Homophobic Trump...

[mossrose]

Here is the way I read carp's argument so far...[no mindreading, just parsing the posts and arguments]

Paraphrased and abridged for your convenience...

"I believe morals are entirely subjective and yet I believe only my morals count because they are rationally based and everyone else is bonkers because they don't believe in my morals or my methodology"

"

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes............

[Sparko]

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes............

[mossrose]

That's what I've thought about carpe for a long time.

[Tassman]

Here is the way I read carp's argument so far...[no mindreading, just parsing the posts and arguments]

Paraphrased and abridged for your convenience...

"I believe morals are entirely subjective and yet I believe only my morals count because they are rationally based and everyone else is bonkers because they don't believe in my morals or my methodology"

"

Or, to paraphrase yourmy interpretation of those morals. Different Christian interpretations are wrong and those who promote them are destined to eternal damnation.

[seer]

Seer - I've answered this question so many times, I don't know how answering it again is going to change anything. I'll let my previous answers stand. If, after all of these exchanges, you can still ask that question, then I don't think answer it again will help.

Yes Carp, and it is clear that "moral reasoning" with its subjective self-serving premises is no advancement in understanding ethics, or what is moral or not, over just following the herd. It really only serves to justify your superiority complex...

[carpedm9587]

Here is the way I read carp's argument so far...[no mindreading, just parsing the posts and arguments]

Paraphrased and abridged for your convenience...

"I believe morals are entirely subjective and yet I believe only my morals count because they are rationally based and everyone else is bonkers because they don't believe in my morals or my methodology"

"

So you've basically parsed it wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes............

Now THAT is pretty accurate...

[Sparko]

Or, to paraphrase your viewpoint: I believe only the morals divinely inspired by the Almighty count

Well I do believe in objective morals based on the God of the bible, so yeah. But carp claims he believes in subjective morality except he keeps getting upset that other people don't agree with his morals or methodology. He wants it both ways. At least us Christians are consistent.

my interpretation of those morals. Different Christian interpretations are wrong and those who promote them are destined to eternal damnation.

Nope. I listen to what the bible says. If it is not clear, I will ask fellow orthodox Christians to help me understand them. I am pretty sure even the unorthodox Christians interpret most of the bible's morals the same way. And no merely interpreting them incorrectly will not send any Christian to hell. We are forgiven by Christ. You, on the other hand, are headed to hell even if you DO keep the moral law, because you don't have salvation. You can't work yourself into heaven.

[Sparko]

So you've basically parsed it wrong.

feel free to correct it, but I am betting Seer agrees with my paraphrase and most others reading your posts. You may not be seeing what you have been arguing as clearly as you think. I think you are too invested in your point of view to see what it is you are actually promoting here.

[Sparko]

Now THAT is pretty accurate...

That was the problem from the very beginning, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and when the Israelites ignored God and did what was right in their own eyes.

Your problem is you think you know what is right for everyone else, while claiming that morals are subjective. You actually believe in objective morals, with you as the objective standard. You just replaced God with yourself as the source of morality, just like Eve, and the Israelites.

Isaiah 5:20-22 New International Version (NIV)

20
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.

[carpedm9587]

So, Sparko's response (and Mossrose's too) caused me to sit and think for a bit. It made me realize that the pages and pages of exchanges with Seer have wandered all over creation (TIC), and sometimes the forest gets lost for looking at the tree bark. So, in a nutshell (it may be a large one - we'll see), this is what I have come to understand about morality.

- We are born with no real ability to moralize, because morality is a function of reasoning and will only be possible to the degree we can reason.
- We start out largely "obeying the rules" because of the authority of those who make those rules (parents, guardians, older siblings). Some people never escape that form of moralizing. They simply transfer the authority to greater and greater "authorities" - often ending up with "god."
- Once we are able to reason, we are able to reason morally. Many of us begin to examine our moral frameworks, seeking to have them "make sense."
- For them to make sense, we need to know what they are rooted it. Ultimately, a reasoned morality is rooted in the things a person values, and the priority they place on those values. Do I value life? Do I value liberty? Do I value life more than liberty or liberty more than life? Money? Friendship? Happiness? Health?
- How do we come to value something? We are influenced in that by our various "herds." That influence is moderated by personal experience. Hopefully, both are moderated by thought and reason. But it is from these "things I value" that our sorting of behavior into "ought" and "ought not" arises.
- Because we share many things in common with our fellow humans (life, humanity, this planet, societies, religions, etc.), there is a good deal of alignment in what we come to value.
- Because there is a good deal of alignment in what we value, and the laws of reason are immutable, there is a good deal of alignment in our moral frameworks. Many confuse these highly aligned elements with "moral absolutes" and seek to project them externally on some "authority" or "law of nature." No such thing exists - it is merely a set of widely, commonly, close to universally shared set of moral positions.
- Everyone evaluates not only their own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else against their own moral framework. They perceive their own as "the best" and that the world would be a better place if everyone followed it. If someone ever encounters a moral position that seems "better" than the one they currently hold, they immediately reject the one they hold in favor fo the new one.
- The fact that moralizing is rooted in what we value leads to some amount of variation in moral frameworks. We don't value identically. We don't prioritize identically. So we but up against one-another's moral frameworks regularly. When this happens, we often engage in back and forth about which moral position is "better." There are basically three possible outcomes of this contention:

1) If we have aligned valuing, we can seek to find how our reasoning to the moral conclusion differs and if one can find a flaw in the other's chain of reasoning, they might convince. This is a rational/logical approach.
2) If we do not have aligned valuing, one can seek to influence how the other values so as to get them aligned, and then we can go to 1). This may be a reasoned/rational approach if the valuing was reasonably/rationally arrived at. If it is more emotive or experiential, it may not be a reasoned/rational approach.
3) If we cannot align the valuing, or make a rational argument that convinces, the moral frameworks will remain unaligned, which means all that is left is to either ignore the difference (if it is a minor issue or not affecting the relationship), isolate/separate (when it is more serious and affects the relationship) or contend (when one moral framework impinges on the other).

That's how morality works. It is how it has always worked. Even for the Christian who believes their morality "comes from god." What is actually happening is that the Christian is valuing "god" and "the book" above pretty much everything else. They adopt an "what does the book say" approach to moral decision making. As a result (for me):

1) Reasoning from base valuing cannot work because the underlying valuing is seriously out of sync. I do not believe there is a god, so I do not value the being. Ergo I do not value the book (beyond its role as archaeological evidence and literature)
2) Working to align the values so we can go back to 1) is not likely to succeed. It would require me to begin believing there is a god (not likely) or them to either cease to believe there is a god, or to cease to believe that "the book" is the unquestionable word of this god (equally not likely).
3) That means having rational moral discussions with the Christian who thinks in this way (e.g., Seer, Sparko, etc.) is actually not possible. That leaves ignore, separate/isolate, contend.

We can discuss the nature of morality all day long. But my attempts to have discussions about what is and is not moral, including the genetics discussion, the consistency discussion, etc. Were largely folly on my part. The metric for determining morality is "what does the book say" and there is no rational argument about that - except to engage in linguistic debates about what the author's meant. Since we cannot do that successfully for a document written 200 years ago by authors we know whose original writings (both the document and related writings) we possess who wrote in our language, I think the odds of being successful at doing that for a collection of documents written 2000-3500 years ago by authors we mostly don't know whose original writings we do not possess and who wrote in a different language is slim to none. Some of the moral claims in the bible appear to be unambiguous, and others are all over the map. And engaging in those discussions simply begins by accepting the premise "the book" is the moral authority.

So, in hindsight, most of my attempts to have moral discussions about particulars have been a waste of time. I didn't do a good job of thinking through the consequences and understanding the dynamics of the moral discussion. Any argument based on genetics is doomed to failure, not because the basic argument is wrong, but because it is an argument that ignores the fundamental basis of the opposing moral framework, which is "is it in the book?"

[carpedm9587]

That was the problem from the very beginning, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and when the Israelites ignored God and did what was right in their own eyes.

Your problem is you think you know what is right for everyone else, while claiming that morals are subjective.

That's not a problem, Sparko. That's how moralizing works. That is what EVERYONE does.

You actually believe in objective morals, with you as the objective standard.

No.

You just replaced God with yourself as the source of morality, just like Eve, and the Israelites.

Isaiah 5:20-22 New International Version (NIV)

20
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.

No.

[carpedm9587]

feel free to correct it, but I am betting Seer agrees with my paraphrase and most others reading your posts. You may not be seeing what you have been arguing as clearly as you think. I think you are too invested in your point of view to see what it is you are actually promoting here.

It's long - but I corrected it in my other post. I leave others to read it if they have an interest - or ignore it if they don't.

[carpedm9587]

Yes Carp, and it is clear that "moral reasoning" with its subjective self-serving premises is no advancement in understanding ethics, or what is moral or not, over just following the herd. It really only serves to justify your superiority complex...

No one is calling anything an "advancement" Seer. I'm not arguing that "relative/subjective" morality is "better" then "absolute/objective" morality. I'm pointing out that morality IS relative/subjective. Morality is what it is. And what it isn't absolute/objective.

Here's your fundamental problem, Seer. You can point to the bible all day long and call it an objective/absolute standard all day long - but you cannot get away from the fact that you were the one who subjectively choose to align your moral framework with that "objective" standard. Had you been born in the Middle East, you would likely have chosen the Quran. Had you been born in India you would likely have chosen the Vedas. And you would likely be here telling me how THAT is the "true" objective standard. These are three of MANY explicitly documented "moral frameworks." They are only "objective" to you in so far as you didn't write them and they have their own existence as documents. The "Ten Commandments" are only "objective" in so far as they are documented in the book of Exodus and anyone can go and read them. But that's it.

And I will point out that you appear to feel just as superior about YOUR moral framework as any other human is about theirs. You too believe you have it right. You too believe everyone should be aligning not only to the "objective standard" you have selected, but to your specific interpretation of it. You will argue with anyone else who accepts "the book" as their standard, if their interpretation differs from yours.

You are a marvelous example of relative/subjective morality in action - but you have couched it in absolute/objective terms because you are stil looked into an authoritarian model of morality. A thing is "right" or "wrong" because some authority said so - and for no other reason. At some point in your life, you just replaced "parents" and other authority figures with "god."

[seer]

1) If we have aligned valuing, we can seek to find how our reasoning to the moral conclusion differs and if one can find a flaw in the other's chain of reasoning, they might convince. This is a rational/logical approach.
2) If we do not have aligned valuing, one can seek to influence how the other values so as to get them aligned, and then we can go to 1). This may be a reasoned/rational approach if the valuing was reasonably/rationally arrived at. If it is more emotive or experiential, it may not be a reasoned/rational approach.
3) If we cannot align the valuing, or make a rational argument that convinces, the moral frameworks will remain unaligned, which means all that is left is to either ignore the difference (if it is a minor issue or not affecting the relationship), isolate/separate (when it is more serious and affects the relationship) or contend (when one moral framework impinges on the other).

This is my point Carp. If you are starting with subjective premises then use them to post hoc justify your beliefs, then I would not consider that rational (even if the reasoning is tight, see my pink unicorn). If I said "I believe the Bible is the word of God" then deductively reasoned to universal moral truths, would you consider that rational, a good argument? But are you not doing the same thing with your subjective premises? Second point, are not all your beginning premises emotive or experiential in reality? I have not seen otherwise. Having said that it was an interesting post...