Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

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.

Correct. No one actually CAN impose their morals on anyone else. At best they can (if they have adequate power) force someone to not act on a moral norm they deem inappropriate. So if someone believes random killing is moral and proceeds to do so - no one can actually impose a change of moral stance on them (assuming it is actually a moral issue driving it), but they can arrest them, try them, and then lock them up for the protection of the greater society. That won't make the person see the communities moral norm as "right" (i.e., might makes right), but it will protect the community against moral norms that badly deviate from what the community in general wants.

2. He has no right to question my subjective morals or anyone else's.

Right? Sport, I hate to break it to you, but I can question anything I bloody please (as can you). And it is in my vested interest, and that of the community that agrees with me, to get as many people "onboard" with a moral norm we believe to be important. So naturally I'm going to question, challenge, and debate. If I cannot foster change in those views, then we are back to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. That's pretty much the way it works. It works that way for you too.

3. We don't care what his subjective moral values are because they are only subjective to himself.

That may well be true, and it is certainly your choice to "not care." Frankly, given the irrational basis of your moral positions, my chances of actually convincing you of anything are slim to none. When someone has adopted a "follow what X says" morality, the only way to change their minds with reason is to either get them to stop "following X" or convince them that "X doesn't want that." There isn't much hope of either, which is why most of the time we'll be left with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

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

Nah... I'm an optimist. I think there is always hope for those who actually have some degree of rationality to them that they will eventually see the irrationality of their approach. I believe there is a dynamic tension that arises when a rational being adopts irrational viewpoints and approaches - and it is possible to make that case. It won't happen for everyone, this I know. Indeed, I actually have little hope that it will happen for you or Seer or MM or most who post here who think as you do. But they aren't the only audience. There are many (based on the visitors at the bottom) who visit and read. If what I say makes even one of them think - it's worth it.

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.

This has been refuted multiple times. I'll let the previous statements stand.

[seer]

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.

This is my point, and I have brought this up in the past. If you were a good Maoist raised in the cultural revolution you would put the collective over the individuals life, and human rights would be meaningless to you or your goals. So your value for human life is directly tied the this herd we call the US (or the Christian West), and all your moral reasoning is grounded in this Western value for human rights and the human person. The herd is family, school, community, religion, country, friends, etc, which would have been completely different if you were raised in China back in the day. In other words your most fundamental principle, the value for human life, is the thing that gives rise to all your subsequent moral positions - and it is a herd induced value.

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.

I guess you are just lucky to be born in the Christian West so you can launch your all your reasoning endeavors from a Western, Christian platform. No need to thank us...

[carpedm9587]

This is my point, and I have brought this up in the past. If you were a good Maoist raised in the cultural revolution you would put the collective over the individuals life, and human rights would be meaningless to you or your goals.

Possibly. Perhaps even likely.

So your value for human life is directly tied the this herd we call the US (or the Christian West), and all your moral reasoning is grounded in this Western value for human rights and the human person.

Tied? No. Influenced? Yes. "Tied" implies there is a fixed relationship. There isn't. At no point have I (or other who think like me) adopted a "whatever the herd wants, we will do." That is what the "absolutist/objectivist" does, not the relativist.

The herd is family, school, community, religion, country, friends, etc, which would have been completely different if you were raised in China back in the day.

Agreed.

In other words your most fundamental principle, the value for human life, is the thing that gives rise to all your subsequent moral positions - and it is a herd induced value.

Herd influenced - not induced. There is no necessary relationship, as there is if one chooses to submit their entire moral framework to "the herd." I have never disagreed that the herd influences me. The herd does not, however, dictate. And for all of your clinging to absolutes and objective truths, Seer, you are in the same position. If you had been born in China, there is a high probability that you would be a Buddhist or a Confucianist - if you had been born in the middle east, there is a a high probability you would be Muslim - and we would be having this conversation about Buddhist moral norms or Muslim moral norms.

The vast difference is a simple one: has the person willing subjected their moral decision making to "what the herd wants," or are they simply strongly influenced by it. You are the former. I am the latter.

I guess you are just lucky to be born in the Christian West so you can launch your all your reasoning endeavors from a Western, Christian platform. No need to thank us...

Ironic isn't it? That suggest that Christianity actually contains within it the seeds of its own eventual demise. It encourages rational thought, but then cannot withstand its penetrating gaze.

And I think we should note that there is a strong learning component in most major religions: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. I don't see that Christianity has any unique claim with respect to this. And yet, despite that history of "reasoning," you (and those who think as you do) have abandoned it and turned your entire moral process over to "what the herd wants." Consciously. By choice. You can see this in your responses to moral questions - they are all rooted in "what does the bible say?" You aren't thinking for yourself. You've simply abandoned that in favor of the interpreted text of the bible.

It took me a long time to see that this was what I was doing when I was Christian and saying the things I hear you saying. It's very hard to see from "within the box."

[Sparko]

Correct. No one actually CAN impose their morals on anyone else. At best they can (if they have adequate power) force someone to not act on a moral norm they deem inappropriate. So if someone believes random killing is moral and proceeds to do so - no one can actually impose a change of moral stance on them (assuming it is actually a moral issue driving it), but they can arrest them, try them, and then lock them up for the protection of the greater society. That won't make the person see the communities moral norm as "right" (i.e., might makes right), but it will protect the community against moral norms that badly deviate from what the community in general wants.

You wish to convince me that your morals are true for me. But they aren't since they are subjective to you. So I really don't care.

Right? Sport, I hate to break it to you, but I can question anything I bloody please (as can you). And it is in my vested interest, and that of the community that agrees with me, to get as many people "onboard" with a moral norm we believe to be important. So naturally I'm going to question, challenge, and debate. If I cannot foster change in those views, then we are back to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. That's pretty much the way it works. It works that way for you too.

From now on I will just ignore your bleating and ranting because you can't tell me what my morals should be, how they should be evaluated, or based upon, etc.

That may well be true, and it is certainly your choice to "not care." Frankly, given the irrational basis of your moral positions, my chances of actually convincing you of anything are slim to none. When someone has adopted a "follow what X says" morality, the only way to change their minds with reason is to either get them to stop "following X" or convince them that "X doesn't want that." There isn't much hope of either, which is why most of the time we'll be left with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

My morals are based on the idea that morals are objective and they are shared with millions of others who believe the same. Yours are merely your own, so yeah... don't care.

Nah... I'm an optimist. I think there is always hope for those who actually have some degree of rationality to them that they will eventually see the irrationality of their approach. I believe there is a dynamic tension that arises when a rational being adopts irrational viewpoints and approaches - and it is possible to make that case. It won't happen for everyone, this I know. Indeed, I actually have little hope that it will happen for you or Seer or MM or most who post here who think as you do. But they aren't the only audience. There are many (based on the visitors at the bottom) who visit and read. If what I say makes even one of them think - it's worth it.

I don't find your morals to be based on rationality, but on "feels" that you try to justify by jumping through semantic hoops and playing twister, such as trying to characterize us calling homosexual behavior immoral to be "bigoted" because of "genomes"

This has been refuted multiple times. I'll let the previous statements stand.

It hasn't been refuted at all. The more you keep arguing morals with others the more you show that you actually believe morals to be objective. Your claim to subjectivity is shredded by your own actual insistence on arguing as if they were objective. The fact that you can't see that just adds more irony to your claims.

[carpedm9587]

You wish to convince me that your morals are true for me. But they aren't since they are subjective to you. So I really don't care.

I wish to convince you that the morals I hold are better morals than the morals you hold. Whether or not you care is your call.

From now on I will just ignore your bleating and ranting because you can't tell me what my morals should be, how they should be evaluated, or based upon, etc.

That is also your choice.

My morals are based on the idea that morals are objective and they are shared with millions of others who believe the same. Yours are merely your own, so yeah... don't care.

My morals are arrived at with thought - and (like you) most of them are shared by billions of people around the world. But I will never be a slave to "the herd" because I reason to my morals - I don't just follow the herd. I understand your approach is to just follow the herd. In your case, "the herd" has a fixed framework because you have chosen to use a set of documents written 2000-3500 years old. So your moral framework is frozen in time. A very ancient time, at that.

I don't find your morals to be based on rationality, but on "feels" that you try to justify by jumping through semantic hoops and playing twister, such as trying to characterize us calling homosexual behavior immoral to be "bigoted" because of "genomes"

Yeah - I realize you have never understood that argument. Unfortunately, you really can't escape it. You can ignore it - but that doesn't make it less true.

It hasn't been refuted at all. The more you keep arguing morals with others the more you show that you actually believe morals to be objective.

No.

Your claim to subjectivity is shredded by your own actual insistence on arguing as if they were objective.

No.

The fact that you can't see that just adds more irony to your claims.

As has been noted in my conversation, this argument conflates moral universalism (the world would be better if everyone used this moral principle) with moral absolutism (there is a fixed, unchanging, absolute moral norm everyone should align to). I hold the former position (for what I hope are pretty obvious reasons) - but not the latter. You hold both positions, but you confuse the two - hence this incorrect argument of yours (and others).

[Sparko]

I wish to convince you that the morals I hold are better morals than the morals you hold. Whether or not you care is your call.

How can they be? "Better" implies some objective standard they are measured against and you said there is no such thing.

That is also your choice.

Yep

My morals are arrived at with thought - and (like you) most of them are shared by billions of people around the world. But I will never be a slave to "the herd" because I reason to my morals - I don't just follow the herd. I understand your approach is to just follow the herd. In your case, "the herd" has a fixed framework because you have chosen to use a set of documents written 2000-3500 years old. So your moral framework is frozen in time. A very ancient time, at that.

So you tell yourself. But in reality your morals are nothing but your personal preferences and beliefs.

Yeah - I realize you have never understood that argument. Unfortunately, you really can't escape it. You can ignore it - but that doesn't make it less true.

You claiming it doesn't make it true, it makes it your opinion. Which is no better than your morals.

No.



No.

You denying it just makes it even more ironic.

As has been noted in my conversation, this argument conflates moral universalism (the world would be better if everyone used this moral principle) with moral absolutism (there is a fixed, unchanging, absolute moral norm everyone should align to). I hold the former position (for what I hope are pretty obvious reasons) - but not the latter. You hold both positions, but you confuse the two - hence this incorrect argument of yours (and others).

I am talking OBJECTIVE morality, not absolute or universalism. And just because you believe everyone would be better off with your morals just means you actually believe in objective morals too, but you want yourself to be that objective standard. You are just putting yourself in the place of God. Trying to be God was the downfall of Satan.

[carpedm9587]

How can they be? "Better" implies some objective standard they are measured against and you said there is no such thing.

No - it doesn't. "Better" can be measured against anything you and I both agree is important. So if I discover that we both agree that "treating people with respect is a laudable goal," then I can leverage that to make the case that X is better than Y at achieving that. It doesn't have to be an objective standard - just a mutually agreed upon one.

Yep

So you tell yourself. But in reality your morals are nothing but your personal preferences and beliefs.

That is true of all of us, Sparko. Your claim to having "absolute/objective" moral standards simply does not withstand scrutiny. Watching the arguments you and Seer make is somewhat like watching people standing in the rain claiming, "it's not raining!" You live and breath relative/subjective morality - all the while claiming it is absolute/objective. You have never shown that it actually IS absolute/objective. Indeed, the entire thing is rooted in your own preference for the Christian bible. You can no more escape that morality is about preferences than I can.

You claiming it doesn't make it true, it makes it your opinion. Which is no better than your morals.

When a person provides an argument, and you are unable to refute it - simply asserting over and over again "it's not true" doesn't make the argument go away. I realize you and Seer are not likely to see that - but hopefully some of the other readers will.

You denying it just makes it even more ironic.

I am talking OBJECTIVE morality, not absolute or universalism.

And yet the conflation continues. The only way in which morality is "objective" is that my morality is objective to you and yours to me. That is to say, my beliefs/thoughts do not change what your moral framework is. That's about it. So, to align with your language, you are conflating "universalism" with "objectivism." I can say "I beleive the world would be better if everyone followed this moral norm" without having to believe "this moral norm constitutes and objective standard everyone must adhere to." There is no conflict here, despite the common claim that there is.

And just because you believe everyone would be better off with your morals just means you actually believe in objective morals too, but you want yourself to be that objective standard. You are just putting yourself in the place of God. Trying to be God was the downfall of Satan.

No. None of this has anything to do with gods or satans. I view those as myths. It has everything to do with a very simple reality of subjective/relative morality: I always hold, at any given time, what I believe to be the "best" moral standard. I do because it aligns with what I value (if I have reasoned correctly). I measure all actions against that standard - both mine and those of others. Moral objectivists/absolutists are under the mistaken impression that I am required to honor the moral conclusions of everyone else in a relative/subjective world. I am not. I measure everything against my own standard, seeing it as the best. If everyone were ever to present a moral standard that differs from mine, and I come to see it as "better" than the one I hold, my moral framework will immediately shift to include it and discard the previously held position. There is no inconsistency here. Indeed, recognizing the actual relative/subjective nature of morality gives me ways to approach moral discussions that are more grounded than yours.

For example, knowing that you value the bible and your god above all else, and recognizing that you (and Seer) have adopted a "follow the herd" moral framework, I know it is essentially impossible to reason to moral conclusions with you. I would only be able to shift your moral stance if I could a) get you to see that you have abandoned actual moral reasoning, or b) convince you that the bible doesn't say what you think it says. The former is unlikely. The latter is essentially impossible.

Like I said - I don't engage in these discussion for your benefit or Seer's, or with any hope that your views will change. I engage for the other readers who might be a little less "locked down" and actually willing to consider the arguments being made. You may not see that you're just ducking the genome argument - but I can hope that they will.

[seer]

Herd influenced - not induced. There is no necessary relationship, as there is if one chooses to submit their entire moral framework to "the herd." I have never disagreed that the herd influences me. The herd does not, however, dictate. And for all of your clinging to absolutes and objective truths, Seer, you are in the same position. If you had been born in China, there is a high probability that you would be a Buddhist or a Confucianist - if you had been born in the middle east, there is a a high probability you would be Muslim - and we would be having this conversation about Buddhist moral norms or Muslim moral norms.

That is not the point Carp, which is that the very foundation of your moral reasoning is dependent on the fact that you were born in the Christian West. Whatever principles you come up are first are grounded in the value of life and the ideals of human rights. You did not figure this out yourself, you did not first reason to that position. The best you could say is that you rationally accepted that human value after the fact. But even that reasoning is circular since you probably wouldn't have accepted that principle in the first place save the fact that you were born here.

The vast difference is a simple one: has the person willing subjected their moral decision making to "what the herd wants," or are they simply strongly influenced by it. You are the former. I am the latter.

You mean the herd that accepts gay marriage, killing the unborn, convenient divorce, sex outside marriage, etc...? Yep, I'm right on board!

Ironic isn't it? That suggest that Christianity actually contains within it the seeds of its own eventual demise. It encourages rational thought, but then cannot withstand its penetrating gaze.

Whose penetrating gaze? Yours? And you speak of rational thought, but you agreed that rational thought can just as well lead to the Gulags. So what are you saying?

And I think we should note that there is a strong learning component in most major religions: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. I don't see that Christianity has any unique claim with respect to this. And yet, despite that history of "reasoning," you (and those who think as you do) have abandoned it and turned your entire moral process over to "what the herd wants." Consciously. By choice. You can see this in your responses to moral questions - they are all rooted in "what does the bible say?" You aren't thinking for yourself. You've simply abandoned that in favor of the interpreted text of the bible.

Carp, if you believed that the New Testament was God inspired would you attempt to follow, as best you understood, its moral principles? Yes or no.

[Sparko]

No - it doesn't. "Better" can be measured against anything you and I both agree is important. So if I discover that we both agree that "treating people with respect is a laudable goal," then I can leverage that to make the case that X is better than Y at achieving that. It doesn't have to be an objective standard - just a mutually agreed upon one.

so basically if we agree, we agree? Who cares? I am sure we do agree on some standards and morals. But if you are correct, that doesn't mean squat. If I think treating people with respect is "good" and you do too, all that means is we agree on something. It doesn't mean that treating people with respect is actually "good" or "better" because there is no standard of better other than what we say. Seer could disagree and be just as correct. It doesn't matter.

That is true of all of us, Sparko. Your claim to having "absolute/objective" moral standards simply does not withstand scrutiny. Watching the arguments you and Seer make is somewhat like watching people standing in the rain claiming, "it's not raining!" You live and breath relative/subjective morality - all the while claiming it is absolute/objective. You have never shown that it actually IS absolute/objective. Indeed, the entire thing is rooted in your own preference for the Christian bible. You can no more escape that morality is about preferences than I can.

Except you keep arguing as if they were objective, tanking your own argument that they are not.

When a person provides an argument, and you are unable to refute it - simply asserting over and over again "it's not true" doesn't make the argument go away. I realize you and Seer are not likely to see that - but hopefully some of the other readers will.

It is a non-sequitur. And in the end it is just your opinion, not "truth" - and it doesn't matter.

And yet the conflation continues. The only way in which morality is "objective" is that my morality is objective to you and yours to me. That is to say, my beliefs/thoughts do not change what your moral framework is. That's about it. So, to align with your language, you are conflating "universalism" with "objectivism." I can say "I beleive the world would be better if everyone followed this moral norm" without having to believe "this moral norm constitutes and objective standard everyone must adhere to." There is no conflict here, despite the common claim that there is.

I don't think you even understand what objective morality is, Carp. Objective morality means something is good or bad in reality even if NOBODY believes it is so. Has nothing to do with universalism. It means the moral truth stands as a fact of reality, no matter how many people believe in it or don't.

No. None of this has anything to do with gods or satans.

It does to me. It does to Seer. It does to billions of people around the world.

I view those as myths.

And I don't care.

It has everything to do with a very simple reality of subjective/relative morality: I always hold, at any given time, what I believe to be the "best" moral standard. I do because it aligns with what I value (if I have reasoned correctly). I measure all actions against that standard - both mine and those of others. Moral objectivists/absolutists are under the mistaken impression that I am required to honor the moral conclusions of everyone else in a relative/subjective world. I am not. I measure everything against my own standard, seeing it as the best. If everyone were ever to present a moral standard that differs from mine, and I come to see it as "better" than the one I hold, my moral framework will immediately shift to include it and discard the previously held position. There is no inconsistency here. Indeed, recognizing the actual relative/subjective nature of morality gives me ways to approach moral discussions that are more grounded than yours.

Basically you just argued in a circle. You believe something is best, because it aligns with your value of best. Whoopee. Great moral standard you got there. And you mock us for using God as our standard.

For example, knowing that you value the bible and your god above all else, and recognizing that you (and Seer) have adopted a "follow the herd" moral framework, I know it is essentially impossible to reason to moral conclusions with you. I would only be able to shift your moral stance if I could a) get you to see that you have abandoned actual moral reasoning, or b) convince you that the bible doesn't say what you think it says. The former is unlikely. The latter is essentially impossible.

is "follow the herd" your new phrase of the day instead of "broad brush?" We aren't following the herd, we are following God.

Like I said - I don't engage in these discussion for your benefit or Seer's, or with any hope that your views will change. I engage for the other readers who might be a little less "locked down" and actually willing to consider the arguments being made. You may not see that you're just ducking the genome argument - but I can hope that they will.

You keep telling yourself that.

[carpedm9587]

That is not the point Carp, which is that the very foundation of your moral reasoning is dependent on the fact that you were born in the Christian West.

No. It is influenced - and perhaps even greatly influenced by that fact - but it is not dependent on it. It is not determined by it. THAT is the difference.

Whatever principles you come up are first are grounded in the value of life and the ideals of human rights. You did not figure this out yourself, you did not first reason to that position.

Yes, I actually did, eventually. Look, Seer - we all start life as "follow X" moralizers - and the first people we follow are our parents or primary care givers. An immature moralizer doesn't really know HOW to reason morally. As we mature, learn how to reason, we begin the process of taking the rules we learned from others and "making them our own." That means we are greatly influenced by those sources, but as we mature we gain more influencers, and we gain experience, and we gain cognitive capability. Someone who never matures in the moralizing framework simply transfers the "follow my parents" to something else (i.e., follow the Democratic party, follow the bible, follow the Pope, follow <insert object of moral adoration here>. Someone who DOES mature in their morality begins to question the moral framework they grew up with, examining the various elements, things they are based on, and assessing their fit. They become capable of discarding those moral principles that were "handed down" when they simply make no sense, and retaining those that do. It will always be the case that our influencers influenced us. But a mature moralizers does not let the influencers dictate their morality. THAT is the difference.

The best you could say is that you rationally accepted that human value after the fact. But even that reasoning is circular since you probably wouldn't have accepted that principle in the first place save the fact that you were born here.

That's a fairly arrogant opinion of Christian influence, Seer. The fact is, all of the primary world religions promote "valuing life." So too do most of the secular nation states I know of. Valuing human life pre-dates ANY of the worlds major religions, according to what archaeologists have found. It is likely that it is more linked to our nature as living persons than it is to any of our religions. It is common to most of humanity - not just to Christianity. That suggests religions encoded a value that was already present among humans, rather than creating a value that didn't previously exist.

You mean the herd that accepts gay marriage, killing the unborn, convenient divorce, sex outside marriage, etc...? Yep, I'm right on board!

• I accept gay marriage as moral
• I reject abortion as immoral
• I think divorce should factor in the impact on children
• Sex outside of marriage does not bother me in the least

I hold these positions, some of which actually deviate from the herd, for reasons I can explain because I have through them through. I am not blindly following someone's interpretation of the dictates of an ancient book.

Whose penetrating gaze? Yours? And you speak of rational thought, but you agreed that rational thought can just as well lead to the Gulags. So what are you saying?

The penetrating gaze of reason, Seer. That someone can rationally arrive at a position I find immoral does not bother me in the least, Seer. Understanding how they got there gives me the ability to discuss the issue with them and, more importantly, know when I cannot hope to achieve anything by that discussion. As I have said before - the fact that your morality is irrational tells me I cannot reason to a different moral conclusion with you. You will always point to the bible and say "it says so," because you have abandoned moral reasoning to its dictates. So my engagement with you is at more of a meta-level about the nature of morality - with only occasional forays into specific moral issues (like the homosexual one). Even then, I am mostly speaking to those reading our exchanges, hoping they will see the arguments being made and apply a little thought.

Carp, if you believed that the New Testament was God inspired would you attempt to follow, as best you understood, its moral principles? Yes or no.

I actually might - and in the process would abandon my moral reasoning and become like you. All of this is part of a common package, Seer. One of the reasons I left Christianity, and eventually theism altogether, was the morality issue. Many of the moral precepts in the bible simply make no sense. Homosexuality is a classic example. I couldn't believe that a god that created me as a rational being would want me to abandon reason. The disconnect between the two was one of many things that eventually led me to ask, "what if this god is nothing more than a figment of our collective human imagination? The more I chased that question, the more I became convinced that was indeed the case - and here I am now.

[carpedm9587]

so basically if we agree, we agree? Who cares?

Presumably - we will. And if three of us agree, three of us will care. And if it becomes 1 billion, then one billion will care.

I am sure we do agree on some standards and morals. But if you are correct, that doesn't mean squat. If I think treating people with respect is "good" and you do too, all that means is we agree on something. It doesn't mean that treating people with respect is actually "good" or "better" because there is no standard of better other than what we say. Seer could disagree and be just as correct. It doesn't matter.

And, like Seer, your complaint is basically "relative/subjective morality can't be any good because it's not absolute/objective." As I said, that like thinking that saying, "green is no good because it's not blue." We all know and agree green is not blue. We all know relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. You haven't actually made the case that this means a) it is not real, or b) it is not good.

Except you keep arguing as if they were objective, tanking your own argument that they are not.

No - I don't. At no point have I ever argued for an objective moral basis - for anything.

It is a non-sequitur. And in the end it is just your opinion, not "truth" - and it doesn't matter.

More "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." We already agree on that point. Sparko.

I don't think you even understand what objective morality is, Carp. Objective morality means something is good or bad in reality even if NOBODY believes it is so. Has nothing to do with universalism. It means the moral truth stands as a fact of reality, no matter how many people believe in it or don't.

Correct- and agreed - and I never said anything different. I know of no objective moral standard. This is not physics, Sparko. It is not math. Morality is more like law. It is a function of determining preferences. If every existing sentient mind were to cease to be, morality would not exist. That is not true of the principals of mathematics or the laws of physics. They continue on without any sentient mind. Moral principles cease to exist without a mind to conceive of them. Morality is almost exactly analogous to law. Both govern human behavior. Both are based on "what X wants." No one suggests that laws are meaningless because two nations can have exactly opposite laws (e.g., freedom of speech vs. no or limited freedom of speech.) Countries continue on and, when these laws come into conflict, the nations either resolve them, keep separate, or go to war. Nobody thinks to say "laws are meaningless" because there is no "objective standard" against which to measure them.

Yet somehow you seem to think this objective standard magically appears, or is necessary, when we shift from law to morality? It makes no sense. Unless, of course, you are used to the "magical thinking" that accompanies theism.

It does to me. It does to Seer. It does to billions of people around the world.

My turn: I don't care.

My morality and beliefs are not based on what "the herd" believes. So an appeal to the masses is not going to get you anywhere with me.

And I don't care.

I don't recall asking you to.

Basically you just argued in a circle. You believe something is best, because it aligns with your value of best. Whoopee. Great moral standard you got there. And you mock us for using God as our standard.

It wasn't an argument - it was a description of a reality. Each of us believes that our moral view is "the best there is." If we didn't, it suggests that we think there is a moral view someone else holds that is superior to our own. But that is ridiculous, because we always seek to have "the best" moral principle. After all, we use it to guide our choice of actions. So the moment we become sure that another moral principle is better than the one we currently hold, we will discard the one we currently hold in favor of it.

You would do the same exact thing - but for different reasons. Since you have hitched your moral wagon to the bible, for you to change you moral position would require someone to convince you that you have misinterpreted something in the bible. Until that happens, you will see you moral position as best. But if someone WERE to convince you that you had misinterpreted the bible in some way, you would immediately abandon your former position in favor of the new one.

is "follow the herd" your new phrase of the day instead of "broad brush?" We aren't following the herd, we are following God.

Well - you THINK you are.

In reality, what you are following are the moral dictates of several men (many of whom you cannot identity) who lived 2000-3500 years ago somewhere in the middle east. And you are not necessarily even doing that, because you have no original extant works that they wrote, cannot question them about their meanings and intentions, and only have a hind-sight understanding of their culture based on the archaeological record. As I said to Seer - your claim to the level of "absolute knowledge" you assert is simply not sustainable. I point to the dynamics surrounding the U.S. Constitution as my evidence. There is only one way you can arrive at such certainty: you have to engage in the magical thinking that this god-being can pierce through all that and give you direct and correct knowledge. But your very belief in this god being is from the very book in question...and round and round you go.

You keep telling yourself that.

I do. Otherwise, I'd probably drop the discussion. I am under no illusion that either you or Seer are likely to ever acknowledge any of my arguments and/or observations. It would take a radical shift in your worldview for that to happen. That shift is not likely to come from anything I say. Indeed, if you are anything like I was, the very thought of such a thing is a betrayal of this god, and constitutes "succumbing to the evil one." The whole thing is designed to be self-sustaining. It is VERY hard to break out of it.

[seer]

No. It is influenced - and perhaps even greatly influenced by that fact - but it is not dependent on it. It is not determined by it. THAT is the difference.

Yes you could decide that human life is generally not valuable, murderers do it all the time. But that "influence" is probably deeper than we realize.

Yes, I actually did, eventually. Look, Seer - we all start life as "follow X" moralizers - and the first people we follow are our parents or primary care givers. An immature moralizer doesn't really know HOW to reason morally. As we mature, learn how to reason, we begin the process of taking the rules we learned from others and "making them our own." That means we are greatly influenced by those sources, but as we mature we gain more influencers, and we gain experience, and we gain cognitive capability. Someone who never matures in the moralizing framework simply transfers the "follow my parents" to something else (i.e., follow the Democratic party, follow the bible, follow the Pope, follow <insert object of moral adoration here>. Someone who DOES mature in their morality begins to question the moral framework they grew up with, examining the various elements, things they are based on, and assessing their fit. They become capable of discarding those moral principles that were "handed down" when they simply make no sense, and retaining those that do. It will always be the case that our influencers influenced us. But a mature moralizers does not let the influencers dictate their morality. THAT is the difference.

Except the results in this case remain the same. Your reasoning just brought you back to valuing human life. As far an immature moralizer, if I follow your reference to moral reasoning from Kohlberg's, I am more mature than you since I come to universal moral truths - you don't. The point being, you could not even got off the moral reasoning ground except for the fact that you were born in a Christian nation.

That's a fairly arrogant opinion of Christian influence, Seer. The fact is, all of the primary world religions promote "valuing life." So too do most of the secular nation states I know of. Valuing human life pre-dates ANY of the worlds major religions, according to what archaeologists have found. It is likely that it is more linked to our nature as living persons than it is to any of our religions. It is common to most of humanity - not just to Christianity. That suggests religions encoded a value that was already present among humans, rather than creating a value that didn't previously exist.

Well no Carp, Western Civilization is rather unique in world history. Sure, many countries have piggybacked off that. Show me what other ancient culture came to the belief that humans had inalienable rights or inherent value?

I hold these positions, some of which actually deviate from the herd, for reasons I can explain because I have through them through. I am not blindly following someone's interpretation of the dictates of an ancient book.

Right and I too hold many positions that deviate from the herd.

The penetrating gaze of reason, Seer. That someone can rationally arrive at a position I find immoral does not bother me in the least, Seer. Understanding how they got there gives me the ability to discuss the issue with them and, more importantly, know when I cannot hope to achieve anything by that discussion. As I have said before - the fact that your morality is irrational tells me I cannot reason to a different moral conclusion with you. You will always point to the bible and say "it says so," because you have abandoned moral reasoning to its dictates. So my engagement with you is at more of a meta-level about the nature of morality - with only occasional forays into specific moral issues (like the homosexual one). Even then, I am mostly speaking to those reading our exchanges, hoping they will see the arguments being made and apply a little thought.

Tell me again Carp, of what use is moral reasoning if it can lead to both human rights and Gulags? Why is that any better than what the herd says? And to be honest Carp, as you agreed, you could not argue to a different moral conclusion with the Maoist who starts with different premises. Now what?

I actually might - and in the process would abandon my moral reasoning and become like you. All of this is part of a common package, Seer. One of the reasons I left Christianity, and eventually theism altogether, was the morality issue. Many of the moral precepts in the bible simply make no sense. Homosexuality is a classic example. I couldn't believe that a god that created me as a rational being would want me to abandon reason. The disconnect between the two was one of many things that eventually led me to ask, "what if this god is nothing more than a figment of our collective human imagination? The more I chased that question, the more I became convinced that was indeed the case - and here I am now.

That is fine, but the ONLY rational thing for one who believes that Scripture is inspired is to follow it. It would be irrational not to. And if God created sex to be practice only between a man and a woman then by that restriction homosexuality would be immoral. That logically follows. You don't believe in such a God, but in our worldview this is perfectly rational.

[Sparko]

Presumably - we will. And if three of us agree, three of us will care. And if it becomes 1 billion, then one billion will care.

but it won't mean anything. When you had a million Nazis thinking gassing Jews was good, was it? Did the fact that they "cared" about ridding the planet of Jews make it good or moral?

And, like Seer, your complaint is basically "relative/subjective morality can't be any good because it's not absolute/objective." As I said, that like thinking that saying, "green is no good because it's not blue." We all know and agree green is not blue. We all know relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. You haven't actually made the case that this means a) it is not real, or b) it is not good.

That is not what our argument is. That is your strawman depiction of it. I didn't say subjective morality can't be good because it isn't objective, I said that what you call good, has no basis in reality. It is your opinion. It might or might not correspond with reality.

No - I don't. At no point have I ever argued for an objective moral basis - for anything.

You do it every time you keep arguing that your morals are right and we should listen to you because you are the "rational" one. And the fact you can't accept our morality as valid.

More "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." We already agree on that point. Sparko.

Again you show you don't actually read for understanding, but to find something in the other person's post to misrepresent so you can reply.

Correct- and agreed - and I never said anything different.

Yes you did. You said it was the same as universalism. It is not. Universalism means if everyone agrees something is moral then it is. Objective doesn't care who believes it or not.

I know of no objective moral standard. This is not physics, Sparko. It is not math. Morality is more like law. It is a function of determining preferences. If every existing sentient mind were to cease to be, morality would not exist.

Yes, it would. It existed before God created any of us. It is based on God's nature.


rest of your overly verbose chattering deleted. Cuz, I don't care.

[carpedm9587]

but it won't mean anything.

I don't do "FIFY" - but I think you are trying to say "it won't mean anything absolutely/objectively." But we already know that, don't we. After all - it's relative/subjective. So you are (again) complaining the relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. So, once again, duly noted. We already agree on that. But you're not saying anything. You're just repeating definitions.

When you had a million Nazis thinking gassing Jews was good, was it?

They thought it was (apparently). I and most of my fellow humans disagreed. Fortunately, there were more of us than them and we were able to end it. Unfortunately, we are entering a new age of "anti-them." Hopefully we will be able to make that end too.

Did the fact that they "cared" about ridding the planet of Jews make it good or moral?

To them - apparently. To me - no. But what you are REALLY asking is, "did it make it absolutely/objectively good or moral?" See my answer above.

That is not what our argument is. That is your strawman depiction of it. I didn't say subjective morality can't be good because it isn't objective, I said that what you call good, has no basis in reality. It is your opinion. It might or might not correspond with reality.

What neither you nor Seer have yet seen is that this is what ALL of your arguments boil down to. You continually complain that subjective/relative morality cannot make absolute/objective statements. You do it in a wide variety of forms, but it always boils down to the same thing - and it's not an argument. In this statement, the key is your word "reality." Your objection is that it doesn't conform with objective reality. But it absolutely DOES conform with subjective reality. After all - it is subjective, right? But you're complaining that it cannot produce an objective outcome. That's not an argument - it's a repetition (again) of a definition.

You do it every time you keep arguing that your morals are right and we should listen to you because you are the "rational" one. And the fact you can't accept our morality as valid.

What I argue is that my morality is rooted in reason. Your and Seer is rooted in "following a herd." My evidence is simple. When asked why I find something moral or immoral, I will provide the underlying value structure and the reasoning that leads me to my moral conclusion. When you or Seer are asked, your answer is essentially "it's in the book," or some variant thereof. Every argument you make about morality ends up at "because the bible says so.

Again you show you don't actually read for understanding, but to find something in the other person's post to misrepresent so you can reply.

No.

Yes you did. You said it was the same as universalism. It is not. Universalism means if everyone agrees something is moral then it is. Objective doesn't care who believes it or not.

What I actually said, if you go back and read, was that you were conflating universalism with absolutism. You correctly noted that it was not absolutism but objectivism that was in question, so I corrected and noted that you were conflating universalism with objectivism. Conflating is not the same as equating. It means you are somehow combining of crossing the meanings of the two. I do subscribe to moral universalism: the belief we each have that if the entire world aligned with our moral framework, it would be a heavenly place. That is a natural byproduct of believing our moral framework is "the best." That is not the same as moral objectivism, which believes that there is a moral basis independent of human thought/belief that we should all be aligning to.

I argue out of moral universalism - not moral objectivism. There is no conflict. I can believe that the world would be better if eeryone held my moral views, without believing they are based on an objective standard.

Yes, it would. It existed before God created any of us. It is based on God's nature.

...which you know because.... (wait for it...)

..it's in the bible!

...and round and round you go...

[carpedm9587]

I'm getting slammed with some serious deadlines, and will likely be offline for a bit. I'll get back to the rest as soon as I can.