Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Carp, then you have me totally confused, you agree that it is all relative, then when I give an example of what your worldview logically leads too you cry foul! Technique, technique, technique!

I'm not surprised you are confused, Seer. You seem to have been for many pages now. I think Sparko is as well. The point I have made (several times) is simple:

1) very little of what you are saying is "wrong," from the moral relativist's position.
2) nothing you are saying shows that moral relativism/subjectivism is nonviable, nonfunctional, wrong, or non-existent.
3) nothing you have said makes the case that moral subjectivism/relativism is somehow inferior to moral objectivism/absolutism
4) nothing you have said shows you are not yourself a moral relativist.

In short, nothing you are doing is an actual argument. They are merely three techniques used over and over again, to give the appearance of an actual argument:

• Technique 1) Keep repeating that moral subjectivism is not objectivism (and presumably hope no one notices you're just reciting a definition and not making an argument)
• Technique 2) Keep taking strongly held moral convictions, comparing them to trivially held preferences in an attempt to ridicule moral subjectivism (presumably hoping that no one will notice that moral subjectivism likewise cannot make absolute/objective statements if two people disagree on life over liberty or liberty over life. But that would look serious - so better to appeal to exaggerated cases to distract from the lack of an argument)
• Technique 3) Keep pointing out that moral relativism cannot make an absolute/objective statement about <insert atrocity here> (presumably hoping that no one will notice that we're still complaining that moral subjectivism is not objective - but distracting them with some outrageous atrocity, instead of focusing on the argument).

So, I repeat, moral subjectivism/relativism makes no objective/absolute moral claims - by definition. Repeatedly pointing that out, and then distracting folks with trivial or outrageous examples doesn't change the fact that your argument is "moral subjectivism/relativism is not objective/absolute." Once again - that's not an argument. It's a repetition of a definition.

As I have said many, many, many times...you're like the person trying to convince people that red cars are better than blue ones, but the only argument you offer is "blue cars are not red!" That's not an argument. It's a repetition of a basic fact - a statement of the obvious - a restatement of the definition...nothing more.

How can a moral realist or theist be a moral relativist when they believe in universal/objective moral truths?

Because the world does not really HAVE any moral realists/objectivists, Seer - just a lot of people who think they are. You are as much a moral relativist/subjectivist as I am. For you, the highest thing on your value chain is "god" (presumably). That means your moral code will see as moral actions things that preserve/protect/enhance your relationship with this god, and see as immoral things that destroy/threaten/diminish this relationship. You have determined that this god wants you to follow his defined moral code, so you have subjectively/relatively elected to make that moral code your own. These are all your decisions, subjectively made.

Not to mention that you have no actual access to this god...so you are left attempting to decipher this moral code from your bible, which means you are working with your subjective interpretation of a moral framework documented by other humans 2-3.5 millennia ago and reinterpreted several times since then. So you have subjectively/relatively aligned your morality to a subjectively/relatively interpreted moral framework - and then boldly proclaimed it is "objective/absolute." It's somewhat akin to putting the label "banana" on an orange; it doesn't make the orange a banana.

Your moral framework, then, can/will change in two circumstances: 1) if you reinterpret some aspect of this "objective moral code" as it is documented in the bible you revere; 2) you cease to value this god and subject your moral framework to what you think this god wants.

Let me try again, I said: I'm saying logically you can not make the case since subjectively I may find my color preference more important than gay rights, you may hold the opposite.


How is that a mere technique when your worldview leads exactly to such conclusions?

So you are saying a subjective framework cannot make objectively true claims. Congratulations - we know (again) that you know the definitions of subjective and objective. I have never actually disagreed with this definition. I simply have noted (repeatedly) that you are not making an argument. And you again have compared a preference most humans hold trivially (color) to one most humans hold deeply in the process of repeating this simple definition (again), presumably so folks will focus on "color" vs. "gay" and not see that you still have not made an argument: you've just repeated the same definition...yet again.

[carpedm9587]

Except they are not. Your so-called "techniques" are nothing but smokescreens you are using to hand wave away any arguments you don't like because they prove you wrong.
That is Dodge#1 in your playbook.
Dodge#2 is redefining terms.
Dodge#3 is claiming you answered something already.
Dodge#4 is claiming that it is not worth any more of your time so you are not going to answer any further.

There is no content here for me to respond to.

[Sparko]

There is no content here for me to respond to.

This post left intentionally blank.

[carpedm9587]

This post left intentionally blank.

Now THAT was funny...

[Tassman]

How can a moral realist or theist be a moral relativist when they believe in universal/objective moral truths?

You may believe in the existence of universal/objective moral truths, but what you call

[seer]

You may believe in the existence of universal/objective moral truths, but what you call

.

What does that have to do with anything? AGAIN, if adultery is universally, objectively immoral it would remain immoral even if we all decided that it wasn't. Our subjective understanding has no bearing on whether universe moral truths exist or not. We have been over this Tass...

[Tassman]

.

What does that have to do with anything? AGAIN, if adultery is universally, objectively immoral it would remain immoral even if we all decided that it wasn't.

Yes, but there is no reason to think "adultery is universally, objectively immoral"...or that anything else is "universally, objectively immoral". Right and wrong arises due to the fact that we need to live among other human beings and that there are certain basic principles of behaviour that must apply if we are to do so successfully.

Our subjective understanding has no bearing on whether universe moral truths exist or not. We have been over this Tass...

There is no reason to think that "universal moral truths" exist, despite your unsubstantiated claims that they do exist. And yes "we have been over this", just as you have been endlessly over this with Carp, using the same, unsupported hypothetical arguments.

[seer]

Yes, but there is no reason to think "adultery is universally, objectively immoral"...or that anything else is "universally, objectively immoral". Right and wrong arises due to the fact that we need to live among other human beings and that there are certain basic principles of behaviour that must apply if we are to do so successfully.

My only point is that moral disagreement or moral change does not disprove universal moral truths, which you keep suggesting...

[carpedm9587]

My only point is that moral disagreement or moral change does not disprove universal moral truths, which you keep suggesting...

No one can prove or disprove the existence of "moral absolutes." You are free to continue believing they exist and to follow whatever you think is a "moral absolute." It does not alter the reality of your moral relativism/subjectivism. It does not change the fact that how you moralize is the generally the same as how any of us moralize. You value differently, so your reasoning on that valuing leads you to differing moral positions. How you deal with differences between your moral position and that of others is not different than what the rest of us do. However, because the world is becoming more and more secularized, any attempt to convince using the argument "god wills it" is less and less likely to succeed. From my perspective, that is a good thing. It means we have an increasingly good chance of having actual discussion/debate on what is and is not moral. So long as someone is locked into the position that they are doing "god's will," such discussion/debate is often (usually?) pointless.

[seer]

No one can prove or disprove the existence of "moral absolutes." You are free to continue believing they exist and to follow whatever you think is a "moral absolute."

Right, I will continue to believe that raping children is universally wrong, and you can continue to believe that it is relatively wrong, under certain conditions.

[carpedm9587]

Right, I will continue to believe that raping children is universally wrong, and you can continue to believe that it is relatively wrong, under certain conditions.

Debate Technique #3

(not to mention, that's not what I believe...)

[Tassman]

My only point is that moral disagreement or moral change does not disprove universal moral truths, which you keep suggesting...

My only point is that there is no reason to think that "universal moral truths" exist, despite your unsubstantiated claims that they do exist. This is where your argument falls down.

[seer]

Debate Technique #3

(not to mention, that's not what I believe...)

Right so when one exposes the truth of moral relativism it is technique. But of course that is what you believe, logically it follows if relativism is true. If a country or group allows or fosters the child sex trade (which is on the rise) then that is right for them. It is not universally wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Right so when one exposes the truth of moral relativism it is technique.

The only "truth" you've exposed, Seer, over and over again, is that moral relativism/subjectivism is not moral absolutism/objectivism. We already knew that. No one has ever disagreed with that.

But of course that is what you believe, logically it follows if relativism is true.

No. Apparently you do not understand moral relativism/subjectivism. It does not mean that the moral principle changes from circumstance to circumstance. Pedophilia (raping children), in my moral framework, is wrong in all circumstances. Of course, the application of any moral principal is always relative, just like the application of law is always relative. Someone has to determine if the law (moral or legal) applies to the circumstance. Is a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old pedophilia? Is a 50 year old having sex with an 18 year old pedophilia? That part is always relative to the situation.

Moral relativism/subjectivism (as I have discussed it) is about moral principals being determined by the individual based on what they value. So it is theoretically possible for someone to conclude "raping children is a moral good." I would disagree with them, and I would have my reasons for doing so. If I cannot get them to see my point of view, then the moral disagreement is "resolved" through isolation/separation or contention.

If a country or group allows or fosters the child sex trade (which is on the rise) then that is right for them. It is not universally wrong.

I believe it is universally wrong. Someone else could disagree with me. They may see it as morally right. Convince - isolate/separate - contend. Those are the three avenues to resolving the disagreement. Only the first has a chance of changing the person's moral conclusion. The latter are a means for containing it.

[seer]

I believe it is universally wrong. Someone else could disagree with me. They may see it as morally right. Convince - isolate/separate - contend. Those are the three avenues to resolving the disagreement. Only the first has a chance of changing the person's moral conclusion. The latter are a means for containing it.

Right you don't believe that the child sex trade is a good thing, others do. And their beliefs are equally as valid as yours. And why you think you have the justification to contend with or isolate those with a different and equally valid moral view is beyond me.