Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[seer]

What we value comes from a variety of sources, not just "the herd." It comes from family, friends, community, religious upbringing (various herds), as well as personal experience, and some of it I believe is actually innate. Value for life is a great example - for all things, their own existence is (normally) perceived as a good.



What we value is the bedrock for our moral reasoning. From that we reason to moral/immoral actions. There is a significant difference between having our value-base influenced (in art) by our environment (including the herd), and deciding to abandon moral reasoning to align our moral decisions to "what the herd thinks."

So a healthy moral reasoning process is: My value-base -> reasoning -> my moral decisions.
An unhealthy one is: Someone else's moral decisions -> my moral decisions

The first can be (and usually is) influenced by the herd. The second is complete subjection to the herd.



Assuming they have reasoned properly, and the conclusion is based on what they value, they will have achieved "greater moral insight" for themselves. That does not mean they have achieved "greater moral insight" for anyone else.

Unless, of course, you are trying to achieve "greater moral insight" in an "absolute" sense, in which case your argument is (again) that "relative/subjective morality does not produce absolute/objective results." I already have agreed with that. I know that. I don't claim it does. I never have. You still haven't answered "so what?" All you do is keep repeating the mantra.



I do not - which is why I will see their moral decision as inferior. They will, of course, see mine as inferior. That's how it works. I see your stance against homosexuality as
"immoral." You see my acceptance of a gay lifestyle as "perfectly normal" as "immoral." Opposing conclusions happen all the time. And you will note they happen in both the relative/subjective framework and the absolute/objective framework. The only difference is WHY they are opposite.

For someone doing actual moral reasoning, they can be opposite because they are rooted in different basic valuing, or because someone is not reasoning properly (invalid reasoning).

For someone "following the herd," the can be opposite because they are following different herds, or because the "herd" they are following is actually a long-dead herd and all that remains is the fragments of copies of their writings from anther culture and tongue - so their are different interpretations of what "the herd" thought was "moral."



It is an obviously more mature way of reasoning morally.



Of course it does.



It's a simple question, Seer. Which do you think is a more mature/adult way for a human being to function:

1) Think for yourself
2) Try to figure out what others think and blindly follow it

I suspect most people would take 1). I suspect part of you knows 1) is a more mature way to function. But the fact is that absolute/objective moralizers who are "biblically-based" are actually doing 2).

It's no more complex than that. There is no claim that 1) will arrive at common conclusions (we have other ways of dealing with that). There is no claim that 2) can't result in moral choices I (and/or others) would find "good." There is no claim to perfection in either approach. Intuitively, someone who is "thinking for themselves" is simply engaging in morality in a more mature way than someone that is "following the herd."

The herd-follower will blindly go wherever the herd goes. Their only question is, "what does the herd think?" If the herd says "kill the Jews," they will kill the Jews. If the herd says "save the babies," they will save the babies. If the herd says "reject the homosexuals" they will reject the homosexuals. There is no avenue for reasoning. Someone would have to convince the entire herd to change. And when the herd has been dead for centuries - the only option is to convince them that they have misunderstood the intention of the herd. Look how successful THAT has been.

The self-actualized moralizer may indeed come to a "bad" conclusion (to me) as well, but because that conclusion is based on consideration of what is valued and a reasoning process, there is an avenue for conversation. I can attempt to influence what they value. If we value the same, I can attempt to show them errors in their reasoning. If I cannot do either, and I still disagree with their conclusions, then other steps are taken to protect my moral framework.

This is not that complex.

As for being a point of pride - of course it is. Everyone finds the things they have selected fr their lives to be "better" in some fashion - or they would chose something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to be proud of my accomplishments. Aren't you proud that you "obey your god?" Don't you think it's the "right thing to do?" Isn't it a point of pride to you to lord your grasp of "absolute/objective" moral norms over those poor pitiful fools that think morality is relative/subjective? If you don't - then you should reconsider your choice of words. You come across (to me) as equally proud of your moral backbone.

Carp, stop going off on tangents, please. My argument is with the process of moral reasoning for deciding what is ethical or not. And the fact that such reasoning can logically lead to the Gulags as well to a desire for human rights tells us, without question, that the process does nothing for discovering such moral truths. The best you can say is that the process helps develop a consistency in your arguments. And that, in the final analysis, tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of a specific behaviors. Now you can go on about how terrible it may be to follow the herd but you can not say that your moral reasoning, in any way, leads to a better understanding of ethics or morality. You have nothing over the herd or a 2,000 year old book when it comes to these issues...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, stop going off on tangents, please.

No tangent. I answered what was asked.

My argument is with the process of moral reasoning for deciding what is ethical or not.

I know.

And the fact that such reasoning can logically lead to the Gulags as well to a desire for human rights tells us, without question, that the process does nothing for discovering such moral truths.

Does nothing for discovering absolute/objective moral truths. But I never claimed it did, since moral truths are neither absolute nor objective.

The best you can say is that the process helps develop a consistency in your arguments.

Assuming "consistency in your arguments" means that a given individual will have a good chance of developing a consistent moral position - yes, it has a good chance of achieving that (assuming someone with reasonable reasoning capabilities).

And that, in the final analysis, tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of a specific behaviors.

Tells us nothing about absolute/objective morality. But I never claimed it did, since moral truths are neither absolute nor objective.

Now you can go on about how terrible it may be to follow the herd but you can not say that your moral reasoning, in any way, leads to a better understanding of ethics or morality.

I can - and I did....from a relative framework.

You have nothing over the herd or a 2,000 year old book when it comes to these issues...

From a relative framework, I do, for the reasons noted in my previous posts.

You are back to Technique #1, Seer. Indeed, you've never left it. For you, "moral truths" are "meaningless" unless they are absolute/objective. But you cannot articulate WHY this is the case, and you cannot make a case against relative/subjective morality except to repeatedly remind all of us that it is not absolute/subjective. I've pointed this out over and over. I've challenged you to provide an actual argument. But you can't. You never have. No one ever has. Absolute/objective moralizers (also known as herd-followers) have only one objection: "relative/subjective morality is not good because it's not absolute/objective." You still cannot see that this is not an argument. It's the equivalent of saying "blue is not good because it's not green." We all know blue is not green. We all know relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. Now explain WHY being relative/subjective is bad without simply reminding us (yet again) that it's not absolute/objective.

You cannot do it - which is why you always end up at the same place. And it's why I keep saying, "I don't think you are getting it."

Take heart - you're not alone. Everyone I have ever had this discussion with has gotten stuck in this same place.

[seer]

No tangent. I answered what was asked.



I know.



Does nothing for discovering absolute/objective moral truths. But I never claimed it did, since moral truths are neither absolute nor objective.



Assuming "consistency in your arguments" means that a given individual will have a good chance of developing a consistent moral position - yes, it has a good chance of achieving that (assuming someone with reasonable reasoning capabilities).



Tells us nothing about absolute/objective morality. But I never claimed it did, since moral truths are neither absolute nor objective.



I can - and I did....from a relative framework.



From a relative framework, I do, for the reasons noted in my previous posts.

You are back to Technique #1, Seer. Indeed, you've never left it. For you, "moral truths" are "meaningless" unless they are absolute/objective. But you cannot articulate WHY this is the case, and you cannot make a case against relative/subjective morality except to repeatedly remind all of us that it is not absolute/subjective. I've pointed this out over and over. I've challenged you to provide an actual argument. But you can't. You never have. No one ever has. Absolute/objective moralizers (also known as herd-followers) have only one objection: "relative/subjective morality is not good because it's not absolute/objective." You still cannot see that this is not an argument. It's the equivalent of saying "blue is not good because it's not green." We all know blue is not green. We all know relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. Now explain WHY being relative/subjective is bad without simply reminding us (yet again) that it's not absolute/objective.

You cannot do it - which is why you always end up at the same place. And it's why I keep saying, "I don't think you are getting it."

Take heart - you're not alone. Everyone I have ever had this discussion with has gotten stuck in this same place.

Then if moral reasoning does not lead us to more correct or insightful moral beliefs, or more correct than what the herd or a 2,000 year old Book states, then why even bring it up in the first place? And I did not say that moral truths are meaningless unless they are objective, I said your reasoning process is meaningless or useless for discovering ethical principles.

[carpedm9587]

Then if moral reasoning does not lead us to more absolutely/objectively correct or insightful moral beliefs, or more absolutely/objectively correct than what the herd or a 2,000 year old Book states, then why even bring it up in the first place?

I have inserted and highlighted your missing words. And I brought it up because it does provide for better (and debatable) relative/subjective moral insights. And it provides a reasoned approach to moral conclusions - rather than a simple, and uncertain, "follow-the-herd" approach. The follow-the-herd approach does not even provide a result that is known to (or can be demonstrated to) be linked to a person's core valuing.

And I did not say that moral truths are meaningless unless they are objective, I said your reasoning process is meaningless or useless for discovering absolutely/objectively ethical principles.

You have, many times, noted that "moral truths" are meaningless if they are objective/subjective - so I presume that opinion on your part has not changed.

And, again, I have inserted the words you left out so you can see the assumption (which I believe to be incorrect) that you are making. I never claimed the process would produce absolute/objective results (which I believe I have said multiple times now). It produces superior, and defensible, relative/subjective results, and I have never said anything different. You begin from a starting place that rejects any result that is not absolute/objective, and you cannot see past that, despite the fact that you have 1) never shown relative/subjective results to be inferior to absolute/objective results and 2) have never demonstrated the existence of absolute/objective moral principles.

[seer]

I have inserted and highlighted your missing words. And I brought it up because it does provide for better (and debatable) relative/subjective moral insights. And it provides a reasoned approach to moral conclusions - rather than a simple, and uncertain, "follow-the-herd" approach. The follow-the-herd approach does not even provide a result that is known to (or can be demonstrated to) be linked to a person's core valuing.

Except Carp, a person's core principles are most likely formed by the herd in the first place, so there is no disconnect. You value life and liberty because you were raised in a culture that valued life and liberty. You didn't make it all up. And you are finally getting my point - in your relative world there are no better, or more insightful ethical principles. So your moral conclusions are no more better or insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches. The fact that you hold these conclusions is irrelevant. Riding your high horse of "moral reasoning" gets you nowhere, except to satisfy a personal itch, and to suggest that your reasoning process is somehow superior for discovering ethical principles. It isn't.

You have, many times, noted that "moral truths" are meaningless if they are objective/subjective - so I presume that opinion on your part has not changed.

That is not what I'm arguing here - we have gone over that ad nauseam in the past.

[carpedm9587]

Except Carp, a person's core principles are most likely formed by the herd in the first place, so there is no disconnect. You value life and liberty because you were raised in a culture that valued life and liberty. You didn't make it all up.

I've addressed this already. There is a distinction between "influenced by" and "determined by." There is no doubt that, in a relative/subjective framework, the core values are strongly influenced by the herd. They are not determined by the herd. If they were, there would be no variation in the resulting moral conclusions. In the "follow-the-herd" model, they are determined by the herd. The only variation that will occur is when there is disagreement about "what the herd thinks" because you no longer have direct access to it (as with Christianity).

And you are finally getting my point - in your relative world there are no absolutely/objectively better, or more absolutely/objectively insightful ethical principles. So your moral conclusions are no more absolutely/objectively better or absolutely/objectively insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches. The fact that you hold these conclusions is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to you, Seer, because you are not me. The moral conclusions I reach are my moral conclusions, not yours. It is, after all, a relative/subjective world. And they cannot be relevant to you because you are busily "following the herd." No moral conclusion will be relevant to you unless it "aligns with the herd." But you cannot explain why your moral conclusions are as they are except "the herd thinks so." And I come back to the question I have asked many times, and you have ignored or deleted each time:

1) A person who holds a position because they have thought it through for themselves
2) A person who hold a position because it aligns with "the herd."

Which do you have more respect for? Which do you think reflects a self-actualized, mature person? Most of us would answer 1). You seem to be defending 2). I find that odd.

Riding your high horse of "moral reasoning" gets you nowhere, except to satisfy a personal itch, and to suggest that your reasoning process is somehow superior for discovering absolute/objective ethical principles. It isn't.

So, again, I inserted the words you continually omit in your posts. My hope is that you will see the disconnect - but I have to admit that is becoming a fairly faint hope. You continually speak in terms of absolutes - because to you, that is what moral principles are: absolute notions everyone must ascribe to. They are like the laws of mathematics, and reason. Maybe physics. You need them to be this for them to be "meaningful."

But you are speaking to someone who sees morality much like law - relative and subjective. So I agree that...

- In my relative world there are no absolutely/objectively better, or more absolutely/objectively insightful ethical principles. There are relatively/subjectively better, and more relatively/subjectively insightful ethical principles. I never claimed otherwise.

- My moral conclusions are no more absolutely/objectively better or absolutely/objectively insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches. They are relatively/subjectively better and relatively/subjectively insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches.

- My moral reasoning process is not superior for discovering absolute/objective ethical principles. It is superior for discovering relative/subjective ethical principles.

Your problem, Seer, is that you are trying to argue "absolute/objective morality is better than relative/subjective morality." To achieve this, you are repeating, over and over again, "absolute/objective morality is not relative/subjective morality." I absolutely agree with what you are SAYING. I disagree that you have actually shown what you think you are ARGUING. You haven't shown relative/subjective morality is worse than absolute/objective morality. You've just shown they aren't the same.

And to add to your problem - you haven't (and I believe can't) even shown that these absolute/objective moral principles exist.

That is not what I'm arguing here - we have gone over that ad nauseam in the past.

We've gone over all of this ad naseum, Seer. Perhaps it is simply time to acknowledge we do not agree - and are not likely to agree - and move on?

[seer]

I've addressed this already. There is a distinction between "influenced by" and "determined by." There is no doubt that, in a relative/subjective framework, the core values are strongly influenced by the herd. They are not determined by the herd. If they were, there would be no variation in the resulting moral conclusions. In the "follow-the-herd" model, they are determined by the herd. The only variation that will occur is when there is disagreement about "what the herd thinks" because you no longer have direct access to it (as with Christianity).

Carp, I was answering this point of yours: The follow-the-herd approach does not even provide a result that is known to (or can be demonstrated to) be linked to a person's core valuing.

That does not follow, if the herd helped form our core values then those values would be linked to our core valuing.

It is irrelevant to you, Seer, because you are not me. The moral conclusions I reach are my moral conclusions, not yours. It is, after all, a relative/subjective world. And they cannot be relevant to you because you are busily "following the herd." No moral conclusion will be relevant to you unless it "aligns with the herd." But you cannot explain why your moral conclusions are as they are except "the herd thinks so." And I come back to the question I have asked many times, and you have ignored or deleted each time:

1) A person who holds a position because they have thought it through for themselves
2) A person who hold a position because it aligns with "the herd."

Which do you have more respect for? Which do you think reflects a self-actualized, mature person? Most of us would answer 1). You seem to be defending 2). I find that odd.

It is not a question of who I respect more. Should I respect the moral view of the murdering Maoist because he thought through it, over Fred who doesn't murder, steal or lie simply because he was brought up that way? What are you asking?

So, again, I inserted the words you continually omit in your posts. My hope is that you will see the disconnect - but I have to admit that is becoming a fairly faint hope. You continually speak in terms of absolutes - because to you, that is what moral principles are: absolute notions everyone must ascribe to. They are like the laws of mathematics, and reason. Maybe physics. You need them to be this for them to be "meaningful."

But you are speaking to someone who sees morality much like law - relative and subjective. So I agree that...

- In my relative world there are no absolutely/objectively better, or more absolutely/objectively insightful ethical principles. There are relatively/subjectively better, and more relatively/subjectively insightful ethical principles. I never claimed otherwise.

- My moral conclusions are no more absolutely/objectively better or absolutely/objectively insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches. They are relatively/subjectively better and relatively/subjectively insightful than what the herd believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches.

- My moral reasoning process is not superior for discovering absolute/objective ethical principles. It is superior for discovering relative/subjective ethical principles.

Your problem, Seer, is that you are trying to argue "absolute/objective morality is better than relative/subjective morality." To achieve this, you are repeating, over and over again, "absolute/objective morality is not relative/subjective morality." I absolutely agree with what you are SAYING. I disagree that you have actually shown what you think you are ARGUING. You haven't shown relative/subjective morality is worse than absolute/objective morality. You've just shown they aren't the same.

And to add to your problem - you haven't (and I believe can't) even shown that these absolute/objective moral principles exist.

Again my only point in this present discussion is this: All your moral reasoning leads us nowhere when it comes to discovering ethical principles, and in fact it is no better that relying on the herd or what is in a 2,000 year old book. If you would just admit that we can move on.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I was answering this point of yours: The follow-the-herd approach does not even provide a result that is known to (or can be demonstrated to) be linked to a person's core valuing.

That does not follow, if the herd helped form our core values then those values would be linked to our core valuing.

It follows fine for the reasons I cited:

1) The relative/subjective - moral reasoning approach is based on core values that are influenced by the herd - not dictated by it
2) The is a rational link between those values and the moral conclusion.

The follow-the-herd approach for reaching a moral conclusion is complete divorced from the underlying valuing because it does not have a rational link to it or even factor it in. The only objective is "align my moral conclusions to what the herd thinks.

It is possible you are not distinguishing between "the underlying value structure" and "the moral conclusions."

It is not a question of who I respect more. Should I respect the moral view of the murdering Maoist because he thought through it, over Fred who doesn't murder, steal or lie simply because he was brought up that way? What are you asking?

Forget morality for a second. I am asking a very simple question:

Person A: arrives at a conclusion by examining premises, applying reason, and arriving at a conclusion.
Person B: arrives at a conclusion by determining what "the herd" thinks and aligning their conclusion to the herd.

Which person is coming to conclusions in a more mature, more rational way?

Again my only point in this present discussion is this: All your moral reasoning leads us nowhere when it comes to discovering absolute/objective ethical principles

I have (again) inserted the words you left out. I have never disagreed with this. But (again), you aren't saying anything.

, and in fact it is no better that relying on the herd or what is in a 2,000 year old book. If you would just admit that we can move on.

Why would I agree to this? It's not true.

[seer]

Forget morality for a second. I am asking a very simple question:

Person A: arrives at a conclusion by examining premises, applying reason, and arriving at a conclusion.
Person B: arrives at a conclusion by determining what "the herd" thinks and aligning their conclusion to the herd.

Which person is coming to conclusions in a more mature, more rational way?

No Carp, I am not going to forget morality because that is what we are speaking of. So answer the question, who do you respect more; The Maoists who logically reasons through to his murderous acts or Fred who doesn't lie, steal or murder simply because that is the way he was raised?

Why would I agree to this? It's not true.

Then why does your moral reasoning lead to better or more insightful ethical principles than what the herd believes or what we find in the 2,000 year old book?

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I am not going to forget morality because that is what we are speaking of. So answer the question, who do you respect more; The Maoists who logically reasons through to his murderous acts or Fred who doesn't lie, steal or murder simply because that is the way he was raised?

Because of my moral framework, I agree with the conclusions of Fred and disagree with the conclusions of the Maoist. However, I admire the way the moral conclusion of the Maoist was reached and do not admire Fred. You see, I have a method for having a discussion with the Maoist, and perhaps convincing him the conclude differently. I have no such avenue with Fred.

When you shift the example to my facing an atheist who reasons to the conclusion that lying and stealing is morally wrong, and a Muslim jihadists who believes suicide bombing is demanded by his god, you can see the problem. Now I agree the the conclusion of the atheist, and I admire how he arrived at his moral conclusion. I disagree with the jihadist and I not not respect how he arrived at his conclusion. But I have no recourse of discussion with the jihadist, because he will go back to his holy book and insist "god wants this." He's following the herd - and the herd says "this is moral" and rational discussion is not possible. The same occurs with the Christian who says "homosexuals are acting immorally and sinning.

Then why does your moral reasoning lead to better or more insightful ethical principles than what the herd believes or what we find in the 2,000 year old book?

I've answered this many, many times, Seer - and you keep ignoring/dodging the questions I ask of you. So, at this point, it seems that the discussion has become a game to you and you need to win. You're don't seem to be really interested in exploring the issues. If you ask a question I haven't answered, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll leave the last word to you.

[seer]

Because of my moral framework, I agree with the conclusions of Fred and disagree with the conclusions of the Maoist. However, I admire the way the moral conclusion of the Maoist was reached and do not admire Fred. You see, I have a method for having a discussion with the Maoist, and perhaps convincing him the conclude differently. I have no such avenue with Fred.

First that is silly, given the premises and goals of the Maoist you have no logical grounds to present an objection. And since you already agree with Fred why would you want to change his mind? But I'm glad you admit that you admire the Maoist over Fred. Which proves my point - it is not the actual ethics that moral reasoning comes up with, it is the process, regardless of the conclusions. Ethics be damned - the process is King...

When you shift the example to my facing an atheist who reasons to the conclusion that lying and stealing is morally wrong, and a Muslim jihadists who believes suicide bombing is demanded by his god, you can see the problem. Now I agree the the conclusion of the atheist, and I admire how he arrived at his moral conclusion. I disagree with the jihadist and I not not respect how he arrived at his conclusion. But I have no recourse of discussion with the jihadist, because he will go back to his holy book and insist "god wants this." He's following the herd - and the herd says "this is moral" and rational discussion is not possible. The same occurs with the Christian who says "homosexuals are acting immorally and sinning.

And the Maoist will go back to his Little Red Book... From there he will make his logical arguments for the killing of dissidents. He has his premises and you, yours...

I've answered this many, many times, Seer - and you keep ignoring/dodging the questions I ask of you. So, at this point, it seems that the discussion has become a game to you and you need to win. You're don't seem to be really interested in exploring the issues. If you ask a question I haven't answered, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll leave the last word to you.

Get real Carp, you just suggested that your reasoning process is better or more insightful for understanding ethical principles than what the herd comes up with. You can not justify that claim from a relative worldview. And I think you know it...

[carpedm9587]

First that is silly,

You do understand, Seer, that prefixing your responses with such tropes doesn't do anything to actually further your argument, right? They're just a form of well-poisoning to predispose the reader to accept, without justification, that the argument put forward is "silly." I'm sure your like-minded friends probably buy into it. Hopefully a discerning reader looks past this type of debate tactic.

given the premises and goals of the Maoist you have no logical grounds to present an objection. And since you already agree with Fred why would you want to change his mind? But I'm glad you admit that you admire the Maoist over Fred. Which proves my point - it is not the actual ethics that moral reasoning comes up with, it is the process, regardless of the conclusions. Ethics be damned - the process is King...

And the Maoist will go back to his Little Red Book... From there he will make his logical arguments for the killing of dissidents. He has his premises and you, yours...

Get real Carp, you just suggested that your reasoning process is better or more insightful for understanding ethical principles than what the herd comes up with. You can not justify that claim from a relative worldview. And I think you know it...

I have to wonder, Seer, if you actually think coming to these glib conclusions, after spending page after page ignoring the points being made and refusing to answer questions, is actually satisfying to you.

FYI, I know nothing of the kind. Indeed, I think the argument I put forward is sound and well-structured. I think you have responded to almost none of it, and have misrepresented most if it in your responses. What I don't know is if you do that on purpose, or if you truly do not understand the argument being made. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter. I did not get the impression of a man who is intentionally duplicitous when I met you.

[seer]

You do understand, Seer, that prefixing your responses with such tropes doesn't do anything to actually further your argument, right? They're just a form of well-poisoning to predispose the reader to accept, without justification, that the argument put forward is "silly." I'm sure your like-minded friends probably buy into it. Hopefully a discerning reader looks past this type of debate tactic.

The point is you have just as much a chance of changing the Maoist's mind as the Muslim's.

I have to wonder, Seer, if you actually think coming to these glib conclusions, after spending page after page ignoring the points being made and refusing to answer questions, is actually satisfying to you.

FYI, I know nothing of the kind. Indeed, I think the argument I put forward is sound and well-structured. I think you have responded to almost none of it, and have misrepresented most if it in your responses. What I don't know is if you do that on purpose, or if you truly do not understand the argument being made. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter. I did not get the impression of a man who is intentionally duplicitous when I met you.

I have asked you time and time again why you believe that your "moral reasoning" leads to a better or more insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd or Fred believes. Implicit in your argument is that it does. But that is false since such reasoning can lead to the Gulags. So how does a reasoning process that leads to killing political dissidents give us better or more insightful understanding of ethics? How is killing political dissidents a more insightful understanding of ethics?

[carpedm9587]

The point is you have just as much a chance of changing the Maoist's mind as the Muslim's.

I disagree

I have asked you time and time again why you believe that your "moral reasoning" leads to a better or more insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd or Fred believes.

I have answered time and time again. You apparently don't like the answer.

Implicit in your argument is that it does.

Implicit in my argument is the position that it is more likely to (in a relative framework) - and provides an avenue for discussing/debating the issue.

But that is false since such reasoning can lead to the Gulags.

Your "since" does not make your argument. But you do not see that.

So how does a reasoning process that leads to killing political dissidents give us better or more insightful understanding of ethics?

I have responded to this multiple times. If you didn't get it then - I have no reason to believe you'll get it if I repeat it all again. I invite you to read my previous posts - and suggest perhaps you try to do so with a slightly more open mind.

How is killing political dissidents a more insightful understanding of ethics?

I have never claimed it is - from an absolute/objective framework. You are (again) asking the question from that framework - blind to the differing consequences for a relative framework. And all you want to do is keep pounding on "relative/subjective bad because it's not absolute/objective" drum. So long as you cannot see past that obstacle, we have little/no basis for conversation.

In a nutshell, Seer, I understand your framework - and its consequences. You do not understand mine. You continually attempt to assess mine from the perspective of yours. So long as you continue to do that - you will remain blind.

[seer]

I disagree



I have answered time and time again. You apparently don't like the answer.



Implicit in my argument is the position that it is more likely to (in a relative framework) - and provides an avenue for discussing/debating the issue.



Your "since" does not make your argument. But you do not see that.



I have responded to this multiple times. If you didn't get it then - I have no reason to believe you'll get it if I repeat it all again. I invite you to read my previous posts - and suggest perhaps you try to do so with a slightly more open mind.



I have never claimed it is - from an absolute/objective framework. You are (again) asking the question from that framework - blind to the differing consequences for a relative framework. And all you want to do is keep pounding on "relative/subjective bad because it's not absolute/objective" drum. So long as you cannot see past that obstacle, we have little/no basis for conversation.

In a nutshell, Seer, I understand your framework - and its consequences. You do not understand mine. You continually attempt to assess mine from the perspective of yours. So long as you continue to do that - you will remain blind.

No Carp, it is perfectly clear that moral reasoning as a process does not lead to a better or a more insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd believes. Just admit it...