Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Here is the bottom line Carp, we are trying to decide what is moral and how we get there. You know my position based on biblical revelation.

Well.. sort of. What you are actually trying to do is interpret "the book." You're not trying to reason to a moral conclusion. You're trying to figure out what long-dead men wrote and what they intended - because you think it is the "revealed word of god." Of course, if I ask you why you think this is the revealed word of god, you will most likely point to the book. It's all very secular.

You don't accept that, fine, but what have you offered?

I am not "offering" anything Seer. That seems to be the problem here. I'm not pointing to "a better path" or "a higher calling" or "a better outcome." I'm pointing to reality. If god does not exist, believing in this being will not make it real. If morality is subjective/relative, screaming "it's absolute/objective" will not make it less subjective/relative. You are trying to judge reality on the basis of outcomes. I'm simply pointing to what is. You offer no basis to substantiate your opinion about "what is." And you cannot seem to refute mine, except to continually repeat the definition of the terms. What is happening here is analogous to me pointing to a car and saying "that car is green" and you objecting to my observation by repeatedly screaming, "but green is not blue!"

You speak of moral reasoning but how does lead to moral answers?

I'm not having a problem arriving at moral answers, Seer. Random killing is immoral. Sexual acts are morally neutral unless something else makes them immoral. Intentionally deceiving another for personal gain or harm is immoral. Taking another's possessions without their knowledge and permission and without intent to return/restore is immoral. I could go on. I have no problem coming to any of these moral conclusions. You object because my moral conclusions may not be the same as someone else's. But that is simply objecting that my relative/subjective moral opinion is not absolute/objective, which is back to complaining that "green is not blue."

Look at it this way:

Carp begins with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case for homosexuality being moral in a committed union.

The Maoist starts with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case that dissidents should be executed.

Does your moral reasoning lead to homosexuality being moral?

First, I never said homosexuality is moral. I said it is not implicitly immoral. There's a difference. Any sexual act can be made immoral depending on circumstances.
Second, yes - it makes it immoral to me. Your objection is that it does not make it "absolutely/objectively" immoral. "Green is not blue"

Does the Maoist's reasoning lead to the execution of dissidents being moral?

If he reasoned correctly from his premises, it makes it moral for him. It does not make it "absolutely/objectively" moral. You're back to "Green is not blue"

In neither case has moral reasoning told us anything moral?

Relatively/subjectively, yes. Absolutely/objectively, no. You're back to "Green is not blue"

In other words the process is no better than following the herd or a Book for understanding morality.

Actually, the process is significantly better. You are objecting to it not being "better" in this case, because it is possible that there is no rational discussion to be had, and that is what you are focused on. However, the process is open to rational discussion in some circumstances, as I have shown. It is not necessarily and always open to rational discussion - depending on the nature of the premises. Your "follow the herd" morality is never open to rational discussion, because it is not based on reason. It is based on "the book." The authors of that book (your herd) are now dead 2000-3500 years, so you cannot talk to them or influence them. So you are left trying to interpret what your herd meant when they wrote these books, 2000-3500 years ago. You are doing that from cobbled-together fragments of copies dated centuries after the originals were written in a different language, place, culture, and time. And you are claiming a level of almost infallible knowledge as a consequence. I showed how this assumption is rather silly, actually.

Not to mention that you have yet to actually make an argument against morality being relative/subjective. All you've done is continually (as you did here again) point out that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. That's not an argument - its a repetition of the definition of the terms. I told you, months ago, when we first started, that no one has ever been able to provide an objection to the observation that morality is relative/subjective since I came to the realization that it was - that all that is offered are the three techniques: keep repeating that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective, appeal to moral outrage, or attempt to ridicule/disparage. But no actual argument against morality being relative/subjective. I've even shown you that YOUR moral framework is relative/subjective. Indeed - you've used that argument in this thread.

Yet you still cannot see it.

And I have to laugh. I just realized that the last line of my last post is "I'll leave the last word to you." Now I sit trying to decide if I'm going to delete this - or go ahead and post it. I'll go get some coffee and decide. Do I want another round of applause from CP?

[later]

I guess I do!

[carpedm9587]

IF God exists, and created us, then "good" would always be what he wants it to be and be based on his own nature.

A claim you continually make - but cannot substantiate.

So he would be the objective moral standard.

No more or less than any other sentient being's morality is objectively real to the observer.

Because he designed us and the universe to be that way. How is that hard to understand?

I understand your words, Sparko. What you have done is assert all of it without a shred of substantiation. I know you believe these things. I know they make sense to you. I also know they are a vapor - based on circular reasoning, cultural/social/religious indoctrination, and a significant absence of actual analysis. Saying a thing over and over does not make it real.

[Sparko]

A claim you continually make - but cannot substantiate.

Because is is logical and a premise to my hypothetical. deal with it. How would a creator design an universe that was NOT based on his values and nature? And even if he did, wouldn't that still be the designed values that his creatures should attain to reach?

No more or less than any other sentient being's morality is objectively real to the observer.

He designed it to be

I understand your words, Sparko. What you have done is assert all of it without a shred of substantiation. I know you believe these things. I know they make sense to you. I also know they are a vapor - based on circular reasoning, cultural/social/religious indoctrination, and a significant absence of actual analysis. Saying a thing over and over does not make it real.

You understand what a hypothetical is, right carp? I was proposing a hypothetical

1. If God exists and
2. If he designed us to have a purpose
3. And he designed his values into us ("in his image")
4. Then wouldn't it be rational and logical to follow his authority on morality?

I don't see why you are having such a hard time with this.

[seer]

Well.. sort of. What you are actually trying to do is interpret "the book." You're not trying to reason to a moral conclusion. You're trying to figure out what long-dead wrote and what they intended - because you think it is the "revealed word of god." Of course, if I ask you why you think this is the revealed word of god, you will most likely point to the book. It's all very secular.



I am not "offering" anything Seer. That seems to be the problem here. I'm not pointing to "a better path" or "a higher calling" or "a better outcome." I'm pointing to reality. If god does not exist, believing in this being will not make it real. If morality is subjective/relative, screaming "it's absolute/objective" will not make it less subjective/relative. You are trying to judge reality on the basis of outcomes. I'm simply pointing to what is. You offer no basis to substantiate your opinion about "what is." And you cannot seem to refute mine, except to continually repeat the definition. of the terms. What is happening here is analogous to me pointing to a car and saying "that car is green" and you objecting to my observation by repeatedly screaming, "but green is not blue!"



I'm not having a problem arriving at moral answers, Seer. Random killing is immoral. Sexual acts are morally neutral unless something else makes them immoral. Intentionally deceiving another for personal gain or harm is immoral. Taking another's possessions without their knowledge and permission and without intent to return/restore is immoral. I could go on. I have no problem coming to any of these moral conclusions. You object because my moral conclusions may not be the same as someone else's. But that is simply objecting that my relative/subjective moral opinion is not absolute/objective, which is back to complaining that "green is not blue."



First, I never said homosexuality is moral. I said it is not implicitly immoral. There's a difference. Any sexual act can be made immoral depending on circumstances.
Second, yes - it makes it immoral to me. Your objection is that it does not make it "absolutely/objectively" immoral. "Green is not blue"



If he reasoned correctly from his premises, it makes it moral for him. It does not make it "absolutely/objectively" immoral. You're back to "Green is not blue"



Relatively/subjectively, yes. Absolutely/objectively, no. You're back to "Green is not blue"



Actually, the process is significantly better. You are objecting to it not being "better" in this case, because it is possible that there is no rational discussion to be had, and that is what you are focused on. However, the process is open to rational discussion in some circumstances, as I have shown. It is not necessarily and always open to rational discussion - depending on the nature of the premises. Your "follow the herd" morality is never open to rational discussion, because it is not based on reason. It is based on "the book." The authors of that book (your herd) are now dead 2000-3500 years. So you are left trying to interpret what your herd meant when they wrote this book, 2000-3500 years ago. You are doing that from cobbled-together fragments of copies dated centuries after the originals were written in a different language, place, culture, and time. And you are claiming a level of almost infallible knowledge as a consequence.

Not to mention that you have yet to actually make an argument against morality being relative/subjective. All you've done is continually (as you did here again) point out that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. That's not an argument - its a repetition of the definition of the terms. I told you, months ago, when we first started, that no one has ever been able to provide an objection to the observation that morality is relative/subjective since I came to the realization that it was - that all that is offered are the three techniques: keep repeating that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective, appeal to moral outrage, or attempt to ridicule/disparage. But no actual argument against morality being relative/subjective. I've even shown you that YOUR moral framework is relative/subjective. Indeed - you've used that argument in this thread.

Yet you still cannot see it.

And I have to laugh. I just realized that the last line of my last post is "I'll leave the last word to you." Now I sit trying to decide if I'm going to delete this - or go ahead and post it. I'll go get some coffee and decide. Do I want another round of applause from CP?

[later]

I guess I do!

So Carp you agree that the process of moral reasoning doesn't actually lead to answering moral questions. And since that is the case how is that process significantly better? Better than what? Rational discussion does not tell us anything about what is moral or not - as you just agreed.

[carpedm9587]

So Carp you agree that the process of moral reasoning doesn't actually lead to answering moral questions.

No. The process always can (and usually does) lead to answering moral questions. It cannot lead to making absolute/objective statements about morality. But you are back to "green is not blue."

And since that is the case how is that process significantly better?

Already answered.

Better than what?

Already answered.

Rational discussion does not tell us anything about what is moral or not - as you just agreed.

It provides relative/subjective answers. It does not provide absolute/objective answers. But you're back to "green is not blue." And reality is not measured by what is "better." A clear blue sky is better than a violent tornado. But that doesn't make the tornado not exist.

Some odd part of me thinks you might actually, eventually, see the lack of content in your response. Another part of me keeps screaming, "if he hasn't seen it yet, he's not going to see it."

Call me the perpetual optimist...

[carpedm9587]

Because is is logical and a premise to my hypothetical.

So your hypothetical was not just that this god exists - but that it exists exactly as you believe it exists: all good - all powerful - all knowing? Sorry. I was focused on just the existence of a supreme being. OK - so let's look at that. You are positing the existence of an all-good, all powerful, all knowing being, and want to know if I would follow it? I would, so long as what it was saying aligned with my internal moral compass: which presumably came from this all powerful being - so there should be no problem, right?

Here's a reverse hypothetical, Sparko. It is analogous to what you are asking me. Accept that there is an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being, and you believe that it has just instructed you to walk across the street and kill your neighbor and his entire family. Are you going to blindly follow the request of this being?

How would a creator design an universe that was NOT based on his values and nature?

Any sentient being can do anything that is physically possible, Sparko. You are assuming that this being must always act rationally and reasonably, and in alignment with its values. Who says it has to? Oh...right...because you've defined it that way. After all - if you do something bad, then you can't be all good. But then again, if you're all good, then anything you do is good, by definition, right?

And even if he did, wouldn't that still be the designed values that his creatures should attain to reach?

You are defining your way to a conclusion, Sparko. See my response above.

He designed it to be

Same response

You understand what a hypothetical is, right carp? I was proposing a hypothetical

1. If God exists and
2. If he designed us to have a purpose
3. And he designed his values into us ("in his image")
4. Then wouldn't it be rational and logical to follow his authority on morality?

I don't see why you are having such a hard time with this.

See my response above.

[Sparko]

So your hypothetical was not just that this god exists - but that it exists exactly as you believe it exists: all good - all powerful - all knowing? Sorry. I was focused on just the existence of a supreme being. OK - so let's look at that. You are positing the existence of an all-good, all powerful, all knowing being, and want to know if I would follow it? I would, so long as what it was saying aligned with my internal moral compass: which presumably came from this all powerful being - so there should be no problem, right?

except we are fallen and imperfect. So we end up with people like you who think their broken moral compass is better than God's.

Here's a reverse hypothetical, Sparko. It is analogous to what you are asking me. Accept that there is an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being, and you believe that it has just instructed you to walk across the street and kill your neighbor and his entire family. Are you going to blindly follow the request of this being?

Abraham and Isaac.

Any sentient being can do anything that is physically possible, Sparko. You are assuming that this being must always act rationally and reasonably, and in alignment with its values. Who says it has to? Oh...right...because you've defined it that way. After all - if you do something bad, then you can't be all good. But then again, if you're all good, then anything you do is good, by definition, right?

Carp, we are hypothetically considering that the God of the bible exists and everything Christians believe is true. that is the whole point here. To determine the IF God exists, as in the bible, would we be rational for following him?
You earlier claimed we were not. But then OBP said maybe you were not considering that God existed but that he didn't, so that was a low bar. So to clarify I asked what you would think assuming God did exist. I meant as we Christians believe in him. Not some imaginary alien being that you want to argue is imperfect and no better than we are.

If the God of the bible exists, is it rational to follow his moral authority and rules?

[carpedm9587]

except we are fallen and imperfect. So we end up with people like you who think their broken moral compass is better than God's.

So here' your quandary, Sparko. According to you - we are fallen and imperfect. According to you - our moral compass can be "off" because of this. According to this, then, we can also misunderstand "what god wants." We can go down a path, thinking it is what god wants, and be wrong. So however you dodge, your imperfection leaves you vulnerable to error: either by not having a well aligned moral compass, or misunderstanding what god wants.

Abraham and Isaac.

I know the story, Sparko, and you're avoiding the question. Abraham never actually killed his son. It was a test of his resolve. I'm asking, if you were told to go and kill your neighbor and his family, and no one intervened - would you follow what you firmly believe is the will of god - and actually kill your neighbor and his family? It's a hypothetical, Sparko. You have received what you believe is a clear message from your god. You believe this god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Would you kill your neighbor?

Carp, we are hypothetically considering that the God of the bible exists and everything Christians believe is true. that is the whole point here. To determine the IF God exists, as in the bible, would we be rational for following him?

I know that. So answer my question.

You earlier claimed we were not. But then OBP said maybe you were not considering that God existed but that he didn't, so that was a low bar. So to clarify I asked what you would think assuming God did exist. I meant as we Christians believe in him. Not some imaginary alien being that you want to argue is imperfect and no better than we are.

If the God of the bible exists, is it rational to follow his moral authority and rules?

No. I don't think so. The problem is this definition of "all good." What is "all good" for this god simply may not be "all good" for me, a mere mortal. This god could value "cosmic gas" as the highest good, which would (by your definitions) make it the highest good. If this god foreknows that humanity would someday create spaceflight and disrupt "cosmic gas," this god could come to the conclusion that destroying all of humanity to preserve "cosmic gas" is the highest good - and that would be that. By your definition, whatever this god wills becomes instantly good.

No. Sorry. I have a moral compass. The only way I could follow such a being is if its moral compass and mine align. If not - then I would need to be convinced, rationally, to abandon my compass and adopt its compass. "Trust me, I'm all good" will not cut it. I am being asked to do something that every part of me screams "this is wrong" and do so simply because this being wills it? If I do that, morality becomes laughable. I'm not a sentient moral being, anymore - I'm a moral slave - and I have submitted myself to servitude.

At the end of the day - if your being exists - then it should be able to clearly communicate to me so that I have no doubt about its reason, purpose, and intent. My "fallen-ness" should be irrelevant. This being is all powerful and all good - and it is the being that GAVE me the moral compass, remember? It makes no sense to believe it would want me to abandon it without explanation.

[Sparko]

So here' your quandary, Sparko. According to you - we are fallen and imperfect. According to you - our moral compass can be "off" because of this. According to this, then, we can also misunderstand "what god wants." We can go down a path, thinking it is what god wants, and be wrong. So however you dodge, your imperfection leaves you vulnerable to error: either by not having a well aligned moral compass, or misunderstanding what god wants.



I know the story, Sparko, and you're avoiding the question. Abraham never actually killed his son. It was a test of his resolve. I'm asking, if you were told to go and kill your neighbor and his family, and no one intervened - would you follow what you firmly believe is the will of god - and actually kill your neighbor and his family? It's a hypothetical, Sparko. You have received what you believe is a clear message from your god. You believe this god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Would you kill your neighbor?



I know that. So answer my question.



No. I don't think so. The problem is this definition of "all good." What is "all good" for this god simply may not be "all good" for me, a mere mortal. This god could value "cosmic gas" as the highest good, which would (by your definitions) make it the highest good. If this god foreknows that humanity would someday create spaceflight and disrupt "cosmic gas," this god could come to the conclusion that destroying all of humanity to preserve "cosmic gas" is the highest good - and that would be that. By your definition, whatever this god wills becomes instantly good.

No. Sorry. I have a moral compass. The only way I could follow such a being is if its moral compass and mine align. If not - then I would need to be convinced, rationally, to abandon my compass and adopt its compass. "Trust me, I'm all good" will not cut it. I am being asked to do something that every part of me screams "this is wrong" and do so simply because this being wills it? If I do that, morality becomes laughable. I'm not a sentient moral being, anymore - I'm a moral slave - and I have submitted myself to servitude.

At the end of the day - if your being exists - then it should be able to clearly communicate to me so that I have no doubt about its reason, purpose, and intent. My "fallen-ness" should be irrelevant. This being is all powerful and all good - and it is the being that GAVE me the moral compass, remember? It makes no sense to believe it would want me to abandon it without explanation.

I won't answer your questions until you answer mine, without trying to change the parameters of my hypothetical. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

If the God of the bible exists, Jehovah, YHWH, the Triune God. Jesus and all that, the bible is completely accurate, WOULD it be rational to follow his moral authority as written in the bible?

I am guessing NO is your answer, by all the dodging you keep doing, but I just want a clear answer from you. Yes or No.

Feel free to add whatever you want after that.

[seer]

No. The process always can (and usually does) lead to answering moral questions. It cannot lead to making absolute/objective statements about morality. But you are back to "green is not blue."

So for the Maoist it is moral to murder dissidents. And that is where the moral reasoning can lead. And that, in your mind, is more legitimate than following the herd.

It provides relative/subjective answers. It does not provide absolute/objective answers. But you're back to "green is not blue." And reality is not measured by what is "better." A clear blue sky is better than a violent tornado. But that doesn't make the tornado not exist.

No, it provides a venue for endless navel gazing so people like you can think they are superior without accomplishing anything. You approach a moral question with your subjective biases, invent self-serving, arbitrary conditions and restrictions (see your genome restriction). Then argue to your desired end and claim that you are rational. But nothing could be further from the truth. It is no more than an egocentric fantasy on your part.

[carpedm9587]

I won't answer your questions until you answer mine, without trying to change the parameters of my hypothetical.

If the God of the bible exists, Jehovah, YHWH, the Triune God. Jesus and all that, the bible is completely accurate, WOULD it be rational to follow his moral authority as written in the bible?

I am guessing NO is your answer, but I just want a clear answer from you. Yes or No.

No.

Feel free to add whatever you want after that.

The fact that I am providing an explanation for my answer does not translate to "dodging," Sparko. It would be very nice to have discussions with you in which you did not pepper them with personal observations/attacks. But if you insist, I'll just keep deleting them to focus on the actual argument. I leave it to you.

So now your answer...?

[carpedm9587]

So for the Maoist it is moral to murder dissidents.

It may be. Or it may be that they are failing to follow their own moral code. I have no idea which it might be.

And that is where the moral reasoning can lead. And that, in your mind, is more legitimate than following the herd.

Yes.

No, it provides a venue for endless navel gazing so people like you can think they are superior without accomplishing anything.You approach a moral question with your subjective biases, invent self-serving, arbitrary conditions and restrictions (see your genome restriction). Then argue to your desired end and claim that you are rational. But nothing could be further from the truth. It is no more than an egocentric fantasy on your part.

No -- it provides relative/subjective moral conclusions, as noted. The rest of this is just an emotional pejorative and not germane to the discussion. A relative/subjective moral framework will produce relative/subjective moral conclusions. That would seem to me to be self-evident. You don't like it - but your only objection (so far) is to complain that it is not absolute/objective. I've already agreed to that. So what?

And to that you will simply repeat that it's not absolute/objective.

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective



1) And I will agree - and say so what?

2) And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

3) Go to 1



This is what the discussion has been, Seer for pages and pages and pages. So we get here and you have a) not provided an argument against the reality of morality being relative/subjective, b) continue to insist it is absolute/objective, c) cannot demonstrate that it actually IS absolute/objective, and d) I have to assume you are congratulating yourself on "showing me the consequences of my position."

If I am right and you are doing d), you should stop. You really haven't. Humanity has ALWAYS functioned out of a subjective/relative moral framework, all the while claiming it was absolute/objective. Humanity has NEVER been able to demonstrate the actual existence of an absolute/objective moral framework. And humanity has survived so far - so it appears to be "working" reasonably well.

[rogue06]

So for the Maoist it is moral to murder dissidents.

Without going through the whole thread I'll assume that the Nazis were brought up as an example already. They thought that they were doing a great service for not just Germany but all of Europe in their campaign to exterminate the Jews. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis" and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered them.

Hitler cites Louis Pasteur, as well as Robert Koch (the father of microbiology who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis findings in 1905), as inspirations for the Holocaust.

During one of his Table Talks on February 22, 1942 Hitler remarked that:

It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.

Similarly on July 10, 1942, Hitler stated:

I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and the fermenting agent of all social decomposition.

In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937, Hitler explained that the anti-Jewish policy he had inaugurated reflected his endeavor to make the German people "immune against this infection." Measures enacted by the Nazis, Hitler claimed, were designed to enable the German people to avoid "close relationship with the carriers of this poisonous bacillus." For as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

Could anyone believe that Germany alone was not subject to exactly the same laws as all other human organisms?

It's from a speech in Salzburg in the August of 1920 where Hitler we can see he compared the Jews to a disease – the aforementioned "racial tuberculosis" – in need of eradication:

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.

[carpedm9587]

Without going through the whole thread I'll assume that the Nazis were brought up as an example already. They thought that they were doing a great service for not just Germany but all of Europe in their campaign to exterminate the Jews. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis" and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered them.

Hitler cites Louis Pasteur, as well as Robert Koch (the father of microbiology who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis findings in 1905), as inspirations for the Holocaust.

During one of his Table Talks on February 22, 1942 Hitler remarked that:

It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.

Similarly on July 10, 1942, Hitler stated:

I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and the fermenting agent of all social decomposition.

In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937, Hitler explained that the anti-Jewish policy he had inaugurated reflected his endeavor to make the German people "immune against this infection." Measures enacted by the Nazis, Hitler claimed, were designed to enable the German people to avoid "close relationship with the carriers of this poisonous bacillus." For as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

Could anyone believe that Germany alone was not subject to exactly the same laws as all other human organisms?

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.

Yes - that is the moral conclusion they came to. Most of the rest of humanity disagreed with them, but could not get them to adjust their relative/subjective moral framework. So, as is always the case in the presence of an unresolvable moral conflict, the usual process unfolded. First, the U.S. (and others) sought to ignore the problem and engaged in isolation/separation. That lasted for a while. It would have been nice if we could claim that the reason we changed our stance was because we finally saw the wholesale decimation of a people as too morally repugnant to ignore, but the fact is we were attacked and decided that things could not be left as is. So we entered the war and decided to contend to put an end to the slaughter, because it did not align with our own moral framework.

if Germany/Japan had won that war, they probably would have succeeded in propagandizing millions or billions into their moral framework, and people who have the moral code you and I have about these things would have become an underground resistance, striving to be heard and to sway the majority. We would do so by passive and active resistance - and trying to get a counter-message out, attempting to "sway the herd."

They didn't win, so the majority of people hold the moral view you and I hold - and those who think as Germany did are now in the minority - trying to sway the majority to their point of view.

And so it continues on...

[seer]

It may be. Or it may be that they are failing to follow their own moral code. I have no idea which it might be.



Yes.



No -- it provides relative/subjective moral conclusions, as noted. The rest of this is just an emotional pejorative and not germane to the discussion. A relative/subjective moral framework will produce relative/subjective moral conclusions. That would seem to me to be self-evident. You don't like it - but your only objection (so far) is to complain that it is not absolute/objective. I've already agreed to that. So what?

And to that you will simply repeat that it's not absolute/objective.

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

And I will agree - and say so what?

And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective



1) And I will agree - and say so what?

2) And you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective

3) Go to 1



This is what the discussion has been, Seer for pages and pages and pages. So we get here and you have a) not provided an argument against the reality of morality being relative/subjective, b) continue to insist it is absolute/objective, c) cannot demonstrate that it actually IS absolute/objective, and d) I have to assume you are congratulating yourself on "showing me the consequences of my position."

If I am right and you are doing d), you should stop. You really haven't. Humanity has ALWAYS functioned out of a subjective/relative moral framework, all the while claiming it was absolute/objective. Humanity has NEVER been able to demonstrate the actual existence of an absolute/objective moral framework. And humanity has survived so far - so it appears to be "working" reasonably well.

Again Carp this is what I posted earlier:

1. All unicorns are pink.
2. Fluffy is a unicorn.
3. Therefore Fluffy is pink.

This is no more than what you are doing. It is not a pejorative, it is what you are trying to pass off as reason. Invent your own premises then use them in service of your predetermined conclusions. You start with it is "true to me" then it slides down the self-serving, self-justifying slope from there. And I'm not arguing about morality being subjective or not, but that moral reasoning is useless given its self-serving nature. You are in no rational position to chide those who follow the herd.