Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

You might want to start with "Marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman" then "Sex was created by God to be shared between a married man and a woman" and anything that is not that would be immoral since it goes against God's created purpose.

That is fine too, Carp understands what I'm saying...

[Sparko]

That is fine too, Carp understands what I'm saying...

Yeah he seems to be playing games here at this point to avoid the actual argument.

He never did answer me about his "consistency" criteria. What does he mean by consistent? Does he mean if you use "genome" to judge morality in one situation you have to use "genome" in all moral decisions? It doesn't make sense to me.

[seer]

Yeah he seems to be playing games here at this point to avoid the actual argument.

He never did answer me about his "consistency" criteria. What does he mean by consistent? Does he mean if you use "genome" to judge morality in one situation you have to use "genome" in all moral decisions? It doesn't make sense to me.

Right when you drill down to his points they seem no more than assertions. Then he accuses us of using assertions.

[carpedm9587]

That is pure bunk Carp, the conclusion is not circular any more than any other deductive argument. I stated a personal preference which is true for me, which is your idea, and reasoned from there. And I did not go in a circle since my conclusion is different from premise one. "Given a certain set of premises, deductive inference should allow one to draw conclusions which are "something other than" the statements with which one begins."


No circularity in my argument Carp...

Yes and I value heterosexual sexual relations over homosexual relations since heterosexuals have the ability to repopulate. You don't get to tell me what my premises are, any more than you get to tell the Maoist. My argument is perfectly logical according to your own standard.

Seer - you clearly started from a moral claim - and then ended with a moral statement. "I prefer this moral law" is not a moral statement based in reason. It is just an assumed moral conclusion. You'll have to do better to make this make sense. So here is an argument you might make, in syllogistic form:

P1) I value my relationship with god and do not want to compromise it and/or displease him
P2) Taking a position against the the biblical claim "homosexuality is wrong" would compromise my relationship with god and/or displease him.
C) Therefore, I accept "homosexuality is wrong" as a moral principle.

This is a sound argument. P1 is true if you tell me it is true for you (I would accept your word). P2 is your problem. You cannot show it to be true. It is not about what you value or something in your control. C falls apart if P2 is untrue.

But according to you, it only has to be true for me - correct?

Because morality is subjective and relative, what one concludes to be moral/immoral may not align with what someone else concludes is moral/immoral. For example, because you have abandoned your moral sense to "what is in the bible," and the bible clearly has an injunction against homosexuality, I have essentially zero hope of getting you to see the issue differently. My only avenue would be to somehow get you to see that "following the biblical herd" is not a very good basis for morality, and simply opens you up to all sorts of positions that are odd and cannot be rationally defended. But you will be impervious to any such argument because your basis is "what the biblical herd says."

As a result, given the absence of a methodology for discussing your beliefs rationally, all that is left is what is always left: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. For the most part, I can merely ignore. You are not in my regular sphere of interaction. Your views are unlikely to have significant impact on me or those I love. And I will be far more likely to be successful with someone who does not base their moral framework so irrationally. Yes, you voice contributes to the overall "anti-gay" atmosphere, but that atmosphere is waning and (at least for now) I can largely ignore it.

In a sense, we are "naturally isolated/separated." If we were neighbors, I would probably shift to a more proactive "isolation/separation." I would probably not invite you to join with me and my family when we have gatherings, because my circle of friends includes a number of homosexual (and bisexual, and trans) people. I would not want your views to poison the atmosphere. I would not treat you rudely or refuse to help you, but you probably would not be part of my close circle of friends. If you began a campaign to eliminate homosexuals from some program that affects me (e.g., scouting, the local school, etc.), I would probably openly contend with you.

When there is no rational basis for discussion, ignore, isolate/separate, or contend is all that is left.

[seer]

Seer - you clearly started from a moral claim - and then ended with a moral statement. "I prefer this moral law" is not a moral statement based in reason. It is just an assumed moral conclusion. You'll have to do better to make this make sense. So here is an argument you might make, in syllogistic form:

No go back to my syllogism that we were just discussing.

1. Human sexuality is only moral if it is shared between a man and a woman. (This is true to me)
2. Men to men sex is not between a man and a woman.
3. Therefore homosexual behavior is immoral.

By the definition I quoted, this is not a circular argument. I did not repeat premise one in the conclusion, I reasoned to the conclusion. The fact that there are moral statements in the first premise and the conclusion does not make the conclusion invalid. You are adding that qualifier. And what do you mean that my objection to homosexuality is not based reason? Whose reason? How do you reason to a premise? Remember when I asked how you came to a premise you said:

They can arise in pretty much any combination - from many herds (family, friends, community, religions, etc.). But they also arise from personal experience. They arise from our physical nature (i.e,, sentient, living, etc.). The mix is not the same for any two people.

So how is my premise any less rational than anything you come up with? Since the mix is not the same for any two people?

Because morality is subjective and relative, what one concludes to be moral/immoral may not align with what someone else concludes is moral/immoral. For example, because you have abandoned your moral sense to "what is in the bible," and the bible clearly has an injunction against homosexuality, I have essentially zero hope of getting you to see the issue differently. My only avenue would be to somehow get you to see that "following the biblical herd" is not a very good basis for morality, and simply opens you up to all sorts of positions that are odd and cannot be rationally defended. But you will be impervious to any such argument because your basis is "what the biblical herd says."

And since you have abandoned your moral sense to relativism you can not even rationally counter the murderous Maoist, since you both begin with different premises... So where does all your moral reasoning get us Carp? Nowhere.

[carpedm9587]

No go back to my syllogism we were just discussing.

P1. Human sexuality is only moral if it is shared between a man and a woman. (This is true to me)
P2. Men to men sex is not between a man and a woman.
C. Therefore homosexual behavior is immoral.

So I come back to my observation: you are beginning with a moral conclusion. The exercise was to show how your moral conclusions are reasoned to.

By the definition I quoted, this is not a circular argument. I did not repeat premise one in the conclusion, I reasoned to the conclusion. The fact that there are moral statements in the first premise and the conclusion does not make the conclusion invalid. You are adding that qualifier.

Seer, your argument is borderline laughable. I'm sorry - but you start with a moral conclusion that says "only sex between men and women is moral." Your next premises is then self-evident from the meaning of the words. And you conclude by repeating your first premise, but in its inverse. Instead of saying "only sex between a man and a woman is moral" you say "sex between a and a man and sex between a man and a woman is immoral." That conclusion is wholly contained within P1. By the laws of logic, if only X is Y, then not X is not Y.

ETA: Actually, it's not the inverse. I need to try this using symbolic language to get the right term. I'm rusty...so give me a bit.

And what do you mean that my objection to homosexuality is not based reason? Whose reason?

Anyone's. It's based on "what the bible says." It is "following the herd" morality. It has about as much reason behind it as "I am going to believe everything my neighbor believes." There is no rational argument with such a person, because their very belief system is not grounded in rationality.

How do you reason to a premise?

Well, the conclusion of one valid argument can become the premise to another. In your case, you stated a moral conclusion as a premise, and it is completely unreasoned-to. It's just arbitrarily selected - pretty much like your entire moral framework.

Remember when I asked how you come to a premise you said:

They can arise in pretty much any combination - from many herds (family, friends, community, religions, etc.). But they also arise from personal experience. They arise from our physical nature (i.e,, sentient, living, etc.). The mix is not the same for any two people.

I believe that discussion was about how we come to what we value. If it was about how we come to a premise, then I misspoke. That being said, what we value becomes the premise to our moral reasoning.

So how is my premise any less rational than anything you come up with?

Because the exercise is about reasoning to moral positions. You started with a moral position.

Since the mix is not the same for any two people?

What we value is (presumably) not exactly the same for any two people. Perhaps it would be better to say it is not necessarily the same for two people.

And since you have abandoned your moral sense to relativism you can not even rationally counter the murderous Maoist...

I haven't "abandoned" my moral sense to relativism, Seer - I've recognized moralizing for what it is. We see it all around us all the time. You may not like it - you may refuse to accept it - but you cannot successfully argue against it. Even YOU are engaging in subjective moralizing. You just aren't doing it on any rational basis.

That even with your so called moral reasoning there are not, nor can there be, objectively right moral answers. You are spinning your wheels. You have gone nowhere...

Ah...there's that common refrain again: moral relativism cannot produce moral absolutes or morally objective statements. I've been agreeing with you for page after page after page. You are correct that I cannot make an absolute claim against the Maoist - because morality is not absolute.

So what? And is history repeats itself (as I suspect it will) you will repeat some form of "I can't make absolute statements." It's the only response in your arsenal, Seer - and it's not even an argument. And you still have not caught on.

[seer]

So I come back to my observation: you are beginning with a moral conclusion. The exercise was to show how your moral conclusions are reasoned to.

No Carp, I'm beginning with a moral preference reasoning to a moral conclusion.

Seer, your argument is borderline laughable. I'm sorry - but you start with a moral conclusion that says "only sex between men and women is moral." Your next premises is then self-evident from the meaning of the words. And you conclude by repeating your first premise, but in its inverse. Instead of saying "only sex between a man and a woman is moral" you say "sex between a and a man and sex between a man and a woman is immoral." That conclusion is wholly contained within P1. By the laws of logic, if only X is Y, then not X is not Y.

No Carp, you can laugh all you want, the argument is deductive. My first premise did not mention homosexual behavior.

1. All unicorns are pink.

2. Puffy is a unicorn.

3. Therefore puffy is pink.

A solid deductive argument.

Anyone's. It's based on "what the bible says." It is "following the herd" morality. It has about as much reason behind it as "I am going to believe everything my neighbor believes." There is no rational argument with such a person, because their very belief system is not grounded in rationality.

Again Carp? Whose rationality? Yours or the Maoist's?

Well, the conclusion of one valid argument can become the premise to another. In your case, you stated a moral conclusion as a premise, and it is completely unreasoned-to. It's just arbitrarily selected - pretty much like your entire moral framework.

How can a moral relativist even make this charge with a straight face when all you have are arbitrary moral notions? Offer just ONE non arbitrary beginning premise for a moral argument.

I believe that discussion was about how we come to what we value. If it was about how we come to a premise, then I misspoke. That being said, what we value becomes the premise to our moral reasoning.

We were speaking of how we come to premises to even start an argument.

Because the exercise is about reasoning to moral positions. You started with a moral position.

Then show me how you come to a premise without begging the question or not based on assertion. I will be waiting.

What we value is (presumably) not exactly the same for any two people. Perhaps it would be better to say it is not necessarily the same for two people.

If that is the case then we are going to begin with different assumptions and premises. Why are yours better or more correct than mine or the Maoist's?

Ah...there's that common refrain again: moral relativism cannot produce moral absolutes or morally objective statements. I've been agreeing with you for page after page after page. You are correct that I cannot make an absolute claim against the Maoist - because morality is not absolute.

Right, and you still have no rational argument to counter the Maoist since you both begin with different premises. So logically of what use in your moral reasoning?

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I'm beginning with a moral preference reasoning to a moral conclusion.

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, a statement that says "X is immoral" is, by definition, a moral conclusion. I would think anyone would see that pretty clearly.

No Carp, you can laugh all you want, the argument is deductive. My first premise did not mention homosexual behavior.

P1. All unicorns are pink.

P2. Puffy is a unicorn.

C. Therefore puffy is pink.

A solid deductive argument.

And you will note that "Puffy is pink" depends 100% on BOTH previous premises. You cannot arrive at C without BOTH P1 and P2. But your argument does not take that form. As soon as you say P1, C is true by definition. It is contained entirely in P1. You can determine that C is true without any recourse to P2, hence the argument is circular.

Again Carp? Whose rationality? Yours or the Maoist's?

The laws of reason that we all live by, Seer. The Maoist does not have a different set of laws of reason than I. If we have differing conclusions, and both arguments are sound, then the only possibility is that we have differing premises. Relative/subjective morality recognizes that reality.

How can a moral relativist even make this charge with a straight face when all you have are arbitrary moral notions? Offer just ONE non arbitrary beginning premise for a moral argument.

When someone states a moral position with no rational argument behind it, Seer, the position is arbitrary. That is essentially what you are doing.

We were speaking of how we come to premises to even start an argument.

The premises of any moral argument are rooted in what we individually value. It has always been thus. That is what makes morality relative/subjective.

Then show me how you come to a premise without begging the question or not based on assertion. I will be waiting.

That is not possible. What we value is individual and subjective. It is our starting place. In some cases it may be logically arrived at (if it is rooted in something else), but ultimately the starting place for ANY chain of reasoning that has to do with preference will be rooted in the preference. Ergo, there is nothing I can do but to assert that starting place. I may be able to explain whence the value arises, and it can be influenced by many things, but it is fundamentally what we find valuable in our lives. So I value life. I can tell you some of the reasons I value life, but it is, without question, a preference. It can only be asserted.

If that is the case then we are going to begin with different assumptions and premises. Why are yours better or more correct than mine or the Maoist's?

They are not objectively or absolutely better. They are better "for me." That is what "relative" and "subjective" means. But then we knew this - you are (again) simply complaining the relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective - and I suspect you STILL don't see it.

Right, and you still have no rational argument to counter the Maoist since you both begin with different premises. So logically of what use in your moral reasoning?

As I have noted multiple times - I have two ways to have a rational discussion with the Maoist:

1) If we have the same premises/valuing, I can unearth an error in his chain of reasoning
2) If we do not have the same premises/valuing, I can attempt to sway his valuing.

If I cannot do either, then I do not have a way to reason with him to a moral conclusion. So it is not correct to say that "there is no way to reason with the Maoist." It is correct to say "there may be no way to reason with the Maoist" or "there is not necessarily a way to reason with the Maoist. I have never said otherwise. That happens. Indeed, with a little thought, you will see that you just complained (again) that relative/subjective morality cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. It's really the only tool you have - and it's not even a tool. It's a definition - and one I have agreed with over and over again. The moral relativist/subjectivist cannot make absolute/objective moral claims. I really don't know how often you want me to repeat it. I agree with you. 100%. No argument. Again...I ask...so what? (and you will again repeat the definition in the next post).

You and I have the same basic problem. My position on homosexuality is rooted in my valuing life, love, and the general belief that moral principles should be uniformly and consistently applied (i.e., the same across all parallel scenarios). Your's is rooted in "I have to follow the bible herd." Ergo, there is no rational way to discuss the issue with you. We start from vastly differing premises. I should have known better to even try (earlier) because the only argument that will hold say for you is if someone can prove the bible does NOT contain prohibitions against homosexuality. Since it does, you will blindly follow it without much further thought.

THIS is your actual argument:

P1: The bible is the ultimate authority in moral statements
P2: The bible says homosexuality is immoral
C: Homosexuality is immoral

Of course, you can show that P2 is probably true (using our best interpretations of the fragments we have), but you cannot show P1 to be objectively true. So your actual subjective argument is:

P1: I value the bible as the ultimate authority in moral statements
P2: The bible says homosexuality is immoral
C: Homosexuality is immoral

NOW your moral position is rooted in subjective valuing.

Ergo, we are left with the only other way to deal with moral disconnects: ignore them, isolate/separate them, or contend about them. In our case, I can largely ignore your position and move on. We are naturally separated. And I will contend in the court of public opinion (which is basically what I'm doing now) and in advocating for legal acceptance for same-sex marriage and the same-sex lifestyle. Despite the setback of the SCOTUS ruling on the wedding cake, that appears to be going in a direction I am happy with. The next generation is overwhelmingly accepting. They just need the stubborn old farts to die off!

[seer]

When someone states a moral position with no rational argument behind it, Seer, the position is arbitrary. That is essentially what you are doing.



The premises of any moral argument are rooted in what we individually value. It has always been thus. That is what makes morality relative/subjective.



That is not possible. What we value is individual and subjective. It is our starting place. In some cases it may be logically arrived at (if it is rooted in something else), but ultimately the starting place for ANY chain of reasoning that has to do with preference will be rooted in the preference. Ergo, there is nothing I can do but to assert that starting place. I may be able to explain whence the value arises, and it can be influenced by many things, but it is fundamentally what we find valuable in our lives. So I value life. I can tell you some of the reasons I value life, but it is, without question, a preference. It can only be asserted.

This is what we need to clear up Carp. You say you can not state a premise without begging the question or using an assertion, yet you claim that my premise is arbitrary. How is the premise based on your preference any less arbitrary than my preference? It seems like a clear double standard.

[carpedm9587]

This is what we need to clear up Carp. You say you can not state a premise without begging the question or using an assertion, yet you claim that my premise is arbitrary.

Your premise is an arbitrary moral conclusion Seer, and your argument is circular. I believe I have shown both to be true. That it is a moral conclusion is self-evident form the fact that the premise contains "is moral." That the argument is circular is evident in that the conclusion does not depend in any way on knowing P2. Knowing P1 is adequate, which means your conclusion is entirely contained in your premise. Your P2 is merely a self-evidence definition.

How is the premise based on your preference any less arbitrary than my preference? It seems like a clear double standard.

My preferences are not moral conclusions. "I value life" is not a moral conclusion. It is from what I value that I arrive at what I find moral. I showed you the form of your moral reasoning chain (as I understand it.

P1) Seer believes the bible is the absolute authority on morality (you don't need to prove this to me because it is a statement of your belief - it is true if you actually believe it, but note that it essentially a "follow the herd" statement - you are submitting to the bible as the moral authority, ceding your own moral authority to that of the "biblical herd")
P2) The bible says homosexuality is immoral (I accept that as true)
C) Homosexuality is immoral.

Your conclusion logically follows. For you, homosexuality is immoral. The logic is sound, so I cannot argue it. You premise is not the same as mine - I don't have that belief. If I cannot convince you to re-examine that premise, then you will continue to hold your moral position convinced it is "the best" for you. That leaves ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

If you were to attempt to frame it as follows:

P1) The bible is the absolute authority on morality (this is no longer a statement of belief, but rather a claim to an absolute truth)
P2) The bible says homosexuality is immoral (I accept that as true)
C) Homosexuality is immoral.

Now we have an avenue. You will not be able to show P1 to be true, so your conclusion is in question.

[seer]

My preferences are not moral conclusions. "I value life" is not a moral conclusion. It is from what I value that I arrive at what I find moral. I showed you the form of your moral reasoning chain (as I understand it).

How is valuing or not valuing human life not a moral statement? That, it seems to me, would be the ultimate moral conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

How is valuing or not valuing human life not a moral statement? That, it seems to me, would be the ultimate moral conclusion.

A moral statement is about quantifying action. "Doing X is moral" (ought to be done or permitted to be done) and "Doing Y is immoral" (ought not be done) are moral statements.

"I value X" is a simple statement of preference. It does not say anything about how I should or should not act. It merely states what I find value in.

• I value freedom
• I value happiness
• I value life
• I value health

The list of the things we value goes from the truly cherished to the inconsequential. We tend to use the word "morality" for things that are associated with the "truly cherished" end of the spectrum - not the inconsequential end of the spectrum. But the entire list of "I value" is alike insofar as it expresses a person preference. So your statement that "I value pizza" is not different in kind from "I value life" is accurate - if misleading. They are alike in that they are preferences. They are different in that they have a different level of depth/meaning to most of us.

It is from my value for life that I arrive at a proscription against random killing. Someone who does not value life, or values something higher than life (i.e., money) will likely not arrive at that proscription. Fortunately, most people DO value life and DO arrive at that proscription - and collectively we can protect ourselves from the few who do not.

[seer]

A moral statement is about quantifying action. "Doing X is moral" (ought to be done or permitted to be done) and "Doing Y is immoral" (ought not be done) are moral statements.

"I value X" is a simple statement of preference. It does not say anything about how I should or should not act. It merely states what I find value in.

• I value freedom
• I value happiness
• I value life
• I value health

The list of the things we value goes from the truly cherished to the inconsequential. We tend to use the word "morality" for things that are associated with the "truly cherished" end of the spectrum - not the inconsequential end of the spectrum. But the entire list of "I value" is alike insofar as it expresses a person preference. So your statement that "I value pizza" is not different in kind from "I value life" is accurate - if misleading. They are alike in that they are preferences. They are different in that they have a different level of depth/meaning to most of us.

It is from my value for life that I arrive at a proscription against random killing. Someone who does not value life, or values something higher than life (i.e., money) will likely not arrive at that proscription. Fortunately, most people DO value life and DO arrive at that proscription - and collectively we can protect ourselves from the few who do not.

I have to ask Carp, why do you value human life? Is that not because of what the herd taught you, from living in the Christian West and growing up with human rights?

[carpedm9587]

I have to ask Carp, why do you value human life? Is that not because of what the herd taught you, from living in the Christian West and growing up with human rights?

I am sure that my valuing life is influenced by "the herd," Seer. We are all influenced by the herd. It is one of the many things that forms what we value. But it is not just "a herd;" it is many of them (family, school, community, religion, country, friends, etc.). And it is not just based on herd influence; it is also based on personal experience, reality, and reason. I don't just value life because I generally live in a culture that does, but also because I enjoy the experience of living. I enjoy the impact that other living humans have on my daily life. I also have a sense of balance or justice - that I am more likely to have my life respected if I respect that of others - and contribute to am environment where life, generally, is valued. All of that combined leads me to a moral prohibition against random killing.

Meanwhile, I think I know the point you are trying to make, Seer, but you are ignoring an important difference: the distinction between "be influenced by" and "consciously seek to align with and/or follow." There is no doubt that the herd influences me. I have never denied it. I do not, however, consciously seek to align to the herd. Indeed, because the herd is an influence - and not the guiding star - I am free to disagree with the herd when I find the herd doesn't seem to be making much sense. It may take a while to see it - because herd influence is pretty strong. But the possibility of disagreeing with the herd exists and has happened many times in my life.

That is something that you cannot do. Your "authority" is a book written by ancient men who lived 2000-3500 years ago, whose names we do not generally know at all, or have some doubt about (with a few exceptions in the NT), of which we have no original copies (especially true of the NT), written in a different languages. You have hitched your moral wagon to this book, whose meaning you claim to understand without doubt. So are not only "following the herd," you are following a herd you cannot question (they are dead) and whose actual intent you cannot know with certainty.

If you think I am wrong, I point you to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. Here is a document that was written in our own language, was written less than three centuries ago, for which we have not only original copies but we also have a body of surrounding literature, and for which the authorship is known and not in doubt. Despite all of that, people can read the second amendment and come to very different interpretations - and each side will insist they have the "right" interpretation. They will go to court to fight that battle.

There is a world of difference between your approach and mine, Seer - and it's not just about relative/absolute or subjective/objective. It's also about reasoning vs. following. It's about thinking for yourself and asking, "does this make sense?" versus blindly following a collection of ancient texts.

[Sparko]

P1 Carp believes morals are subjective to each individual and there are no objective morals.

Therefore:

1. He has no right to impose his subjective moral values on me or anyone else.
2. He has no right to question my subjective morals or anyone else's.
3. We don't care what his subjective moral values are because they are only subjective to himself.

Conclusion: He should just shut up and not argue in threads regarding morals.



Corollary: The fact that he insists on arguing that we are "wrong" and we should agree with him, and will debate that for dozens of pages shows that he doesn't actually believe morals are subjective at all.