Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

I am merely pointing out the game you play, so others reading this will recognize that there is no actual content to your posts.

It is not a game Carp if it is true.

It is a fact that values are relative. It is also a fact that neither you nor I have ever encountered anyone who values as you describe.
Likewise...morality is relative. Your attempt to diminish/ridicule it actually doesn't show it to be wrong. It just attempts to ridicule.

So it isn't possible, or even likely, that the Nazi values his evening dinner more than the life of the Jewish child? Or that a man may value the color preference for his truck over the idea of gay rights? These examples are clearly possible and not rationally out of bounds...

[carpedm9587]

Congratulations, you just made a moral argument for pedophilia. To say otherwise would be inconsistent.

No - and I have addressed this separately. See my previous posts.

[carpedm9587]

Again who cares?

When I find an inconsistency in my beliefs, it is usually a signal to me that something is wrong. Perhaps you are different...

If morals are based on objective truths then they can't be relative. If they are relative, then you arguing using "genetics" as if that actually should mean something is hypocritical.

All moral positions are relative, including your own. For the rest, the argument is from consistency of position. If you feel a person can hold an inconsistent position and be rational, then I am not sure there is a point in continuing.

If it is objectively wrong for someone to discriminate against someone because of genetics, then your belief that morals are relative values is incorrect. If your belief is correct, then you can't argue that discrimination because of genetics is wrong for anyone else but yourself. You can't even argue that it is wrong because most people today believe it to be wrong because you already said that morality doesn't depend on numbers.

Again - I do believe it is wrong to take a moral position on the basis of genetics. But my argument to the Christian is about the inconsistency of your own position. If you accept genetics as a basis - you have nothing to say to the racist. If you reject it, then you are inconsistent if base sexual morality on the sex of the participants. It's as simple as that.

Basically if you truly believe that morals are just relative values we each hold, then you have no basis to argue that something is wrong for anyone but yourself. For example: murder can't ACTUALLY be wrong. It can only be wrong to you and anyone else who believes it to be. Any arguments of WHY murder is wrong would just be rationalizing your own values. The minute you try to argue that murder is wrong because of some objective truth, you are admitting that morals are not relative. The same with bigotry. If it is truly wrong for anyone to discriminate because of race or gender then morals are not relative.

See my answers above.

[carpedm9587]

It is not a game Carp if it is true.

So is the fact that in relative physics - the turtle can theoretically outrun the Boeing 747...

So it isn't possible, or even likely, that the Nazi values his evening dinner more than the life of the Jewish child?

Of course it is possible. In relative morality, each person establishes their moral framework. We have "atrocities" when someone develops a moral framework out of sync with the rest of society, or when they do not follow their own moral framework for immediate gain. So-called "absolute/objective" moralists do the exact same thing...

Or that a man may value the color preference for his truck over the idea of gay rights? These examples are clearly possible and not rationally out of bounds...

So now we've seen Technique #1, #2, and #3 all in the same post! Nicely done!

[Tassman]

He already told me that morals are not just commonly held beliefs. That numbers don't matter. To him, morals are just personal values.

If you disagree take it up with Carp, not me.

There no disagreement AFAICT. The reason that morals are universal ethical principles is because they are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as a social species.

[carpedm9587]

There no disagreement AFAICT. The reason that morals are universal ethical principles is because they are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as a social species.

There is indeed very little disagreement. Ultimately, everything in life is about evolution. Any characteristic we have that enhances survivability is going to be selected for, by definition. Sometimes, a capability is a side effect. I do not know that we have evidence that moralizing itself confers survivability. I suspect (but don't think I could prove) that reasoning is the core attribute that confers survivability. Reasoning confers the ability to organize and categorize, and morality is simply that capability applied to human action.

[seer]

Of course it is possible. In relative morality, each person establishes their moral framework. We have "atrocities" when someone develops a moral framework out of sync with the rest of society, or when they do not follow their own moral framework for immediate gain. So-called "absolute/objective" moralists do the exact same thing...

So now we've seen Technique #1, #2, and #3 all in the same post! Nicely done!

So you agree that my examples are possible, and with the Nazi and the Jewish child, it is likely. So why try to diminish my points by calling them techniques when they are facts?

[Cow Poke]

Could he have designed it differently and would you approve of homosexuals if God had designed things differently?

Or if He just said it was OK.

[Sparko]

When I find an inconsistency in my beliefs, it is usually a signal to me that something is wrong. Perhaps you are different...



All moral positions are relative, including your own. For the rest, the argument is from consistency of position. If you feel a person can hold an inconsistent position and be rational, then I am not sure there is a point in continuing.



Again - I do believe it is wrong to take a moral position on the basis of genetics. But my argument to the Christian is about the inconsistency of your own position. If you accept genetics as a basis - you have nothing to say to the racist. If you reject it, then you are inconsistent if base sexual morality on the sex of the participants. It's as simple as that.



See my answers above.

You still are not getting it. I can tell by your answers to me and to Seer. IF Morals are relative then they are personal values and the reasons for those values are personal too.

For example with something that is not moral but is still a relative value:

Let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I believe it is the best flavor.

That is my preference. Let's say you prefer chocolate.

Now does it really matter why I think Vanilla is the best? If I gave you some irrational reason like "Vanilla makes my tongue feel like a rainbow" does it really matter? Would it make a difference if I said, "Scientists who have studied ice-cream have found that vanilla activates the pleasure centers of the brain more than chocolate does and it also has health benefits like curing dandruff"? No, because no matter WHY I think Vanilla is the best, it is a personal preference and the reasons are personal to me too.

You can't say my preference is wrong. Even if you could prove that Chocolate cured cancer that would not make Chocolate "better" than vanilla as far as a personal preference.

Now when Seer tried to point this out, you attacked his example and said he was trivializing it. But he wasn't, he was pointing out that when something is a preference then you can't also argue that that preference is right or wrong. No matter why that person holds that value.

If I think homosexual behavior is immoral, it doesn't matter why I believe it. Because there is no actual objective morality. There is no real right or wrong, just preferences we each hold. If I want to believe homosexual behavior is wrong because my dog told me so, that is just as valid as me giving scientific evidence that homosexuality causes health problems and shortens lifespans.

And you arguing that it is bigotry to discriminate based on genetics is just your personal preference too. It doesn't make it objectively wrong. It is just your opinion. And we don't care. Because your opinion is only your opinion and has no basis in truth for anyone other than you. You could argue that we are wrong because your dog told you we are and it would have as much meaning.

[Sparko]

There no disagreement AFAICT. The reason that morals are universal ethical principles is because they are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as a social species.

again, if that is true then by that standard Homosexuality is immoral because it does not aid in procreation of the species. You seem to live with your foot in your mouth.

[carpedm9587]

So you agree that my examples are possible, and with the Nazi and the Jewish child, it is likely. So why try to diminish my points by calling them techniques when they are facts?

I have answered this several times now. I'll let me previous responses stand.

[seer]

I have answered this several times now. I'll let me previous responses stand.

Right, and you still make no sense. Never mind your hypocrisy, using your technique to attempt to diminish my point.

[carpedm9587]

You still are not getting it. I can tell by your answers to me and to Seer. IF Morals are relative then they are personal values and the reasons for those values are personal too.

Yes, though they can be strongly externally influenced.

For example with something that is not moral but is still a relative value:

Let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I believe it is the best flavor.

That is my preference. Let's say you prefer chocolate.

Now does it really matter why I think Vanilla is the best?

Nope. But then preference of food does not rise to the level of "morality" for anyone I know.

If I gave you some irrational reason like "Vanilla makes my tongue feel like a rainbow" does it really matter?

Not to me.

Would it make a difference if I said, "Scientists who have studied ice-cream have found that vanilla activates the pleasure centers of the brain more than chocolate does and it also has health benefits like curing dandruff"?

I would be interested...but still not largely concerned.

No, because no matter WHY I think Vanilla is the best, it is a personal preference and the reasons are personal to me too.

Agreed.

You can't say my preference is wrong. Even if you could prove that Chocolate cured cancer that would not make Chocolate "better" than vanilla as far as a personal preference.

Agreed.

Now when Seer tried to point this out, you attacked his example and said he was trivializing it. But he wasn't, he was pointing out that when something is a preference then you can't also argue that that preference is right or wrong. No matter why that person holds that value.

Here is where you jump the rails. Not all things are valued more equally. I think we all know that we have a spectrum of valuing. Along that spectrum, we enter into things that are so deeply valued, we begin to use the language of "morality" to reflect our stance on actions that impact that thing. If you threaten my access to vanilla ice cream, I may be annoyed. If you threaten my life, we are at a different level of valuing, and I will see/discuss actions that impact these deeply valued things as moral/immoral.

As individuals, we come into conflict with others when our categorization of such actions does not match. We then have a vested interest in convincing the other person to value as we do, or (if they do) to show how their categorization of action is not consistent with that they value. We do so because something we value deeply is now threatened. If we cannot so convince, in protection of what we value, we will then protect through isolation/separation, or we will contend.

If I think homosexual behavior is immoral, it doesn't matter why I believe it.

It does to someone trying to convince you to either value differently, or moralize differently. They would do that if they see danger to something they value in your own moralizing.

Because there is no actual objective morality.

Correct.

There is no real right or wrong,

You use "real" when you mean "objective." My valuation of right and wrong is indeed real - it is simply subjectively real.

just preferences we each hold.

Technique #2. It is not "just" preferences - it is "preferences." The same is true of your moralizing.

If I want to believe homosexual behavior is wrong because my dog told me so, that is just as valid as me giving scientific evidence that homosexuality causes health problems and shortens lifespans.

Depending on what you value, it may be "valid." That will not make it moral to everyone, as we are seeing unfold.

And you arguing that it is bigotry to discriminate based on genetics is just your personal preference too.

Actually - that argument attempts to underscore the inconsistency in your own moralizing. It may or may not convince.

It doesn't make it objectively wrong.

Agreed - but that doesn't say anything except repeat definitions (Technique #1)

It is just your opinion.

Technique #2

And we don't care.

That much is clear - but it was worth the attempt. Hopefully, someone else will read the thread and be impacted differently.

Because your opinion is only your opinion and has no basis in truth for anyone other than you.

It doe snot necessarily have a basis for someone else - it will depend on what they actually value and how they reason from it.

You could argue that we are wrong because your dog told you we are and it would have as much meaning.

Apparently to you. Hopefully, not to others. Most people, in my experience, see inconsistency in their own worldview as problematic. Hopefully it will speak to them. Otherwise, we are left wiht separate/isolate and contend.

[carpedm9587]

Right, and you still make no sense. Never mind your hypocrisy, using your technique to attempt to diminish my point.

I have to chuckle when I see this kind of response...

"If you tell me I'm bigoted - you're bigoted against me."
"If you tell me I'm prejudiced - you're prejudiced against me."
"If you tell me I'm using debate tactics to disparage/ridicule your argument - you're using debate tactics to disparage/ridicule my argument."

When I was a kid, we had this saying: I'm rubber you're glue... etc.

This kind of response reminds me of it every time...

That being said - it also signals that we've reached the end of any useful exchanges, at least on this topic. We probably did a long long time ago, but I tend to be an optimist.

[Cow Poke]

When I was a kid, we had this saying: I'm rubber you're glue... etc.

We don't have that saying anymore?