Homophobic Trump...

[Sparko]

carp did you watch the video seer posted a while back? very interesting

[carpedm9587]

Well, if someone is thirsty and you offer them salt instead of water and I point out that salt will not solve the problem because the person needs water would you then say: "That is not an argument - it's a restatement of the meaning of the terms."

Not actually a parallel situation, Charles. You are not saying "salt is not water," you are saying, "this person needs water - not salt." The focus is the need of the person, not the definition of the objects. In this case, the person's thirst indicates a need for water and not salt. But even here, if the person looking to give the thirsty person turns to the other person and says, "why?" and the only answer that comes back is "salt is not water," then I would accept this as a non-answer. We all know that salt is not water. That doesn't explain why salt is not what the person needs.

Here is an actual parallel case:

Fred says, "the only good cars are blue cars."
John asks, "why can't a green car be just as good as a blue car?"
Fred says, "because green is not blue!"

Every question John asks gets the same answer: green is not blue. Nothing in that statement actually says anything about what makes green cars better than blue ones. It merely repeats, over and over, that green is not blue - which is true by definition of the terms.

[Charles;620329]It is rather simple. Your idea that you can continually point to it being a "restatement of the meaing of terms" and go on to say "So what?" is based on the idea that the meaning of terms is not important to the case discussed.[/QUOTE]

No - it's not. The terms are very meaningful. Relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. I have never disagreed with this statement. I have agreed with it over and over again. From the very beginning. We all know that subjective/relative morality cannot make absolute/objective claims. So what?

You have completely failed to show why it is not important.

I have not claimed it is not important. I have AGREED with it. So what?

If you did not in any way try to argue that certain actions are better or worse than others, you could say "So what?". What you are actually saying "So what?" to so far are all the ideas you present yourself. Or you are allowing me to say exactly that to every argument you can come up with. So what?

Of COURSE you will. That's the point. My moral framework is meaningless to you until and if you find meaning in it. If we align, neither of us will be saying "so what." If we don't, you will continue to morally disagree with me and I with you. That's what happens every day of every week of every year between all humans.

You are simply presenting an idea while claiming that I have no reason what so ever to agree with you, unless I happen to do so already.

If you disagree - make your case. If you think morality is rooted in absolute/objective moral truths - demonstrate that such truths exist as a starting point.

The idea that philosophers "start by simply assuming an absolute/objective base for moralizing" seems to be yet another question begging idea about moral reasoning. Where is the evidence?

The evidence is in the writings of those that I have read - and in the words of the people posting here. The idea of moral absolutes and objective moral truths is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche after centuries and millennia of indoctrination at the hands of religion, that it is almost a foregone conclusion for most people. It permeates our language. Even I, who reject the entire notion, get caught in the habit now and again.

The point that you seemed to find a bit contradicting was the point that there could be moral standards that are objective on how humans should treat each other. The fact that such standards would not apply when humans cease to exist would not prove them to be subjective. It would only prove that the reality in which they apply no longer exists.

So you want me to entertain the idea that an activity of a sentient mind, which categorizes the actions of a sentient being, can have independent objective existence despite ceasing to exist when all such sentience also ceases to exist? And you don't find that proposition just a tad odd?

If your best argument is that those who oppose you point out to what words actually mean and you cannot show them why that meaning is not important I don't think you have a very strong case.

At no point did I say meaning is not important. I said "repeating a definition is not an argument." The pattern is consistent, Charles. When asked why the idea of moral relativism/objectivism is not viable, the only response (in its many forms) is to repeat the definition of the term.

So imagine that I were to say "wooden frame is a superior construction to steel frame for the homes we live in." And you were to say, "why do you think that?" And my response were to be "because wood is not steel." Would I be telling you anything about why it is superior? No. I'd simply be repeating what we all know: wood is not steel. That is not unimportant. That is not wrong. It simply does not answer the question "why is wood construction better than steel?"

Setting aside the problem that no one can actually show the existence of these supposed absolute/objective moral norms, I ask, "why is subjective/relative moral reasoning not a viable model?" The answer comes back, "because subjective/relative moral reasoning is not absolute/objective." We know this is true - just by understanding the words. But repeating it over and over again does not actually answer the question asked. It just repeats the definition ad infinitum. And it is the only answer I have EVER been given to this question. It's the only answer Seer has. It's the only answer Sparko has. It's the only answer ANYONE has ever given me.

When I realized that was the first time I began to truly examine this issue.

I will admit that pointing to what objective standards are, why and how is very difficult and if you want to point out that I am not doing so in this post or the previous, you are absolutely right. That would be another thread and it would take a lot of time.

Personally, I don't think it is possible. But if someone wants to try...

[carpedm9587]

I am not arguing green is not blue. You are the one making the claim that your basis in morality is better because it is rationally based versus our "book based". yet you just admitted that someone can rationally come to exactly the opposite moral view than you.

I've never said otherwise.

So your rationality is useless.

Only to the absolute/objective thinker that cannot see beyond their sandbox.

It is nothing more than rationalization, not rationality.

It can be either.

It is something you tell yourself so that you feel justified in your view, but it means absolutely nothing logically since someone else can use rational arguments that are just as valid as yours yet come to the opposite conclusion. Your rational basis is no better than basing your morality on the toss of a coin. You might get heads and claim stealing is wrong and I might get tails and say stealing is fine. No difference.

The difference is the basis for discussion debate. You cannot discuss/debate with a coin toss. You can with someone who is attempting to use their minds.

then your basis for your morals is just a fairy tale and means nothing.

Wow - says the person who's moral framework is based on a book by unknown authors magically imbued with the power of an unseen and unshown supreme being to be "infallible." And I'm the one basing on fairy tales? Really?

It means your claimed basis in morality is nothing but a sham.

To you, that is clear.

I can just as easily argue that my basis in morality is better because it is based on a book and yours is inferior because no book is involved. Your "reasoning" is useless and means nothing.

Then why do you keep engaging?

[carpedm9587]

When I said "Morality is inherently about obligations" I'm not speaking about the kind of obligations that the law places on us for example. Moral obligations are the kind of obligations that exists regardless of the culture and legal framework we live in. I would say that what you call "moral preferences derived internally based on external stimuli" and the sense of right and wrong that we call a "conscience" are an indication of these moral obligations, you simply don't believe that's what they are because in your worldview arriving at objective/absolute moral obligations is simply not possible. You've already determined from the get go that subjective values are all that exists, and therefore there is no possible way to argue for the existence of absolute moral obligations with you.

Chrawnus, you cannot separate moral obligation from personal experience, including our cultural and religious influences. There is no moral precept that is absolutely universally accepted. Some of them don't even have meaning in some cultures. You are speaking out of a western/Christian historical definition of morality - which is rooted in authority-based morality grounded in a supreme being. Your sense of "ought" arises internally. It is subjective to your own conscious and unconscious choices.

If you had been born in an aboriginal tribe that lacked the concept of personal possession, the very idea of stealing would not exist in your moral framework. If you lived in a cannibalistic society, then your sense of what constitutes licit and illicit killing would change significantly, and you might even participate in a hunt for other humans so that you could consume their strength. You are steeped in relative/subjective moralism disguised as claims of absolute/objective norms - but you cannot make the case for them actually being so.

You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.

Close. What I am actually saying is that even Sparko and Seer are making themselves the center - they just don't acknowledge it. They forego actual moral reasoning for the precepts laid out in a collection of ancient books. But they cannot get away from the fact that they are the ones making that choice. And they are the ones accepting what the correct interpretation of those words are. They are the ones ignoring the reality of lost authorship, lost originals, and all of the problems of translation to arrive at an "absolute/objective" framework.

Ultimately, we all center our moral reasoning on ourselves. But we do so in a variety of ways.

I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion here. It seems clear to me that our disagreements lay deeper than simply whether or not morality is objective or subjective, but we also seem to have disagreements about when something is sufficiently well-reasoned. Trying to unravel how far back our disagreements go exactly would take more energy than I care to spare right now, so I'll go back to simply reading the posts in this thread, for the time being.

Fair enough. My thanks for the straightforward and pleasant expression of your views. We don't agree - but I have never experienced you as anything but civil - at least as far as I can recall.

[carpedm9587]

I made that point to him earlier. He is basically replacing God with himself.

I don't need to "replace god with me" Sparko. Gods only exist in the minds of humanity.

He is making himself god and the source of morality that he believes everyone should follow.

I hope everyone will align - as you hope everyone will align with you. But, of course, you hope that because you believe you are following your god. Still - same result.

Then when questioned he comes up with some made-up rationalization to justify his moral view.

I don't need to justify my moral view to anyone but myself, Sparko. It is, after all, my moral view. I do WANT, however, to share that view as widely as possible in the hopes of a) possibly learning better views if they are successfully challenged and b) possibly convincing others to align with what I think.

You don't have a lot of prayer with the former - because "it's in the book" is not a compelling argument for me. And I don't have a lot of hope with you or Seer on some topics, because you cannot see past the book. Fortunately, the book mostly captures widely held human moral norms - so the risk is minimal - unless someone happens to be gay, or trans, or bi.

[carpedm9587]

In my worldview, almost everything, from the existence of matter, space and time, the basis of morality and the validity of reason are all tied to the existence of God. You be the judge if that makes our worldviews "diametrically" opposed or not.

Almost everything?

[seer]

Where did I say they HAD to have a logical justification for valuing life? We value what we value. Sometimes it's rational. Sometimes it's not. But even what is based on some amount of reason will ultimately root in personal experience and preference.

The point Carp is that it is no less valid without logical justification, and no more valid with it.

You don't HAVE to accept my reasons for valuing life, Seer. You're not me.

Since reasoning is not necessary for validating one's life why would one even need to consider your justifications? An unnecessary and unwarranted addition.

I provided this several times. I'll let my previous posts stand.

You provided an objective grounding? Where? Can you link the post?

Again, "green is not blue." I inserted your missing words for you. You still don't have an argument, Seer - and you still don't see it.

Nonsense Carp, I will try again: And how do you know that your subjective brain is coming to correct moral conclusions? Without begging the question?

Or do agree that you are always begging the question?

[carpedm9587]

carp did you watch the video seer posted a while back? very interesting

The first 5 minutes. At time 2:10 he displays this definition: "The belief in a reliable faculty of reasoning, capable of operating effectively and impartially even when self-interest, reputational concerns, and intergroup conflict pull toward a particular conclusion." You can also find parts of this argument here.

Since I do not have that belief, I don't see how the rest of the video can be relevant to me. Indeed, I would agree that anyone with that view of "reasoning" is deluded.

[carpedm9587]

The point Carp is that it is no less valid without logical justification, and no more valid with it.

Since reasoning is not necessary for validating one's life why would one even need to consider your justifications? An unnecessary and unwarranted addition.

You provided an objective grounding? Where? Can you link the post?

Nonsense Carp, I will try again: And how do you know that your subjective brain is coming to correct moral conclusions? Without begging the question?

Or do agree that you are always begging the question?

I have responded to all of this, Seer. It's getting boring repeating myself. I'll leave you to reread the thread.

[seer]

You don't have a lot of prayer with the former - because "it's in the book" is not a compelling argument for me. And I don't have a lot of hope with you or Seer on some topics, because you cannot see past the book. Fortunately, the book mostly captures widely held human moral norms - so the risk is minimal - unless someone happens to be gay, or trans, or bi.

And what on earth have you offered that is more valid or better than the the book? Are you really this deluded? It isn't moral reasoning because you have failed on every point there. Where you are merely using post hoc rationalizations to justify your preferences.

[carpedm9587]

And what on earth have you offered that is more valid or better than the the book? Are you really this deluded? It isn't moral reasoning because you have failed on every point there. Where you are merely using post hoc rationalizations to justify your preferences.

More "green is not blue."

Truly, Seer, I find this tedious. I think I'm pretty much at my limit for a) clarifying things I have not said, b) listening to non-arguments, and c) repeating myself over and over as you blithely ignore the responses.

Your have your moral framework - it's locked to "the books" - I understand that. It's not going to be dislodged. There is no basis for discussion/debate on the topics because there is no thought going into them. You are not even able to see your complete lack of argument.

I think we can call this a day. I'll leave the last words to you and Sparko.

[seer]

The first 5 minutes. At time 2:10 he displays this definition: "The belief in a reliable faculty of reasoning, capable of operating effectively and impartially even when self-interest, reputational concerns, and intergroup conflict pull toward a particular conclusion." You can also find parts of this argument here.

Since I do not have that belief, I don't see how the rest of the video can be relevant to me. Indeed, I would agree that anyone with that view of "reasoning" is deluded.

The point is Carp is that there is a large and growing body of evidence that none of us (including you) are actually reasoning morally, rather that we justify our intuitive moral preferences after the fact using logical rationalizations. What in fact you have done throughout this debate. And the guy in your link doesn't know what he is talking about, Haidt is not denying that reason is useful or necessary, especially in the Sciences. The research is about political and moral views (which unlike Science are subjective), and how they are intuitive, with justifications coming after the fact. And these studies go back to the 70s and up to present.

[Sparko]

I've never said otherwise.



Only to the absolute/objective thinker that cannot see beyond their sandbox.



It can be either.



The difference is the basis for discussion debate. You cannot discuss/debate with a coin toss. You can with someone who is attempting to use their minds.

I can just as easily argue that the coin toss is a valid reason for my morals. My reason would be just as valid as yours. In fact, in your paradigm, any reason is valid or no reason at all. So you trying to pretend otherwise and claim that basing morals on a book is somehow inferior is pure elitism and stupidity on your part. If any line of reasoning is valid to come to any moral conclusion then basing morals on a book, the stars, or some contrived argument is all equally valid. We can just as easily discuss the morals given by God.

Wow - says the person who's moral framework is based on a book by unknown authors magically imbued with the power of an unseen and unshown supreme being to be "infallible." And I'm the one basing on fairy tales? Really?

I am saying your "reasoning" is no better. You have already admitted that your reasoning is after the fact justification, and that someone else's reasoning that comes to the opposite conclusion is just as valid as yours, so all you are doing is telling yourself a fairy tale to justify why you believe something.

To you, that is clear.



Then why do you keep engaging?

because I am trying to get you to realize how invalid your arguments are.

[Sparko]

The first 5 minutes. At time 2:10 he displays this definition: "The belief in a reliable faculty of reasoning, capable of operating effectively and impartially even when self-interest, reputational concerns, and intergroup conflict pull toward a particular conclusion." You can also find parts of this argument here.

Since I do not have that belief, I don't see how the rest of the video can be relevant to me. Indeed, I would agree that anyone with that view of "reasoning" is deluded.

you actually just proved what the guy was arguing in the video and what seer has been saying all along.

You are just impervious to changing your views as any religious zealot and won't even watch a video to determine if your value system is wrong or not. You are the one who is deluded into thinking you are open minded when you are not.

[tabibito]

I can just as easily argue that the coin toss is a valid reason for my morals.

That is effectively what it comes down to.
The argument for this so called rational decision acknowledges that the decision is based on presuppositions that usually are founded in nothing more than personal preference.
Regardless of who tosses the coin, the outcome favours a set of values based on personally evaluated "line of best fit."
For the Christian, it comes down in favour of the Bible, for the Samurai it comes down in favour of Bushidou: there is precious little difference between the 7 points of Bushidou and the moral code of the Bible. In fact, there are so many correlations throughout history and cultures that a person could be forgiven for thinking that there is an underlying objectiveness to morality. There are so many variations in how the underlying correlations actually play out in praxis, that a person could be forgiven for thinking that morality is wholly a matter of personal taste. For example, murder is all but universally considered immoral, but what actually constitutes murder as opposed to lawful killing is a matter of distinct disagreement.