Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Correct. There are miracle claims in many historical documents. They are not generally considered historically accurate/relevant. Yet the Christian perspective is that the Christian bible is an exception to this norm. And when it is pointed out that Christians are holding the bible to a different historical standard, that objection is dismissed. Indeed, it is reversed - and accusations are made that historians are holding the bible to different standards. The state of affairs is odd indeed.

Well of course, if one discounts God miracles are not a possibility.

As I noted, there is a simpler explanation than "god did it," especially in the face of the fact that god cannot actually be shown to exist.

Again, I don't know what you mean that God can not be shown to exist. Shown to exist to whom? You?

And you are right back to Technique #1. At least you're predictable. Seer, your continued objection that "there are no objective right answers" is just a restatement of a definition. I honestly do not know why you do not see this. You don't have an argument. I've already agreed there are not objective right answers. You continually repeating this doesn't answer the fundamental question you need to answer: why is this a bad thing? You also need to show that there actually IS an objective/absolute standard, and you never have.

Maybe - and who cares?

Again, if you are correct what Pol Pot and his followers did was right for them. That is a fact, not a technique. You may not agree - but who cares?

It's actually not a "morass." I can explain exactly why Pol Pot's moral framework (assuming his actions matched his framework) was askew. Anyone who values what I value (life, liberty, happiness, trust, etc.). Will see the argument immediately. Those who do not will not. Since most of humanity does value those things, most of humanity will understand and agree with the arguments, and Pol Pot will be resisted. It's not really all that complicated.

Most people again! You have no rational ground to call Pol Pot's moral framework "askew." Most people, not that many years ago, would have labeled homosexual behavior immoral. Appealing to the majority is not an argument.

Well - that is the human condition, Seer. Welcome to the world. And creating/inventing a god does not actually change the fact that you are in the same place. The only difference between us, Seer, is that I know I am doing the best I can, and you think you're doing the best that can be done. I find your view a little dangerous.

And the best that you can do is based on ignorance. And given my worldview, based on the omniscience of God, why on earth would I find any of your moral conclusions compelling? I would be silly to.

Actually, I have put forward two arguments. One is based on the inconsistency of your own position. The other is based on the fundamental things people value (life, liberty, happiness, trust, etc.). Cut either way, you end up accept LGBTQ relationships as "just another form of human love." When your basis for morality is "the bible says so," then you end up where you are.

Except, you don't believe that life, liberty, trust, etc are universal ethics or universal moral truths. So how one defines those and what constitutes them are just as relative in your worldview as anything else. You are cutting off the very branch you are sitting on.

Fortunately, "the bible says so" is losing its grip on humanity.

No doubt, and we will see what replaces it. I bet cultures will become much more totalitarian, as we see with leftists today.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course, if one discounts God miracles are not a possibility.

And on should discount a claim until there is adequate evidence to accept its truth.

Again, I don't know what you mean that God can not be shown to exist. Shown to exist to whom? You?

Well, if it cannot be shown to exist to me, I would assume it cannot be shown to exist to anyone.

Again, if you are correct what Pol Pot and his followers did was right for them. That is a fact, not a technique. You may not agree - but who cares?

Technique #1 is: "repeating the definition of subjective/objective as if it were an actual argument."

Most people again! You have no rational ground to call Pol Pot's moral framework "askew." Most people, not that many years ago, would have labeled homosexual behavior immoral. Appealing to the majority is not an argument.

Pointing out what the majority think is pointing out a simple fact. At no point did I claim that what is right is right because of what the majority think. If I did that, you would be correct that it would be a fallacious argument, especially given the individualized nature of subjective/relative morality. And of course I have rational grounds to call Pol Pot's moral framework askew. You continually make the error of claiming that rational arguments can only be made from objectively true premises. That is not the case. We reason from subjective premises all the time. What IS true is if Pol Pot a) doesn't have the same/similar underlying value structure as the rest of us (e.g., life, liberty, etc.) or b) is not willing to examine the logical inconsistencies of his own moral reasoning (as Sparko and others have refused to do in our LGBTQ discussions), then convincing will not work, leaving the other three approaches to dealing with the moral disconnect.

And the best that you can do is based on ignorance. And given my worldview, based on the omniscience of God, why on earth would I find any of your moral conclusions compelling? I would be silly to.

As long as you hold to the illusion of god, you will probably continue to think that way. It is what makes your moral framework impervious to discussion or argumentation, and what locks you into moral positions, whether they are moral or not.

Except, you don't believe that life, liberty, trust, etc are universal ethics or universal moral truths.

Correct. I believe they are widely held value structures, based in our common experience as sentient humans on this planet, which is why there is so much alignment in our moral frameworks. I don't need a god to explain that dynamic.

So how one defines those and what constitutes them are just as relative in your worldview as anything else. You are cutting off the very branch you are sitting on.

Yes, values are subjective, but highly stable and fairly consistent across the human species. As for "cutting off the branch," you have yet to make that case. You've asserted it many times, but your argument continually reduces to Technique #1, which is not an argument.

No doubt, and we will see what replaces it. I bet cultures will become much more totalitarian, as we see with leftists today.

I suspect not. And the left is not more or less totalitarian than the right has always been. Each side is intolerant of any views but its own, in my experience. Most religions are structured to be totalitarian. They dictate to their followers what must believed to be a member, and most have great difficulty with dissension. It is the primary reason we see so much continual fracturing in religions. As soon as a group says, "that's not right," and is resisted/rejected, they spin off a new "church, which itself then becomes totalitarian, and the process repeats itself.

[seer]

Well, if it cannot be shown to exist to me, I would assume it cannot be shown to exist to anyone.

What do you mean? God hasn't personally spoken to you?

Technique #1 is: "repeating the definition of subjective/objective as if it were an actual argument."

I just want to hear you say it. What Pol Pot did was only relatively wrong, that it was right for his culture and moral framework.

Pointing out what the majority think is pointing out a simple fact. At no point did I claim that what is right is right because of what the majority think. If I did that, you would be correct that it would be a fallacious argument, especially given the individualized nature of subjective/relative morality. And of course I have rational grounds to call Pol Pot's moral framework askew. You continually make the error of claiming that rational arguments can only be made from objectively true premises. That is not the case. We reason from subjective premises all the time. What IS true is if Pol Pot a) doesn't have the same/similar underlying value structure as the rest of us (e.g., life, liberty, etc.) or b) is not willing to examine the logical inconsistencies of his own moral reasoning (as Sparko and others have refused to do in our LGBTQ discussions), then convincing will not work, leaving the other three approaches to dealing with the moral disconnect.

Why was Pol Pot's moral framework inconsistent given his goal of dominance and control?

Correct. I believe they are widely held value structures, based in our common experience as sentient humans on this planet, which is why there is so much alignment in our moral frameworks. I don't need a god to explain that dynamic.

That is fine, but then you are no position to even question Pol Pot's rationale. You are merely appealing to the majority again - that is not an argument for why life, liberty, etc... are right or good.

Yes, values are subjective, but highly stable and fairly consistent across the human species. As for "cutting off the branch," you have yet to make that case. You've asserted it many times, but your argument continually reduces to Technique #1, which is not an argument.

As a rational argument you certainly have cut off the branch. You have no foundation, apart from appealing to the majority.

[Sparko]

And again, while claiming morals are relative out of one side of his mouth, Carp argues for objective morals out of the other. "most people who value life..." is just such an appeal. As if valuing life is some objective standard we should strive for. Those who do are "good" - their morals count and those who don't value life are "bad" so their morals don't count as valid.

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean? God hasn't personally spoken to you?

There was a time when I believed that had happened. Over time, I finally had to face the fact that there was no such encounter. It was a "sense," an internal conversation, and a figment of my imagination. Nothing more.

I just want to hear you say it. What Pol Pot did was only relatively wrong, that it was right for his culture and moral framework.

I have no idea what Pol Pot's moral framework was, and whether he was following it or transgressing it. I know what he did, and what he did was immoral in my moral framework, and that of most humans and most social moral frameworks. I do not know enough about the Cambodian culture to know if his actions were considered "good" or "moral" in that culture. I highly doubt it, but I don't know that for a fact.

Why was Pol Pot's moral framework inconsistent given his goal of dominance and control?

I do not know that it was, because I do not know what his underlying value structure was. It is entirely possible that it wasn't inconsistent. It is entirely possible he was being consistent and his value structure was completely different than mine, yours, and most other people's. It is entirely possible he saw how actions as "moral."

That is fine, but then you are no position to even question Pol Pot's rationale.

Of course I am. Pol Pot lives in the same world I do, and his choices/actions impact those around him. As noted before, we all assess actions based on our own moral frameworks, not based on the frameworks of other people.

You are merely appealing to the majority again - that is not an argument for why life, liberty, etc... are right or good.

As I noted before, I have never appealed to the majority for determining what is right/moral. I have noted commonalities in moral positions. But they are common because so many individuals hold them, they are not moral because so many people hold them. Life and liberty are seen as good by the vast majority of people. They are good because so many people see it that way.

As a rational argument you certainly have cut off the branch. You have no foundation, apart from appealing to the majority.

I have never appealed to the majority - and I have outlined the foundation multiple times. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is Technique #1 dressed up in new clothes. I'll know better if you can explain WHY you think I have no foundation.

[carpedm9587]

And again, while claiming morals are relative out of one side of his mouth, Carp argues for objective morals out of the other. "most people who value life..." is just such an appeal.

No. It is an observation of what is. If I say, "most people have two hands," I am not saying anything other than observing that most people have two hands. If you take from that, "you are appealing to the majority to assert that having two hands is right." Actually, I am not. I'm merely noting that most people have two hands.

Likewise, "most people value life and liberty" does not assert that "valuing life and liberty is right because most people do." It is merely noting that most people do.

As if valuing life is some objective standard we should strive for. Those who do are "good" - their morals count and those who don't value life are "bad" so their morals don't count as valid.

Valuing life is something most (but not all) people do. For those who value life, actions that protect/enhance life will be seen as moral. Actions that threaten/diminish life will be seen as immoral. There is no claim that it is right because most people do it. It is merely an observation.

[seer]

I have no idea what Pol Pot's moral framework was, and whether he was following it or transgressing it. I know what he did, and what he did was immoral in my moral framework, and that of most humans and most social moral frameworks. I do not know enough about the Cambodian culture to know if his actions were considered "good" or "moral" in that culture. I highly doubt it, but I don't know that for a fact.

Oh, please just say it Carp. What Pol Pot did was only relatively wrong. And the fact is he and his followers had the power to create their own moral framework and culture (similar to Mao) and impose those values. And they were consistent relative to their goals.

As I noted before, I have never appealed to the majority for determining what is right/moral. I have noted commonalities in moral positions. But they are common because so many individuals hold them, they are not moral because so many people hold them. Life and liberty are seen as good by the vast majority of people. They are good because so many people see it that way.

But that is exactly what you are doing, appealing to the majority, because without that you have no rational argument for life and liberty being moral goods. Apart from assertion.

I have never appealed to the majority - and I have outlined the foundation multiple times. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is Technique #1 dressed up in new clothes. I'll know better if you can explain WHY you think I have no foundation.

Then make a rational argument for why life and liberty are moral goods apart from appealing to the majority, bare assertion or personal opinion.

[carpedm9587]

Oh, please just say it Carp. What Pol Pot did was only relatively wrong. And the fact is he and his followers had the power to create their own moral framework and culture (similar to Mao) and impose those values. And they were consistent relative to their goals.

As I said, I cannot know what their value structure is, and how they came to their moral framework or even what it was. The best I can do for you, Seer, and tell you "it's possible." No one can know for certain what is happening within another person.

But that is exactly what you are doing, appealing to the majority, because without that you have no rational argument for life and liberty being moral goods. Apart from assertion.

As I noted, Seer, life and liberty and two concepts/items that most humans "value." That does not make them "moral goods." It makes them things that are valued. Morality is about actions, not these base elements we value. When we deeply value X, actions that protect/enhance X are seen as "moral" and actions that threaten/diminish X are seen as immoral. That's how morality works. The majority makes no difference whatsoever. If a person values "riches," it doesn't matter one whit if the rest of the world values it or not; the person will still see actions that protect "riches" as moral and actions that threaten "riches" as immoral.

Then make a rational argument for why life and liberty are moral goods apart from appealing to the majority, bare assertion or personal opinion.

I never said they were moral goods. I said, if valued, actions that protect them will be seen as moral, and actions that threaten them will be seen as immoral. Morality is about actions, not concepts or things.

[Sparko]

I have no idea what Pol Pot's moral framework was, and whether he was following it or transgressing it. I know what he did, and what he did was immoral in my moral framework, and that of most humans and most social moral frameworks. I do not know enough about the Cambodian culture to know if his actions were considered "good" or "moral" in that culture. I highly doubt it, but I don't know that for a fact.

As I noted before, I have never appealed to the majority for determining what is right/moral.

I have never appealed to the majority

You seem to be arguing above that if most humans and social moral frameworks and his cambodian culture considered his actions good then they would be good. or vice versa. Which sounds an awful lot like appealing to the majority.

But if morality is personal then it doesn't matter what you most humans think about his actions. You approving of them doesn't make them moral. They are still his personal values if your view is correct. And what you think or what Cambodian Culture thinks or what most humans think is irrelevant to the question of is it moral or not. Because if morals are relative, then you can't even ask "if something is moral" you can only say "is it moral to ME?" and you and I might disagree. Or you and Pol Pot.

Yet you persist in bringing "most humans" and "cambodian culture" into your argument. This is why I keep saying that despite you claiming to be a moral relativist, you argue like someone who believes in an objective moral value we should all strive to achieve. I know you will disagree, yet again, but I want to keep pointing this out to you every time you do it, so maybe you will either realize what you are doing, or stop doing it. You may call this Technique 1A if you wish.

[Sparko]

[QUOTE=carpedm9587;554403]No. It is an observation of what is. If I say, "most people have two hands," I am not saying anything other than observing that most people have two hands.[quote] which is based on the objective reality that most people have two hands.

Likewise, "most people value life and liberty" does not assert that "valuing life and liberty is right because most people do." It is merely noting that most people do.

Yet you are using it as part of an argument of what is moral. You are arguing for an objective morality. And expecting your opponent to agree on what is "right" because of it.

Valuing life is something most (but not all) people do. For those who value life, actions that protect/enhance life will be seen as moral. Actions that threaten/diminish life will be seen as immoral. There is no claim that it is right because most people do it. It is merely an observation.

riiiight.

[carpedm9587]

You seem to be arguing above that if most humans and social moral frameworks and his cambodian culture considered his actions good then they would be good. or vice versa. Which sounds an awful lot like appealing to the majority.

No.

But if morality is personal then it doesn't matter what you most humans think about his actions. You approving of them doesn't make them moral. They are still his personal values if your view is correct. And what you think or what Cambodian Culture thinks or what most humans think is irrelevant to the question of is it moral or not. Because if morals are relative, then you can't even ask "if something is moral" you can only say "is it moral to ME?" and you and I might disagree. Or you and Pol Pot.

Morals are indeed individual. That does not mean that I cannot make statements about Pol Pots morality, nor take a stand against it. If the majority of people agree with Pol Pot, I'm not going to get anywhere. If the majority of people agree with me, that force of numbers will give us the ability to contend successfully. That will not change what Pol Pot thinks - if he thinks it is moral, he will continue to think it is moral and disagree with us. If we cannot successfully convince him to think otherwise, than numbers give us the force to contend successfully.

Yet you persist in bringing "most humans" and "cambodian culture" into your argument. This is why I keep saying that despite you claiming to be a moral relativist, you argue like someone who believes in an objective moral value we should all strive to achieve. I know you will disagree, yet again, but I want to keep pointing this out to you every time you do it, so maybe you will either realize what you are doing, or stop doing it. You may call this Technique 1A if you wish.

You folks, mostly, continually misrepresent my position, and then argue against your misrepresentation. In normal argumentation, this is called a strawman argument. I cannot stop you all from doing it. However, it means I am consistently repeating things I have already said to clarify the misrepresentation. Eventually, it will get old and I'll move on. But I'm pretty patient in general, so I'm in it for a while longer

[Sparko]

No.



Morals are indeed individual. That does not mean that I cannot make statements about Pol Pots morality, nor take a stand against it. If the majority of people agree with Pol Pot, I'm not going to get anywhere. If the majority of people agree with me, that force of numbers will give us the ability to contend successfully. That will not change what Pol Pot thinks - if he thinks it is moral, he will continue to think it is moral and disagree with us. If we cannot successfully convince him to think otherwise, than numbers give us the force to contend successfully.

And what you seem to not get is what you think, or what everyone thinks doesn't change whether Pol Pot's actions are moral or immoral. Yet you continue to act as if they do. I know you don't see it, but we do, that is why we keep bringing it up. It is like a blind spot to you. Like you are punching yourself in the face and we keep saying, "why are you punching yourself in the face?" and you keep denying it. "Well maybe it is just my face getting in the way of me moving my arm backwards, but I am not punching myself in the face"

You folks, mostly, continually misrepresent my position, and then argue against your misrepresentation. In normal argumentation, this is called a strawman argument. I cannot stop you all from doing it. However, it means I am consistently repeating things I have already said to clarify the misrepresentation. Eventually, it will get old and I'll move on. But I'm pretty patient in general, so I'm in it for a while longer

You are not "patient" you are gosh darned stubborn. You will not admit you are wrong about anything as far as I can tell. You will wiggle, dodge, redefine, etc, all to not admit something. Especially when we point out some bit that you previously said that you no longer wish to admit.

If morals are truly relative, you arguing that something IS immoral is just a useless action. You should be arguing why it is immoral to you. Yet you argue why it is immoral to everyone.

Example: If you think murder is wrong you should be arguing, "I think murder is immoral because I value life" instead you argue "Murder is immoral because life is valuable" as if other people should agree not only with your decree but with your values. And if they do, so what? That still doesn't make it immoral. Just means you and those other people think it is. Others will disagree.

[carpedm9587]

And what you seem to not get is what you think, or what everyone thinks doesn't change whether Pol Pot's actions are moral or immoral.

Does not change if they are "objectively" or "absolutely" immoral/moral, because that concept is nonsensical - just as "absolute position" and "absolute motion" are nonsensical in physics. They ARE moral or immoral in reference to a specified moral framework.

Yet you continue to act as if they do.

No.

I know you don't see it, but we do, that is why we keep bringing it up.

And you're wrong. As with all human beings, I assess all actions from the perspective of my moral framework, which is subjective. It makes no sense to assess someone's actions from the perspective of a moral framework I do not find t be ideal.

It is like a blind spot to you. Like you are punching yourself in the face and we keep saying, "why are you punching yourself in the face?" and you keep denying it. "Well maybe it is just my face getting in the way of me moving my arm backwards, but I am not punching myself in the face"

Humorous...but inaccurate. Still, it's a good story...

You are not "patient" you are gosh darned stubborn.

Well, I am patient, but I am also stubborn.

You will not admit you are wrong about anything as far as I can tell.

Untrue, based on my own posts. When someone shows me to be wrong, I admit it.

You will wiggle, dodge, redefine, etc, all to not admit something.

Your perspective is duly noted, as it was the last 100 times you posted something to this effect. It doesn't make it any more true than the last 100 times you said it, but you are welcome to keep saying it...

Especially when we point out some bit that you previously said that you no longer wish to admit.

I have clarified previously vague statements, and owned my misstatements when I make them.If you do not agree, simply point them out to me and I will examine them.

If morals are truly relative, you arguing that something IS immoral is just a useless action.

No.

You should be arguing why it is immoral to you. Yet you argue why it is immoral to everyone.

I argue why I think it should be true for everyone. You see, Sparko, is a man comes to the conclusion that the "best" thing for himself and humanity will be to eliminate all fossil fuels, they will set out to convince everyone of that, so that fossil fuels disappear. But this man may be measuring "best" in terms of ecological health. When speaking to someone who measures "best" in terms of economic health, then the speaker has two choices: 1) convince the other person to value ecological health more than economic health, or 2) convince the person that there is some economic benefit to the shift. That doesn't change the subjective choice "ecology is important" and "fossil fuels must go." And it doesn't make that position "objective." And it doesn't make that person inconsistent trying to convince others to his perspective, because his perspective is that "the whole world would be better if..."

So it is with morality.

Example: If you think murder is wrong you should be arguing, "I think murder is immoral because I value life" instead you argue "Murder is immoral because life is valuable" as if other people should agree not only with your decree but with your values.

Of course I do. Just as the person things "ecology is more important than economy" wants everyone to have that value, because it simplifies the argument and gets the outcomes he wishes. If that is not possible, however, then the fall-back is "how can we show this is better for THEIR value set?"

And if they do, so what? That still doesn't make it immoral. Just means you and those other people think it is. Others will disagree.

It does not make it moral/immoral absolutely/universally because those concepts have no meaning, just as absolute position/motion are concepts that have no meaning. That does not mean a thing will not be seen as moral/immoral by some set of people. What becomes the dominant moral norm in the society will be a function of who believes what. It is not "moral" because more people believe it. It is the dominant position of the society because more people find it moral than do not find it moral.

[seer]

It does not make it moral/immoral absolutely/universally because those concepts have no meaning, just as absolute position/motion are concepts that have no meaning.

Carp, that does not follow. The law of God (universal) certainly would have meaning. Just as the laws of physics or the laws of logic are universal and have meaning.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, that does not follow. The law of God (universal) certainly would have meaning. Just as the laws of physics or the laws of logic are universal and have meaning.

The claim that the "laws of morality" are like the "laws of physics" or the "laws of logic" or the "laws of mathematics" has no basis. The things are not analogous to one another. Each of them deals with things that have existence independent of the human mind. With or without sentient minds, this solar system will still have the number of planets it has and they will orbit according to the so called "laws of physics," With or without sentient minds, a thing still cannot be true and untrue in the same way, at the same time. With or without sentient minds, if there were two things orbiting the sun and then two more joined them, there would be four things orbiting the sun.

Morality, however, is a categorization of human actions as they impact what the individual values. If there is no sentient person to value, then there is no moral framework at all. It entirely ceases to exist. I believe you have tried to make this argument in the past. But you cannot validly say, "morality is like mathematics, they are both absolute." That's simply an unsupported assertion.

In reality, as I have noted multiple times now, morality is much more like human legal systems. Both deal with accepted and not accepted action. Both apply a codified set of norms to assess an objective action by a sentient actor. I think we can all see that legal systems are subjective to the group/society/country formulating them. That there are different ones for different groups does not appear to render any of them meaningless. Morality is simply the same principle brought to the individual level. Indeed, as I think about it, it dawns on me that the so-called "moral" codes documented in the bible are not morality at all; it is the legal code defined for those who consider themselves Christian. Morality remains an individual, subjective activity. We see that around us each and every day. We see it here constantly.