Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Actually, Seer, if you look at it for a moment, you'll see that although the name you give it is different, the process and outcome is identical. To whit, you hold one belief to be moral. Then along comes someone with an argument to convince you that your moral position is in error. You consider it, reflect on it, decide the argument is sound, and shift your moral position to the new position because you have found it "better."

That is nonsense Carp, as I explained before. Let's use a current example. Homosexuality is a sin. The Biblical model for human sexuality is between a man and a women, in the context of marriage. Now, on what basis could I possibly find that homosexuality is now a moral good? There is no argument since I base my present position on the revealed law of an omniscient God. His knowledge of future consequences of any behavior is complete. I would have no rational ground to dispute His moral law. My only option would be to reject God or His revealed will.

[carpedm9587]

Actually Carp, no he didn't. If position/motion are meaningless concepts, then so are relative ethics. Your analogy holds for both...

No. again...

Absolute motion/position are meaningless concepts

Relative motion/position is all that exists (and the framework from which they are assessed is subjectively selected)

That reality did not make physics meaningless

The claim being made is that relative/subjective morality is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective

We have already seen at least one thing that is relative/subjective and is still meaningful/useful. Another is the world of law. So we have at least two relative/subjective things that continue to be useful and meaningful. Ergo, the claim that relative/subjective morality is useless/meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective is unsustainable.

That has been the argument from the outset. It has never changed. And you have not done anything to refute it, except to point out that I separated the notion of relative motion from Special Relativity instead of recognizing it was a Postulate One within the theory. How Einstein organized the theory (base + Special Relativity - or - Postulate One and Postulate Two within Special Relativity) does not change the truth of the theory or my understanding of it. It just means I didn't know how/remember the theory was linguistically organized. I'm grateful for the correction. Always nice to learn something.

[seer]

The claim being made is that relative/subjective morality is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective

But I never made that argument, so who are you arguing against?

[carpedm9587]

That is nonsense Carp, as I explained before. Let's use a current example. Homosexuality is a sin. The Biblical model for human sexuality is between a man and a women, in the context of marriage. Now, on what basis could I possibly find that homosexuality is now a moral good?

I have noted multiple times that this one will be harder for the right. The statements against homosexuality are far more explicit in the bible than those about slavery, the role of women, contraception, abortion, and all of the other moral issues on which the various churches have gone separate ways. Some churches have done this, but they tend to be those that are not locked into a literalist interpretation of the bible.

There is no argument since I base my present position on the revealed law of an omniscient God. His knowledge of future consequences of any behavior is complete. I would have no rational ground to dispute His moral law. My only option would be to reject God or His revealed will.

Yes - you have locked your moral framework to your interpretation of a book. So you value god, and based on that valuing and your desire to protect/enhance that relationship, you have subjectively determined that the "moral" thing to do is "follow his commandments" (as you subjectively interpret them) in the collection of books you call the bible. It's relative/subjective morality, Seer, but with the added twist that you have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles and locked yourself to (your interpretation of) a book. So, for someone to convince you, they either have to: a) convince you that this god you believe in doesn't exist (which is unlikely) or b) convince you that you are misinterpreting the book (which is also unlikely).

I am under no illusion that you are going to be convinced by any rational argumentation. So, most of the time, you will be someone that is either in the "agree-to-disagree" bucket, the "isolate/separate" bucket, or the "contend" bucket. For the most part, in casual places like this, we'll probably agree to disagree. I don't think you're a bad person, and I recognize you think you are doing what is right and are blind to the harm you do. I probably would not invite you to dinner with some of my LGBTQ friends (isolate/separate). In the public sphere, we will politically contend as I strive to align the laws of our country with my own moral framework (along with a lot of my fellow citizens).

[carpedm9587]

But I never made that argument, so who are you arguing against?

Seer...you have made that claim multiple times. It's a little disingenuous to deny it now. I'm not going to spend the time going back and finding all of the posts. I'll trust those reading the thread to find them.

[seer]

I have noted multiple times that this one will be harder for the right. The statements against homosexuality are far more explicit in the bible than those about slavery, the role of women, contraception, abortion, and all of the other moral issues on which the various churches have gone separate ways. Some churches have done this, but they tend to be those that are not locked into a literalist interpretation of the bible.

No Carp, it is not about literal or not - it is about rejecting what Scripture actually says. I spend a number of years in a very liberal church, I know better than you what they believe.

Yes - you have locked your moral framework to your interpretation of a book. So you value god, and based on that valuing and your desire to protect/enhance that relationship, you have subjectively determined that the "moral" thing to do is "follow his commandments" (as you subjectively interpret them) in the collection of books you call the bible. It's relative/subjective morality, Seer, but with the added twist that you have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles and locked yourself to (your interpretation of) a book. So, for someone to convince you, they either have to: a) convince you that this god you believe in doesn't exist (which is unlikely) or b) convince you that you are misinterpreting the book (which is also unlikely).

That is pure bunk Carp, it is not a relative morality if it is the law of God, that is the only question. Whether I subjectively understand it or not. Homosexuality would be sin, even if I subjectively rejected that notion. And what do you mean that I have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles? Whose reasoning? Whose moral principles? Yours? If it is all relative Carp your admonition makes no sense whatsoever.

[Sparko]

No - you definitely jumped the rails. At no point did I say "relative motion is meaningless."

Ah I misread you!

Simply the observation that absolute position/motion are meaningless concepts.

Sorry.

[seer]

Seer...you have made that claim multiple times. It's a little disingenuous to deny it now. I'm not going to spend the time going back and finding all of the posts. I'll trust those reading the thread to find them.

No Carp, I don't expect you to remember everything I said, but I have more than one reason. Yes, the fact that there are no objectively right answers for the most profound moral questions is problematic for me. And the fact, that if we really do live in a godless universe then our moral musings are ultimately as insignificant as we are. I would not put any meaning the moral conclusions of ants. And in the big picture we are no more than ants.

[Sparko]

Since you cannot show the existence of such and absolute/objective framework...

You cannot show the existence of relative morality is "true"

We are each using analogies to showcase our views. My analogy using relativity is more valid than yours was.

But I think even more evidence of objective morality is how hard you keep arguing AS IF moral values were objectively true for everyone, even while claiming they are relative.

Morals are built into us. And we all seem to have a common set of basic values. The details can get messy but the basics are the same.

For example, homosexuality. The basic moral there that we both share is that people deserve to love one another. Where we disagree is on what types of relationships are valid. We agree some relationships are off limits (pedophilia for instance) and homosexuality is just one of the ones we disagree on. But the basic moral, love, we share. All humans do. It is "good" - to me that is an objective moral.

[carpedm9587]

Ah I misread you!

Sorry.

NP. It happens.

[Sparko]

NP. It happens.

Yep. I tend to read too quickly sometimes. I am currently at work and I have a lot of pauses while tasks run in the background so I use the time to check Tweb. But I do sometimes rush when things are hectic.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, it is not about literal or not - it is about rejecting what Scripture actually says. I spend a number of years in a very liberal church, I know better than you what they believe.

Now THERE is an audacious claim. Do you know anything about my background or history, Seer?

That is pure bunk Carp, it is not a relative morality if it is the law of God, that is the only question. Whether I subjectively understand it or not. Homosexuality would be sin, even if I subjectively rejected that notion. And what do you mean that I have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles? Whose reasoning? Whose moral principles? Yours? If it is all relative Carp your admonition makes no sense whatsoever.

Seer, your entire argument hinges on a) there being a god (which you cannot show) and whether the existence of such a being would make morality "absolute/objective" (which you also cannot show). And your statement about homosexuality is based on your understanding of the text and your subjective acceptance of this text as an "absolute" (which you also cannot show).

You have an entire moral system built upon perceptions and subjective opinions and beliefs. As I said in an earlier post, those of us who understand that morality is relative/subjective see you doing the equivalent of claiming cars are blue, blue cars are best - better than red cars, defending it by arguing that red cars aren't blue, insisting you are driving a blue car, and then contentedly driving away in your red car.

It leaves us shaking our heads just a tad....

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I don't expect you to remember everything I said, but I have more than one reason.

I'm going to assume this means "for believing relative/subjective morality is meaningless." So what are your other reasons?

Yes, the fact that there are no objectively right answers for the most profound moral questions is problematic for me.

This much we know.

And the fact, that if we really do live in a godless universe then our moral musings are ultimately as insignificant as we are. I would not put any meaning the moral conclusions of ants. And in the big picture we are no more than ants.

You have a more dismal view of a godless universe than I, Seer. But I can understand that, because you are viewing it from the perspective that the all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent creator loves you personally and will grant you eternal existence. From that vaunted viewpoint, everything else looks like a swamp. Unfortunately, if none of that is actually real...

[carpedm9587]

You cannot show the existence of relative morality is "true"

Only as much as I can show that "humans reason" and "the world has multiple economic systems." At the end of the day, I cannot "prove" the existence of anything if someone is willfully closing their eyes and saying, "it ain't so."

We are each using analogies to showcase our views. My analogy using relativity is more valid than yours was.

You'd have a hard time making that case, but you are welcome to try.

But I think even more evidence of objective morality is how hard you keep arguing AS IF moral values were objectively true for everyone, even while claiming they are relative.

See my previous responses to this false assertion.

Morals are built into us. And we all seem to have a common set of basic values. The details can get messy but the basics are the same.

Yes, they are. For all of the reasons I have cited. We just disagree on what those basics are. However, I can demonstrate that the basics I believe are at the heart of morality actually exist.

For example, homosexuality. The basic moral there that we both share is that people deserve to love one another. Where we disagree is on what types of relationships are valid. We agree some relationships are off limits (pedophilia for instance) and homosexuality is just one of the ones we disagree on. But the basic moral, love, we share. All humans do. It is "good" - to me that is an objective moral.

It is a common moral rooted in an objective reality. The moral code itself is subjective.

[carpedm9587]

Yep. I tend to read too quickly sometimes. I am currently at work and I have a lot of pauses while tasks run in the background so I use the time to check Tweb. But I do sometimes rush when things are hectic.

Likewise.