymore.

But the shift is young and fragile. There is still a HUGE segment of our population that rejects these relationships, and wants our laws to revert to what they were before. So for those of us who have moved on, and left the prejudice and bigotry behind, we must remain vigilant - so that the situation does not revert and thus require even more years or decades for equality and acceptance to take hold.

I don't really get this. If morality is subjective/relative what does it mean for moral values held by society to change?

Doesn't it just mean that they are different (no better, no worse)? Do you think that an improvement in morality means something like 'morality that more closely approaches my moral values'?

Since I want to, as far as I can, have true beliefs why should I care about conforming my moral values to those of a moral relativist?

[Sparko]

It does not make it absolutely/universally wrong in the sense that "everyone will agree it is wrong." It makes it universally wrong in the sense that I see it as wrong in all instances.

that is just you redefining words again. Universally when discussing morals doesn't mean "in all circumstances to ME" it means "to all people in all circumstances" - Why can't you just discuss things using the commonly defined terms instead of constantly trying to wiggle out of positions by redefining terms?

You basically want your cake and eat it too.

It seems to me that you use relative morality as a hidey hole to run to whenever you need to avoid confronting a claim about morality and the rest of the time you argue as if objective morality is the truth. But then that is probably just me attempting to "mind read" you again.

[seer]

You argued that homosexuality should not be brought up in sex ed because you find it objectionable on religious grounds. That argument doesn't make sense since public schools are run and attended by people with a myriad of faiths or the lack thereof. Why should people who don't believe as you do be subjected to your tenets? Why should your preference dictate policy? My opinion matters because it's based on evidence and fact, not mere preference. My opinion can be updated to maintain consistency with humanity's body of knowledge and everyone has free access to the source of my opinion.

Except you want my kids subjected to your tenets! And as far as public schools go, they get my tax dollars too, and like all citizens I get a say, a vote.

[seer]

I have not "appealed to the majority" even once. I have merely noted that I trust the majority to see through your ploy (Technique #2). I have no argument that depends on the agreement of the majority since I have never suggested that morality is dependent on the majority. Indeed, I have repeatedly said the opposite - the individual is the moral actor. The majority is nothing more than an aggregate of the individual.

Nonsense Charles, you are just trying to clean it up now. You were using the majority to define what was trivial or not. That the majority would not generally see food choices as important as moral choices. And that appeal to the majority is a fallacy. Period.

The only difference between what we have now and what we would have if the majority embraced "moral relativism/subjectivism" is that more people would accept reality as it is. Nothing else would really change, since morality is already subjective/relative. I've actually outlined how this is so, several times. You keep skipping over that part and going straight to Technigues 1-3 (with 4 added recently).

You know no such thing Carp, you have no idea how a widespread acceptance of moral relativism would affect the moral atmosphere.

Moral relativism/subjectivism is a descriptive way of tracing how moralizing works in the human population. It applies to any sentient being. That would include any god, if a god exists. All of this has been outlined in several posts. You keep cutting those parts out and returning to Techniques 1-3 (+4) over and over. Seer, I cannot help it if you do not have a response to the arguments that goes beyond 1) tautologies, 2) ridicule, 3) outrage, and 4) the debate tactic of turning a statement back on the stater.

And again Carp, moral disagreement no more disproves objective more truths than moral agreement would prove them.

There is no contradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. When you shift from one moralizer ot another, you shift the "way." As I have noted before, this is directly analogous to the legal system, and no one says the legal system is in contradiction because two countries may have exactly the opposite legal precepts. It is only a contradiction when you ASSUME (as you do) that morality must be absolute/universal. Then, and only then, you would have a contradiction. But you have not shown this must be true, you have not shown such a moral framework exists, and you have bot shown how moral relativism/subjectivism fails - except to note (over and over again) that it is not absolute/objective.

Legal systems do and can can contradict each other. And? But you made a universal claim. That wife rape is universally immoral, that is a direct contradiction to the man who says that wife is universally moral.

...because moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective...which is Technique #1 (yet again), which is a tautology, which says nothing.

Then you are making my point, you have reduced all MORAL STATEMENTS to absurdity! Bigotry against gays is both moral and immoral. It is meaningless

And I did not say that moral disagreements "disprove" universal moral truths. Actually, it is not possible, as far as I can tell, to disprove such a thing, because the attempt is being made to disprove an existential negative. I also cannot disprove that unicorns exist. That does mean they do. I cannot disprove god exists. That does not mean he/she/it does. I cannot disprove the FSM exists. That also does not mean it does.

You get the idea.

Well if moral disagreement does not disprove universal moral truths, what would? And why do you keep bring up moral disagreement in your argument if it has no bearing?

[JimL]

I don't really get this. If morality is subjective/relative what does it mean for moral values held by society to change?

Doesn't it just mean that they are different (no better, no worse)? Do you think that an improvement in morality means something like 'morality that more closely approaches my moral values'?

Since I want to, as far as I can, have true beliefs why should I care about conforming my moral values to those of a moral relativist?

Because morality isn't about you, it's about human society. If you existed on this earth all by your lonesome, then to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," wouldn't make any sense.