Why We Hate

[carpedm9587]

I know. It's all subjective. When nothing is truly immoral then everything becomes permissible.

By "truly," of course, you mean "absolutely" or "objectively." So your objection, like Seer's, boils down to: subjective/relative morality is no good because it's not objective/absolute. As I've told Seer multiple times - that's not an argument; it's a restatement of the definition of the terms. It's akin to saying "your green car is no good because it's not blue." At no point have you shown why "blue" (absolute/objective morality) is superior to "green" (subjective/relative morality), or that it even exists.

You do realize there is a significant difference between analyzing and interpreting an objective standard, versus the "make it up as you go" mentality of moral relativism, right?

Theoretically - yes. Practically - no. And since you cannot show that your theoretical "absolute" actually exists...you have a problem.

The way you argue, not even the scientific method could be regarded as objective, and perception becomes reality.

Actually, there is a degree of truth to that. Indeed, our very perception of the reality around us is subjective to how our brains work, and not 100% linked to objective reality. So we have to make some assumptions just to be able to continue on. One assumption we make is that the universe operates repeatably and predictably, so the scientific method can be used to discern that operation and outline the underlying principles. But there is enormous subjectivity in science as well. There is a need for interpretation, and there is widespread use of opinion.

That there is something objectively real we all tend to agree on. What it is...not so much.

[Mountain Man]

So your objection, like Seer's, boils down to: subjective/relative morality is no good because it's not objective/absolute.

If that's the straw man you want to keep torching, be my guest.

Thing is, if we followed your worldview to its ultimate conclusion then literally anything goes, morally speaking, yet you paradoxically want to sit here and lecture us about the finer points of right and proper conduct. It boggles the mind that you don't collapse into a puddle of cognitive dissonance.

Regarding your defense of the scientific method:

"That there is something objectively real we all tend to agree on. What it is...not so much."

that's a pretty good defense of theistic objective morality, wouldn't you say?

[carpedm9587]

If that's the straw man you want to keep torching, be my guest.

It's the heart of the argument. If you think otherwise - then provide a defense for absolute/objective morality that does NOT reduce to this.

Thing is, if we followed your worldview to its ultimate conclusion then literally anything goes, morally speaking, yet you paradoxically want to sit here and lecture us about the finer points of right and proper conduct. It boggles the mind that you don't collapse into a puddle of cognitive dissonance.

There is actually no cognitive dissonance, and moral relativity/subjectivity does not reduce to "anything goes." Humans have functioned with individual moral codes forever, and have collected into societies where common moral norms hold sway. Since we share a great deal in common, we value similarly, and moral codes align fairly well. It's a perfectly functional model.

And if you push the "anything goes" statement, what you will find behind it is "because there is no moral absolute/objective basis to make a moral claim." So, once again, moral relativism/subjectivism is bad because it's not absolute/objective. As I've noted (many times), it's not an argument - it's a restatement of a definition.

Regarding your defense of the scientific method:

"That there is something objectively real we all tend to agree on. What it is...not so much."

that's a pretty good defense of theistic objective morality, wouldn't you say?

It absolutely is. The problem that theistic objective morality has is it has no mechanism for establishing/testing/affirming that objective reality. There is no equivalent to the "scientific method" to help them out. Ultimately, without a demonstrable god, objective/absolute morality reduces to one group of people using the notion of a god to hold sway over another. That's pretty much subjective/relative moralism in action...

[Mountain Man]

...moral relativity/subjectivity does not reduce to "anything goes."

Yes, it really does, because there is literally no logical reason why one set of behaviors should be considered preferable to another. You can present all the arguments you want, and all I have to say is, "I disagree," and you're dead in the water.

The problem that theistic objective morality has is it has no mechanism for establishing/testing/affirming that objective reality.

Wrong, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. First of all, the Bible is a fixed document. We know what was originally written with a high degree of accuracy, and with sufficient study, we can determine the original intent, again with a high degree of accuracy. There is, in fact, broad agreement about the Bible's moral statutes. Secondly, if the God of the Bible exists then he can make his existence known to us beyond a doubt. Therefore, belief in God and an objective standard for morality is rational and logical.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, it really does, because there is literally no logical reason why one set of behaviors should be considered preferable to another.

Horse hockey. I have no problem exchanging moral views with anyone, grounding them in logic - even outlining the rational basis for what I value. You seem (again like Seer) to confuse "logic" with "absolute" and "objective." Logic can be applied to the subjective and relative as well as the objective and absolute.

You can present all the arguments you want, and all I have to say is, "I disagree," and you're dead in the water.

I may not be able to convince you - in which case I'll move on. At the end of the day, if you hate life, no moral code based on "valuing life" will convince you. That is when we fall back to the same thing humanity has always fallen back to. If reason will not do the deed - then we resort to isolate/separation or, if necessary, contention.

And you are in exactly the same boat, MM. You can hop up and down and insist "god said so," and if I say, "sorry, bub - you can't even show such a being exists" - you're dead in the water. You can no more control my moral framework than I can control yours - because they are individual and subjective.

Wrong, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

Written in a different culture, in different languages, for which we have no original materials, most of which we do not know the authorship, and which is widely interpreted by the 2500 different extent Christian sects - not to mention the incredible number of translartions which, even when all to the same language, differ widely - with each one saying "ours has it right!"

We know what was originally written with a high degree of accuracy, and with sufficient study, we can determine the original intent, again with a high degree of accuracy. There is, in fact, broad agreement about the Bible's moral statutes.

MM- we can't even do what you are suggesting for the U.S. Constitution, for which we have an enormous body of supporting documentation. You are asserting a level of surety that does not align with reality.

Secondly, if the God of the Bible exists then he can make his existence known to us beyond a doubt. Therefore, belief in God and an objective standard for morality is rational and logical.

And this god has therefore, for whatever reason, chosen not to make himself/herself known to those who disagree with you? Convenient, that. Sorry, MM, but your very experience of this "god" is subjective - ergo everything that flows from it is likewise subjective. How on earth can you claim an objective basis springing from a subjective experience? At least in the experience of the existence we live in, we call all step outside and see a given tree and generally agree on its characteristics. That is the basis for our belief that there is an objective reality. But the human family has given rise to more variations on "god" then one could probably count. And from this we derive "objective norms?" Put 50 randomly chosen people in a room in front of a piece of art and you will get 50 people generally agreeing on the nature of the art. Put 50 randomly chosen people who have "experienced god" in a room and ask them to tell you about god, and you'll get 50 different explanations.

Most rational people would say that dynamic points to the significant possibility that there is no underlying reality - and people are describing their subjective delusions.

Sorry - your logic is badly flawed...

[Roy]

Wrong, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

How many Psalms are there?
How many books of Maccabees are there?
How many chapters are in the Book of Daniel?
How long is Mark chapter 16?
How many epistles are canonical?
Which comes first - the epistle of James or the epistles of John?

Secondly, if the God of the Bible exists then he can make his existence known to us beyond a doubt. Therefore, belief in God and an objective standard for morality is rational and logical.

"If [some being] exists then it can make his existence known to us beyond a doubt. Therefore, belief in [some being] is rational and logical." is true for any and every fictional entity ever imagined. MM should believe in everything from Cthulhu to Pippi Longstocking.

[Mountain Man]

I have no problem exchanging moral views with anyone, grounding them in logic - even outlining the rational basis for what I value.

But that's just it: without an objective standard, there is literally no rational basis for preferring one set of morals over another. It all comes down to preference and pragmatism as far as relativism goes.

And this god has therefore, for whatever reason, chosen not to make himself/herself known to those who disagree with you?

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Matthew 11:15

"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

'they may indeed see but not perceive,
'and may indeed hear but not understand,
'lest they should turn and be forgiven.'"

Mark 4:11-12

[carpedm9587]

But that's just it: without an objective standard, there is literally no rational basis for preferring one set of morals over another. It all comes down to preference and pragmatism as far as relativism goes.

All human choices are based on preference, MM. Morality is no different. And your argument is still, "subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute." You are still not making an argument - you're repeating a definition. We already KNOW subjective/relative morality offers no objective/absolute basis. That's the definition. But when you extend your argument to include logic and reason, you take an unjustified leap.

1) I like pizza for lunch
2) That restaurant sells pizza
3) I should have lunch at that restaurant

A perfectly logical, rational syllogism that is sound and, if the first two premises are true, valid. That the first two premises are subjective and relative is irrelevant. We make decisions like this all day long.

In the world of morality, morals are rooted in what we value. If we value life, we will have a moral code that preserves/protects life. If we don't, we wont. If you and I both value life, I have a logical path to making an argument. If you do not value life, I can think of several logical arguments for why I think you should. You can reject all of them if you wish, but it doesn't stop the arguments from being rational and logical. At the end of the day, if we cannot align our moral frameworks, we will either isolate/separate so we can each preserve our own, or we will contend if our moral frameworks are mutually exclusive and we cannot (or will not) isolate/separate.

It has always worked thus. Every person on earth functions this way, and humanity has been reasonably functional for a few millenia now. Your moral framework is all about preferences. You prefer Christianity to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism. You prefer your interpretation of the Christian moral code, and not the one coming from Red Letter Christians, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or (presumably) the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cannot escape this reality. If you had been born in Iran or Iraq, there is a significant probability you would be adhering to the Muslim faith and steadfasting claiming THAT was the "absolute" truth and "absolute" moral framework.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Matthew 11:15

"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

'they may indeed see but not perceive,
'and may indeed hear but not understand,
'lest they should turn and be forgiven.'"

Mark 4:11-12

Yeah, well - I'm not big on bible quotes as a defense, MM. I recognize you (and those who think like you) believe you have been "gifted" with some sort of inerrant insight into god. Unfortunately for you, a lot of people quote those passages, and they don't all describe the same god or same rules. It sort of weakens the claim a tad.