Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

Seer - I don't like "FIFY" - and my intention above is not to willy nilly alter your post to say what I want it to say. I am merely emphasizing the words you left out that are the hidden implication. To anyone reading, the bold/underline/italicized words are my inserts. The entire post reduces to "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

I know.

I've already agreed.

So what?

Carp, my point is all these recent posts was to demonstrate that moral reasoning is not superior to following the herd or relying on a "book" for deciding what is right or wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, my point is all these recent posts was to demonstrate that moral reasoning is not superior to following the herd or relying on a "book" for deciding what is right or wrong.

Which you have not shown. Moral reasoning from subjective/relative premises MAY leave the two people with nothing to discuss/debate. But it also provides two ways by which that CAN happen. "Follow the herd" has no such avenue. The only criteria is "what does the herd say." In your case, your herd is the static writings of long dead men, so your criteria is "what does the book say." There is no reasoning involved, so you can only come to agreement with another person who has the same approach, uses the same book, and has the same interpretation of the words. Anyone else and alignment is purely a matter of probability.

I, on the other hand, have a least a possibility of reasoning/debate/discussion. It's not guaranteed - and you are a good case in point. We do not have the same underlying value structure and it cannot be aligned, and you are not using any reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions. So all that is left is ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

But the exchange with you has had at least one element of value. It has made me realize the complete folly of engaging in any moral discussion/debate with someone who structures their morality as you do. The entire discussion of basing morality on genetics, and all of the other arguments over the previous several months were silly on my part. So I have indeed learned something. I had not thought this through as thoroughly as I should have. So thanks for the opportunity to flesh out these thoughts and take them to what should have been fairly obvious conclusions.

Of course - I think I've managed to violate "last word" at least three times in the course of the discussion......so not so great on that front!

[seer]

Which you have not shown. Moral reasoning from subjective/relative premises MAY leave the two people with nothing to discuss/debate. But it also provides two ways by which that CAN happen. "Follow the herd" has no such avenue. The only criteria is "what does the herd say." In your case, your herd is the static writings of long dead men, so your criteria is "what does the book say." There is no reasoning involved, so you can only come to agreement with another person who has the same approach, uses the same book, and has the same interpretation of the words. Anyone else and alignment is purely a matter of probability.

Carp so what if there is no reasoning involved? Reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Did the Maoist show that killing dissidents was a moral good through deductive reasoning?

I, on the other hand, have a least a possibility of reasoning/debate/discussion. It's not guaranteed - and you are a good case in point. We do not have the same underlying value structure and it cannot be aligned, and you are not using any reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions. So all that is left is ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

Right, so if the Maoist convinces you of his argument does that THEN make killing dissidents was a moral good? No, no more than you showed that random killing is immoral. Like I said your so called reasoning is simply a more elaborate way to bolster your personal preferences in a completely post hoc fashion. And your delusion is that you actually believe that you making substantial moral claims.

[carpedm9587]

Carp so what if there is no reasoning involved? Reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Did the Maoist show that killing dissidents was a moral good through deductive reasoning?

Right, so if the Maoist convinces you of his argument does that THEN make killing dissidents was a moral good? No, no more than you showed that random killing is immoral. Like I said your so called reasoning is simply a more elaborate way to bolster your personal preferences in a completely post hoc fashion. And your delusion is that you actually believe that you making substantial moral claims.

So your complaint continues to be "subjective/relative morality is not absolute/objective morality." We already know that. Already agreed to. So what?

[seer]

So your complaint continues to be "subjective/relative morality is not absolute/objective morality." We already know that. Already agreed to. So what?

No Carp, AGAIN, my objection is that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is good or bad. Any more than what comes from the herd or book.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, AGAIN, my objection is that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is absolutely/objectively good or bad. Any more than what comes from the herd or book.

Read your post, Seer. That's not what your post reduces to. Your complaint is, continually, "but it's not absolute/objective." Every single argument you've made reduces to that. Even this one. I've added the words that you left out that indicate this. Relatively/subjective morality definitely tells us what is good or bad. It simply does not tell us what is absolutely/objectively good or bad. It tells us what is relatively/subjectively good or bad. You apparently don't like it because it's not absolute/objective. It's the only argument you have EVER made. And, as I've noted, it's not an argument. It's just a continuous repetition of the definition of the terms.

To be clear:

- Relative/subjective morality provides us with relative/subjective moral truths
- It does not provide us with absolute/objective moral truths

I have never said otherwise - and never argued otherwise. I have agreed with this every time it comes up. And each time I agree, and ask "so what?" your only response is to repeat these two statements in one form or another.

[seer]

Read your post, Seer. That's not what your post reduces to. Your complaint is, continually, "but it's not absolute/objective." Every single argument you've made reduces to that. Even this one. I've added the words that you left out that indicate this. Relatively/subjective morality definitely tells us what is good or bad. It simply does not tell us what is absolutely/objectively good or bad. It tells us what is relatively/subjectively good or bad. You apparently don't like it because it's not absolute/objective. It's the only argument you have EVER made. And, as I've noted, it's not an argument. It's just a continuous repetition of the definition of the terms.

To be clear:

- Relative/subjective morality provides us with relative/subjective moral truths
- It does not provide us with absolute/objective moral truths

I have never said otherwise - and never argued otherwise. I have agreed with this every time it comes up. And each time I agree, and ask "so what?" your only response is to repeat these two statements in one form or another.

No Carp, that is false. My whole point in this debate has been about the deficiency of using "moral reason" to come to moral conclusions. That that tells us no more about what is right or wrong than the conclusions of the herd or by following the book. It only confirms your personal preferences.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, that is false. My whole point in this debate has been about the deficiency of using "moral reason" to come to moral conclusions. That that tells us no more about what is absolutely/objectively right or wrong than the conclusions of the herd or by following the book. It only confirms your relative/subjective personal preferences.

I've (again) taken the liberty of inserting the words you left out in your post. This is what you appear to be actually saying. It's the only thing you CAN say - because relative/subjective morality DOES tell us what is moral/immoral - it simply does so subjectively/relatively - not absolutely/objectively.

So, again, your complaint is that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. Again, I agree. Again... so what?

(and I predict you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective)

[seer]

I've (again) taken the liberty of inserting the words you left out in your post. This is what you appear to be actually saying. It's the only thing you CAN say - because relative/subjective morality DOES tell us what is moral/immoral - it simply does so subjectively/relatively - not absolutely/objectively.

So, again, your complaint is that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. Again, I agree. Again... so what?

(and I predict you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective)

So killing dissidents is moral?

[Tassman]

Goodness - Tassman got something right ... well semi-right. maybe.

So you agree with Martin Luther that the Epistle of James is "an epistle of straw", because it contradicts Paul's "justification by faith alone" as found in Galatians.

[seer]

I've (again) taken the liberty of inserting the words you left out in your post. This is what you appear to be actually saying. It's the only thing you CAN say - because relative/subjective morality DOES tell us what is moral/immoral - it simply does so subjectively/relatively - not absolutely/objectively.

So, again, your complaint is that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. Again, I agree. Again... so what?

(and I predict you will repeat that it is not absolute/objective)

No Carp, I can say a lot more. If moral relativism is true there is no neutral reference point to judge moral progress or moral decline, criticism of a present culture is absurd since you are only replacing your opinion with the collective opinion of the herd. You have lost the ability of using terms like true or false as they apply to moral questions, "true to me" is a completely banal claim. And if there are no objective true or false claims concerning moral questions I don't see how you escape moral nihilism. Finally, if you value sincerity or open-mindedness in rational discourse, those too would not be universal norms, they also would be relative. That completely undercuts any objective ground for moral reasoning.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I can say a lot more. If moral relativism is true there is no neutral reference point to judge moral progress or moral decline, criticism of a present culture is absurd since you are only replacing your opinion with the collective opinion of the herd.

...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"

You have lost the ability of using terms like true or false as they apply to moral questions, "true to me" is a completely banal claim.

...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"

And if there are no objective true or false claims concerning moral questions I don't see how you escape moral nihilism.

...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"

Finally, if you value sincerity or open-mindedness in rational discourse, those too would not be universal norms, they also would be relative. That completely undercuts any objective ground for moral reasoning.

...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"

Seer - this entire post reduces to "it's not absolute/objective." You are completely blind to the fact that this is your ONLY complaint - and it's not an argument. I agree with everything you said here. Moral relativism/subjectivism provides no absolute/objective moral norms. Agreed. It provides no "neutral" measuring tool. Agreed. It is rooted in personal preferences. Agreed. All true.

So what?

(and you will yet against repeat "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective" in one form or another)

[seer]

...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"



...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"



...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"



...yet another repetition of "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective"

Seer - this entire post reduces to "it's not absolute/objective." You are completely blind to the fact that this is your ONLY complaint - and it's not an argument. I agree with everything you said here. Moral relativism/subjectivism provides no absolute/objective moral norms. Agreed. It provides no "neutral" measuring tool. Agreed. It is rooted in personal preferences. Agreed. All true.

So what?

(and you will yet against repeat "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective" in one form or another)

Tell me where anything I said is wrong? How do you escape moral nihilism? How is your moral reasoning not undermined if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative? From what rational ground do you criticize the collective norms of the herd, how is such criticism not absurd? And your claim that there are no moral absolutes is too a moral claim - is that an absolute or relative claim?

[carpedm9587]

Tell me where anything I said is wrong?

Wow, Seer. You can really ask this question? Read carefully. I agreed with every point you made. Every one of them is a variation on "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

How do you escape moral nihilism?

If "moral nihilism" is defined as "nothing is absolutely/objectively right or wrong," then we don't - because morality is not absolute/objective.
If "moral nihilism" is defined as "nothing is relatively/subjectively right or wrong," then escape is easy - relative/subjective morality does produce relative/subjective moral classifications.

Random killing is, for me, wrong in all circumstances I can conceive. No problem making the statement - or holding the position. It also turns out that most humans have encoded this prohibition in their moral framework, so it is as close to a "universal" as we have. No problem with the claim or the observation.

How is your moral reasoning not undermined if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative?

You are again complaining "it's not absolute/objective."

From what rational ground do you criticize the collective norms of the herd, how is such criticism not absurd?

They are criticized from the perspective of my moral framework, as is the case for all of us.

And your claim that there are no moral absolutes is too a moral claim - is that an absolute or relative claim?

Horse hockey. A moral position sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." The statement "there are no moral absolutes" is a meta-statement about the nature of moral reasoning. It does not sort actions into categories. It is not the same type of moral statement - so this argument fails before it gets started.

And you STILL only have "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." To which I again say, "correct - it's not. So what?"

And your next post will repeat "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective" in some form. It's really all you have, Seer. Maybe, just maybe, you are starting to see it...?

[seer]

Random killing is, for me, wrong in all circumstances I can conceive. No problem making the statement - or holding the position. It also turns out that most humans have encoded this prohibition in their moral framework, so it is as close to a "universal" as we have. No problem with the claim or the observation.

Right and like I said in the past, though gassing Jews would be wrong to you, it was morally acceptable to the Nazis. So in their context you would have to admit that it was a moral good.

You are again complaining "it's not absolute/objective."

So how is moral reasoning valid if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative? What does that even look like, since the man that has not approached these question with sincerity or open-mindedness has committed no foul. He is no more right or wrong than you.

They are criticized from the perspective of my moral framework, as is the case for all of us.

How is that not absurd? On what rational basis do you object to the collective moral wisdom of the herd? It can not be experience since the collective herd has much more of that than the individual. And it can not be knowledge since the since the collective herd has much more of that than the individual too. So what is it? Feelings?

Horse hockey. A moral position sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." The statement "there are no moral absolutes" is a meta-statement about the nature of moral reasoning. It does not sort actions into categories. It is not the same type of moral statement - so this argument fails before it gets started.

OK, so you don't claim that there are no moral absolutes. Good to know.