Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

You cannot be convinced by ANY logical argument about ANYTHING in the moral sphere, Seer. I think I'll accept the possibility that someone might have a compelling argument for random killing for the integrity of knowing I am thinking through my moral conclusions. I am not all that afraid that someone might actually successfully make that argument. Someone might also make a compelling mathematical argument that the earth is at the center of the universe. After all - motion is all relative. I don't toss out preferring to reason through astronomy because I'm afraid of what someone might try to convince me about.

Listen to what you are saying Carp, like it is a bad thing that the Maoist couldn't convince me that murdering dissidents may be moral. Where you could be convinced if the argument was strong enough. I mean in our recent debates it has become clear that your reasoning process tells us nothing about what is ethical or not (and why you add the word moral to this process is beyond me, just call it the world according to Carp). Your "moral" reasoning could equally lead to human rights or the Gulags, and the various syllogisms are only invented to justify what you already believe. Why would any rational Theist exchange that relative, culturally shifting quagmire for the moral certitude he now holds? That makes zero sense to me.

But if you have those fears, by all means stick to "the book." If you are that easily swayed, it's probably safer for all of us.

Remember, by your own words, you are the one who would be open to the Maoist's reasoning.

Not entirely. The golden rule is rooted in an inter-personal reality: what goes around tends to come around. How I treat others tends to be how I can expect them to treat me. If I want the people around me to treat me like "X," it is an unreasonable expectation to expect that will happen if I am treating the like "Y." It's the social contract. It occurs in all societies I have ever encountered or studied. It is the basis for the "golden rule" and all of other maxims of that type. None of them tells us what is or is not moral - they simply tell us to expect the same (or similar) treatment from others that we dole out ourselves.

It's not a "gut" feeling - it's a conclusion born out of observation - and study - and an understanding of history.

That doesn't follow at all. You could treat people very well, and be killed in a robbery attempt tomorrow. Or you could exploit your fellow man and gain enough wealth and power to insulate yourself and family. Logically you don't have an argument from going from A to B. Beside your gut instinct. Of course the golden rule is probably a gut instinct too. And a lot of societies I have studied demonstrate that the rich and powerful rise to the top to control the masses. Following the other golden rule: "he with the most gold rules."

[Sparko]

It is what most of your complaints boil down to, Sparko. Sorry if you don't see it - there's not much I can do about that. I've tried.



Then that is what you should say. "Equally valid" is not the same thing. "Equally valid" means an equality. There is no way of measuring an equality. You would need another reference frame to do that, which would only be yet another subjective/relative reference frame.



No. Each person sees their own as valid. "Equally" is not a supportable claim. There is no way to make the comparison.



"Better/worse" also cannot be assessed. As you note - the reference frames are relative. But we know that.



No logical argument is absolutely/objectively better than any other - with this I agree. But then we already know that - because the reference frames are subjective/relative. Ergo, the logical arguments can only be relatively/subjectively better. You're back to "green is not blue." Your stating the obvious as if you've actually said something. We already knew this. I've said this over and over again - and I agree with you. So what?



Yes - spot on.



No argument is absolutely/objectively better. They ARE subjectively/relatively better. So you again have gone back to green is not blue. We KNOW they are not absolutely/objectively better. We know any assessment of "better" will be done relatively/subjectively. I've agreed to this, over and over, and over again. So what?



It may well seem valid to them. Indeed, it will likely BE valid to them. All that it tells ME is that a rational argument about a moral position is doomed to failure with them.



Again, the first part is true. The second part not necessarily. It matters to the person to whom it matters. You have no basis for saying "it doesn't matter" unless you are again making an absolute/objective observation - it doesn't absolutely/objectively matter. With that I agree - because it is relative/subjective. But that means you just went back to "green is not blue." It can only matter relatively/subjectively. Again I ask...so what?



Yes - I believe that anyone that subjugates their moral reasoning to a book is abandoning moral reasoning - and I consider that an inferior approach. It means there is no reasoned avenue for discussing moral conclusions. I would consider the person who picks a car "by their gut" to be making THAT decision in an inferior way as well. It doesn't mean they can't do it, and it doesn't mean they might not stumble unto a good car. I'm just not going to waste time discussing the merits of that car over another because it's a pointless exercise. They aren't using their minds.



I have no control over your internal moral meter. You might think it is actually immoral, or you might simply be saying that to make a point. If you say it is immoral for you, I can only reflect "Sparko says this is immoral for him." Only Sparko knows the truth for certain. Hence, "it might be."



The reason doesn't absolutely/objectively matter. But then we already knew that...yada yada yada - more "green is not blue."



This is correct.



This you have no basis for saying. My reasoning is subjectively better to me, and yours is subjectively inferior to me. There is no way to assess "absolutely/objectively better" without an absolute/objective framework, so you just went back to "green is not blue."



So if I tell you that my moral code was arrived at as follows:

1. Tezcatlipoca created me
2. Tezcatlipoca knows how he designed me to act
3. Tezcatlipoca revealed his moral code to mankind in the ancient Aztec temple glyphs
4. In order to live a live in harmony with Tezcatlipoca's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

Would you agree that my moral framework was perfectly rational? Sparko - in order for an argument to be both sound AND valid, it must be in proper syllogistic form, and the premises must be true. You believe your premises to be true, but you cannot show a single one of them to be true without getting caught up in a world of circular argumentation. At the end, you will be "going from your gut," like the car buyer. I don't consider that rational.



Someone can show my reasoning to be flawed by examining the reasoning. But they can only show my conclusions to be flawed if they can show that AND show my premises to be untrue. My premises are largely subjective. I hold them in common with most humans - but they are nonetheless subjective. You are attempting to build your morality on objectively true premises that you cannot show to be actually true. "God created me" is a declaration of an objective reality. But you cannot show it to be true. The same is true of premises 2 and 3 in your list.



I actually dislike it when people alter a statement to make it what they want it to be (i.e., FIFY). That was not my intent. I inserted the implied words you left out. You wrote this:

again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how correct someone's moral code is.

The statement is true if you meant:

again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how absolutely/objectively correct someone's moral code is.

but false if you meant:

again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how relatively/subjectively correct someone's moral code is.

You and Seer continually make indirect references to how "it doesn't matter," and "it is not better" and "it is equally valid." From a subjective/relative framework, these are nonsense statements. They are ONLY true from an absolute/objective framework. So...you've gone back to "green is not blue."

The heart of your argument, Sparko, is that relative/subjective morality provides no way to make absolute/objective statements about correctness, validity, truth, goodness, etc. I agree. it can't. We know that. That's what "relative/subjective" means. Again, I ask, "so what?"



No - I keep arguing that irrationally derived moral conclusions cannot be rationally discussed. I would think that is fairly obvious.



I have never claimed that my moral conclusions are absolutely/objectively better than anyone else's If you think I have, I invite you to find and link the post. That would be inconsistent with my position. I DO think that rationally derived moral conclusions provide an avenue for discussion/debate that is missing for irrationally arrived at moral conclusions. In general, I believe ANY use of the mind to come to a reasoned decision is better than making decisions without the benefit of reason.

Ergo, in the quest for reaching alignment in a community, a rationally-arrived-at moral framework is better. That does not mean the moral conclusions themselves are better or worse in any absolute sense. The PROCESS is better because of the benefit it provides in engaging in moral discussions.



In all honesty, Sparko, I really don't care if you give a crap about it or not. If you don't, then just go about your business and disconnect. If you engage, I'm going to respond. You can continue to whine about it (and me), or just focus on the argument at hand. Frankly, I think you waste far too much time on personal observations and nowhere near enough time on the merits of the argument - but if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

Yes - I believe a rational moral reasoning process is a better way to engage in moral reasoning that an irrational one. You guys are in the absurd position of defending the position "an irrational approach to moral reasoning is just as good." If you think so - go for it. I doubt you're going to get too many people to agree that being irrational is generally better than being rational.



My moral conclusions will not be absolutely/subjectively better. I've agreed to that many times. But then we know that - because my moral conclusions are subjective/relative. So you appear to be repeating the same mantra - apparently thinking you've said something. I agree - my moral conclusions cannot be shown to be objectively/absolutely better to anyone else's. They are subjectively/relatively better. So what?



I don't find your approach to be "rational" Sparko because you base it on statements you claim are objectively true, without the ability to show they actually are. Since I believe they are actually NOT objectively true, the best you can say is your argument is sound (if you put it in syllogistic form), but not necessarily valid.

First, dammit carp, STOP WITH THE CUISINART! If you actually want to have a discussion, stop chopping up the posts so badly that it is impossible to follow the conversation when replying to you. That is a dishonest way to debate and you know it.

Above you both agree that each person's reasoning is valid to themselves and not necessarily to anyone else. Fine. That is what I have been saying. But then you go on to argue with me and say,

No logical argument is absolutely/objectively better than any other - with this I agree. But then we already know that - because the reference frames are subjective/relative. Ergo, the logical arguments can only be relatively/subjectively better. You're back to "green is not blue." Your stating the obvious as if you've actually said something. We already knew this. I've said this over and over again - and I agree with you. So what?

Which is YOU saying green is not blue, because I never argued anything about absolute/objectively better. If you are correct then all reasoning is subjective to the person. Which you just repeated. Which is what I said.

But then! You seem to think that your reasoning is objective when you claim that your method of moral reasoning is BETTER (your words) than flipping a coin or using a book. IF as you just admitted there is no objective/absolute better logical argument, then you can't claim that flipping a coin is not better than using a book or some logical argument to come to a moral conclusion. It might be better for you, but it is not actually BETTER in any objective way. YET YOU KEEP ACTING AS IF IT WERE.

1. Tezcatlipoca created me
2. Tezcatlipoca knows how he designed me to act
3. Tezcatlipoca revealed his moral code to mankind in the ancient Aztec temple glyphs
4. In order to live a live in harmony with Tezcatlipoca's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

Would you agree that my moral framework was perfectly rational? Sparko - in order for an argument to be both sound AND valid, it must be in proper syllogistic form, and the premises must be true. You believe your premises to be true, but you cannot show a single one of them to be true without getting caught up in a world of circular argumentation. At the end, you will be "going from your gut," like the car buyer. I don't consider that rational.

If you are correct, and morals are all subjective, then it only requires that YOU believe Tez is real -- then it would be a logical and reasonable argument to follow Tez's moral code, Carp. It would be true for you.

And if Tez objectively exists, it would be true for me too, even if I denied it.

It is a valid rational and logical argument.

Now again, as you admitted above, our moral reasoning is just as subjective as our morals, so whether YOU agree that my reasoning is rational or not doesn't matter to anyone but yourself. So stop trying to tell me that I am being irrational. It is irrational to tell someone they are being irrational if all rational moral arguments are subjective.

[rogue06]

First, dammit carp, STOP WITH THE CUISINART! If you actually want to have a discussion, stop chopping up the posts so badly that it is impossible to follow the conversation when replying to you.

Personally I have no problem with someone doing this to address something point by point. It helps avoid "where did I say that"?

[Sparko]

Personally I have no problem with someone doing this to address something point by point. It helps avoid "where did I say that"?

On short posts yes, but on longer ones, it quickly becomes a nightmare of shredded comments, which I am sure is what Carp is trying for. He seems to love to avoid dealing with things directly and succinctly.

[carpedm9587]

Listen to what you are saying Carp, like it is a bad thing that the Maoist couldn't convince me that murdering dissidents may be moral.

When I shut my ears, a person can't convince me of anything, Seer - for good OR bad. That is essentially what you are doing. I don't admire it.

Where you could be convinced if the argument was strong enough.

And I could be convinced that the earth is the center of the universe, so I should shut my ears to all mathematics and physics to prevent that from happening? Your logic makes no sense.

I mean in our recent debates it has become clear that your reasoning process tells us nothing about what is ethical or not (and why you add the word moral to this process is beyond me, just call it the world according to Carp).

Actually - no - this is more "green is not blue" in disguise. I have made it clear moral relativism/subjectivism cannot say anything about what is and is not absolutely/objectively moral. But then we already knew that, because relative/subjective moralizing is not absolute/objective. It does tell us what is relatively/subjectively moral.

Your "moral" reasoning could equally lead to human rights or the Gulags, and the various syllogisms are only invented to justify what you already believe. Why would any rational Theist exchange that relative, culturally shifting quagmire for the moral certitude he now holds? That makes zero sense to me.

More "green is not blue" argumentation. And it makes zeero sense to you because you do not use "sense" or "reasoning" to moralize. So none of it has to make sense to you.

Remember, by your own words, you are the one who would be open to the Maoist's reasoning.

I will always be open to any moral discussion that is grounded in reason. Why should I fear this? I have no concern that the Maoist is going to convince me. And listening to his/her arguments gives me insight into how I could perhaps convince them. And if not - nothing ventured, nothing gained. You seem to be in fear that if you let go, for one instance, of your pretend "rock" of absolute/objective morality, you're going to go off the deep end. Meanwhile, since your "rock" contains ancient proscriptions society has moved beyond, you're locked into a mindset you can never escape. Good or bad makes no actual difference to you, even relatively. Only "what in the book."

That doesn't follow at all. You could treat people very well, and be killed in a robbery attempt tomorrow. Or you could exploit your fellow man and gain enough wealth and power to insulate yourself and family. Logically you don't have an argument from going from A to B. Beside your gut instinct. Of course the golden rule is probably a gut instinct too. And a lot of societies I have studied demonstrate that the rich and powerful rise to the top to control the masses. Following the other golden rule: "he with the most gold rules."

Yep - there are always exceptions. People with great power take advantage of them all the time. Social norms don't work on the absolutes you'd like them to work on. They work on averages and dynamics. When I treat others with civility, I tend to get civility back. I don't always get civility back. This forum is a marvelous example of that reality. But I tend to. And even here, I tend to get more civility than those around me that I see hammering away at insulting others. So even here, we see the dynamic at work.

If you're looking for "absolutes," you're going to be disappointed. The world doesn't tend to work that way.

[carpedm9587]

Above you both agree that each person's reasoning is valid to themselves and not necessarily to anyone else. Fine. That is what I have been saying.

This can be true if the reasoning is well structured and based on subjective premises. It happens all the time.

But then you go on to argue with me and say,

Which is YOU saying green is not blue, because I never argued anything about absolute/objectively better.

So, no - I am not engaging in "green is not blue" arguments. That type of argument is when you hide "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective" somewhere in your argument, thinking that you've said something. That is not a position I take or an argument I make. I actually agree, and have from the start, that "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective."

If you are correct then all reasoning is subjective to the person.

And here you jump the rails. Reasoning is not subjective. It is guided by objective laws of reason. The premises and conclusion can be subjective or objective. If the premises are objectively true, the conclusion will be objectively true. If any of the premises are subjective, the conclusion will be subjective.

Which you just repeated. Which is what I said.

Sparko, you seem to think you say X when you actually say Y. Perhaps you are just not very careful with words. So you arrive at conclusions based on what I said that are not based on what I said, and reword what I say so that it no longer says what I actually said. I spend more time, with you and Seer, correcting your misconceptions of what I have written than actually following the argument.

But then! You seem to think that your reasoning is objective when you claim that your method of moral reasoning is BETTER (your words) than flipping a coin or using a book.

Again - no. What I said is that I believe any conclusion that was arrived at using reason is using a better process than flipping a coin or adopting a book. That does not mean the conclusion is necessarily better (which is where Seer keeps going). A person could use reasoning badly and make a bad decision about the choice of a car, and a person could flip a coin and end up with the better of two cars. The difference is, the person who chooses by flipping a coin cannot be engaged in a discussion. There is no rational way to get them to look at the cars because they are using a not-rational process (flipping a coin, or blind chance). So they have a 50/50 chance of getting a good car, and what car they get is entirely up to chance. The person who reasons to their car selection can be engaged in a rational discussion. Their premises can be examined and perhaps influenced. Their line of reasoning explored for error. Unconsidered premises can be introduced.

So too with the "from the book" person. They have abandoned reasoning and are essentially enslaving themselves to the author(s) of "the book." Whatever the author of the book thinks, they will think. There is no rational basis for discussion. There is little/no reasoning involved. So their choices will be as good/bad as the choices made by the author(s) of the book. You see this as "wise" because you have decided (again, without a strong rational position), that the book is "the word of god." Since I believe there is no such being, I see you blindly following the dictates of a few dozen unknown men whose original writings are lost to time, who wrote in a different language, time, and culture. And on this basis you are claiming "certain and absolute knowledge" of moral truths. I have already shown how a text written only a couple centuries ago, whose writings are not lost, whose authors are known and we have a body of their surrounding work, and they wrote in our society and our language - yet we STILL cannot get common agreement on what their words meant.

IF as you just admitted there is no objective/absolute better logical argument, then you can't claim that flipping a coin is not better than using a book or some logical argument to come to a moral conclusion. It might be better for you, but it is not actually BETTER in any objective way. YET YOU KEEP ACTING AS IF IT WERE.

There is no absolute/objective moral framework. That is what I have consistently said. There is, I believe, an objectively better process for arriving at a framework. It is the same process we humans seem to have no problem seeing as "objectively better" for anything else we do: apply reason and logic to the problem. I will always think using reason is objectively better than not using reason. You find yourself in the odd position of arguing that not being reasonable can be objectively better than being reasonable. It's a very odd position to take.

If you are correct, and morals are all subjective, then it only requires that YOU believe Tez is real -- then it would be a logical and reasonable argument to follow Tez's moral code, Carp. It would be true for you.

And if Tez objectively exists, it would be true for me too, even if I denied it.

If these premises are true, Sparko, then the argument is sound and valid. But they are not. And neither are yours, rendering your argument possibly sound, but not valid. It would be sound but not valid for everyone, because these arguments are not based on subjective truths - they are based on objective statements. Inserting "I believe" in them, makes them subjective, so the individual may perceive their conclusions to be valid - but the belief is (again) about an objective reality. If the belief is false, then the conclusion will fall with it as well.

It is a valid rational and logical argument.

It is sound - perhaps. It is not valid. The premises are not true.

Now again, as you admitted above, our moral reasoning is just as subjective as our morals, so whether YOU agree that my reasoning is rational or not doesn't matter to anyone but yourself.

It is true that moral conclusions are individual. They always are. Each person will arrive at their own moral conclusion by their own means. How much it "matters" to someone else will be a function of how much that person is open to examining and exploring their own moral frameworks - or if they are closed to that and assume the "I'm always right and will never change" posture. For the latter type of person, ignore, isolate/separate, and contend are the only options. For the former, discussion and exploration are possible, and people can influence one another and learn from one another - examining premises they may not have considered, exploring consequences they may not have factored in, or finding errors in their own reasoning that they missed because none of us is perfect.

So stop trying to tell me that I am being irrational. It is irrational to tell someone they are being irrational if all rational moral arguments are subjective.

You do regularly tell me what I should stop (or not stop) saying, and how I should say it. You are aware, of course, that I am not under your authority?

Sorry, Sparko - but I see the act of aligning oneself to "the books" as an act that lacks rationality. It abandons moral reasoning in favor of "aligning with the herd" which, in this case, is a collection of long dead, ANE writers. It foregos any possibility of rational discussion of the issues. At the end of the day, the final arbiter is "what does the book say?" There is no real thought given to morality. It is blind obedience to an ancient text. You're following a book. Embrace it, my friend. You seem to think it's a good thing.

Meanwhile, the discussion has awakened me to the folly of engaging in discussions about specific moral principles with people who approach morality like you or Seer. We can discuss the nature of morality all day. But when it comes to examining a specific moral issue (i.e., homosexuality, transgender, sex in general, theft, etc.), the exercise is pointless. There can be no actual arguments when the criteria for determining "right action" and "wrong action" is "what does the book say?"

[carpedm9587]

Personally I have no problem with someone doing this to address something point by point. It helps avoid "where did I say that"?

When I respond, I read the entire post, and then I start back at the beginning and insert responses as I hit things I agree or disagree with. I have always done so. Some people take exception and seem to think I am doing it out of some kind of malice. I'm not. I think putting the response close to the thing it is responding to simply makes sense.

It would seem to me that the people who find it irritating would simply find someone else to talk with, instead of regularly trying to make me change how I post.

[carpedm9587]

On short posts yes, but on longer ones, it quickly becomes a nightmare of shredded comments, which I am sure is what Carp is trying for. He seems to love to avoid dealing with things directly and succinctly.

Actually - the way I post is how I deal with things directly. Your attempt to mind read my intentions has (yet again) widely missed the mark. But if history is any indication, you won't believe that and will instead cling to your view that I'm being nefarious or malicious or underhanded. There's not much I can do about what you think of me Sparko, so I leave you to it.

Meanwhile, if you so dislike my posting style, I suggest you converse with someone else. I like how I organize material, and don't feel a need to change it.

However, I DO plead guilty, as I have done before, to the "succinctly" part. I seem to be stuck on "why use three words when 30 will do." Believe it or not, I actually edit DOWN my posts. I guess I should do more editing.

[Sparko]

This can be true if the reasoning is well structured and based on subjective premises. It happens all the time.



So, no - I am not engaging in "green is not blue" arguments. That type of argument is when you hide "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective" somewhere in your argument, thinking that you've said something. That is not a position I take or an argument I make. I actually agree, and have from the start, that "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective."



And here you jump the rails. Reasoning is not subjective. It is guided by objective laws of reason. The premises and conclusion can be subjective or objective. If the premises are objectively true, the conclusion will be objectively true. If any of the premises are subjective, the conclusion will be subjective.



Sparko, you seem to think you say X when you actually say Y. Perhaps you are just not very careful with words. So you arrive at conclusions based on what I said that are not based on what I said, and reword what I say so that it no longer says what I actually said. I spend more time, with you and Seer, correcting your misconceptions of what I have written than actually following the argument.



Again - no. What I said is that I believe any conclusion that was arrived at using reason is using a better process than flipping a coin or adopting a book. That does not mean the conclusion is necessarily better (which is where Seer keeps going). A person could use reasoning badly and make a bad decision about the choice of a car, and a person could flip a coin and end up with the better of two cars. The difference is, the person who chooses by flipping a coin cannot be engaged in a discussion. There is no rational way to get them to look at the cars because they are using a not-rational process (flipping a coin, or blind chance). So they have a 50/50 chance of getting a good car, and what car they get is entirely up to chance. The person who reasons to their car selection can be engaged in a rational discussion. Their premises can be examined and perhaps influenced. Their line of reasoning explored for error. Unconsidered premises can be introduced.

So too with the "from the book" person. They have abandoned reasoning and are essentially enslaving themselves to the author(s) of "the book." Whatever the author of the book thinks, they will think. There is no rational basis for discussion. There is little/no reasoning involved. So their choices will be as good/bad as the choices made by the author(s) of the book. You see this as "wise" because you have decided (again, without a strong rational position), that the book is "the word of god." Since I believe there is no such being, I see you blindly following the dictates of a few dozen unknown men whose original writings are lost to time, who wrote in a different language, time, and culture. And on this basis you are claiming "certain and absolute knowledge" of moral truths. I have already shown how a text written only a couple centuries ago, whose writings are not lost, whose authors are known and we have a body of their surrounding work, and they wrote in our society and our language - yet we STILL cannot get common agreement on what their words meant.



There is no absolute/objective moral framework. That is what I have consistently said. There is, I believe, an objectively better process for arriving at a framework. It is the same process we humans seem to have no problem seeing as "objectively better" for anything else we do: apply reason and logic to the problem. I will always think using reason is objectively better than not using reason. You find yourself in the odd position of arguing that not being reasonable can be objectively better than being reasonable. It's a very odd position to take.



If these premises are true, Sparko, then the argument is sound and valid. But they are not. And neither are yours, rendering your argument possibly sound, but not valid. It would be sound but not valid for everyone, because these arguments are not based on subjective truths - they are based on objective statements. Inserting "I believe" in them, makes them subjective, so the individual may perceive their conclusions to be valid - but the belief is (again) about an objective reality. If the belief is false, then the conclusion will fall with it as well.



It is sound - perhaps. It is not valid. The premises are not true.



It is true that moral conclusions are individual. They always are. Each person will arrive at their own moral conclusion by their own means. How much it "matters" to someone else will be a function of how much that person is open to examining and exploring their own moral frameworks - or if they are closed to that and assume the "I'm always right and will never change" posture. For the latter type of person, ignore, isolate/separate, and contend are the only options. For the former, discussion and exploration are possible, and people can influence one another and learn from one another - examining premises they may not have considered, exploring consequences they may not have factored in, or finding errors in their own reasoning that they missed because none of us is perfect.



You do regularly tell me what I should stop (or not stop) saying, and how I should say it. You are aware, of course, that I am not under your authority?

Sorry, Sparko - but I see the act of aligning oneself to "the books" as an act that lacks rationality. It abandons moral reasoning in favor of "aligning with the herd" which, in this case, is a collection of long dead, ANE writers. It foregos any possibility of rational discussion of the issues. At the end of the day, the final arbiter is "what does the book say?" There is no real thought given to morality. It is blind obedience to an ancient text. You're following a book. Embrace it, my friend. You seem to think it's a good thing.

Meanwhile, the discussion has awakened me to the folly of engaging in discussions about specific moral principles with people who approach morality like you or Seer. We can discuss the nature of morality all day. But when it comes to examining a specific moral issue (i.e., homosexuality, transgender, sex in general, theft, etc.), the exercise is pointless. There can be no actual arguments when the criteria for determining "right action" and "wrong action" is "what does the book say?"

I reject your subjective arguments about morality and the methodology you claim is "better" than mine.

What I said is that I believe any conclusion that was arrived at using reason is using a better process than flipping a coin or adopting a book.

What you "believe" is better is just your subjective view, so who cares other than yourself? I believe flipping a coin is a better process than your reasoning which is flawed and based purely on your moral outlook after the fact.

If these premises are true, Sparko, then the argument is sound and valid. But they are not. And neither are yours, rendering your argument possibly sound, but not valid. It would be sound but not valid for everyone, because these arguments are not based on subjective truths - they are based on objective statements. Inserting "I believe" in them, makes them subjective, so the individual may perceive their conclusions to be valid - but the belief is (again) about an objective reality. If the belief is false, then the conclusion will fall with it as well.

For any logical argument the condition is "if the premises are true"

But IF subjective morality is true then you only need to BELIEVE the premises are true for the reasoning to be a valid argument for your moral values. Since there is no actual right or wrong, whether your reasoning is good or bad doesn't matter. So what if you reason incorrectly that stealing is OK? Does that mean stealing is actually bad? No! Stealing is neither good nor bad except in relation to your subjective view of it as such. Right? So you can't actually use a "wrong" argument can you?

So if you believe in Tez, then as you said the argument is sound and valid. For you. Because no matter what, whatever moral value you hold are your own subjective values. No matter how you came by them.

And I can't prove Tez isn't real, so I can't claim you are objectively wrong can I? And even if I could you would probably just use some other rationalization to hold on to your moral values.

Now if morals ARE objectively true, then it matters a great deal if Tez exists or not. But under your premise that morals are subjective, it doesn't matter.

[carpedm9587]

I reject your subjective arguments about morality and the methodology you claim is "better" than mine.

What you "believe" is better is just your subjective view, so who cares other than yourself? I believe flipping a coin is a better process than your reasoning which is flawed and based purely on your moral outlook after the fact.

Then you are arguing that being non-rational is equal to or better than being rational. You're entitled to your opinion. I would never attempt to defend that position.

For any logical argument the condition is "if the premises are true"

Yes.

But IF subjective morality is true then you only need to BELIEVE the premises are true for the reasoning to be a valid argument for your moral values.

No. If your belief is about an objective reality, that is not true.

P1) I believe frogs can fly
P2) Larry is a frog
C) Larry can fly

Your belief does not lead to C being true. The problem is P1 is a belief about an objective reality. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be about objective reality. It can only be about your belief. This argument (above) is neither sound nor valid.

P1) I believe frogs can fly
P2) Larry is a frog
C) I believe Larry can fly

This argument is both sound and valid. Note that your belief does not mean Larry can actually fly. It just provides your rational justification for this belief. Since frogs can't actually fly, your belief does nothing to change reality.

Since there is no actual right or wrong, whether your reasoning is good or bad doesn't matter.

And you just went back to "green is not blue." There IS an actual right or wrong. It is a relative/subjective "actual" right or wrong. So it DOES matter, relatively/subjectively. But your use of "actual" here really meant "absolute/objective" right or wrong. Your argument is "since there is no absolute/objective right or wrong whether reasoning is good or bad doesn't absolutely/objectively matter." I agree. I have agreed all along.

But it DOES matter subjectively/relatively. So you have again reminded us that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. I agree. I never said otherwise. So what?

Do you see your problem yet? Your only response to my "so what" will be to again remind us that relative/subjective morality cannot make absolute/objective statements. I will agree and ask "so what?" Then you will again remind us that relative/subjective morality cannot make absolute/objective statements. I will agree, and ask "so what?" repeat to infinity....

So what if you reason incorrectly that stealing is OK?

Because this person has attempted to use reasoning, I can ask about their premises, and their line of reasoning, and possibly expose the flaw, possibly convincing them to change their moral stance.

Does that mean stealing is actually bad? No! Stealing is neither good nor bad except in relation to your subjective view of it as such. Right?

More "blue is not green." We already know, and I have already acknowledged that relative/subjective morality cannot make absolute/objective claims. Again, I ask, "so what?"

So you can't actually use a "wrong" argument can you?

Of course you can.

P1) I value personal freedom
P2) Randomly jailing someone does not impinge on personal freedom
C) I can morally randomly jail people.

The validity here is compromised because P2 is a statement about objective reality that is self-evidently false. I can use that to attempt to sway this person to reconsider C. Reasoning is reasoning, Sparko. If it is not sound, subjective or objective makes no difference - it is not sound - period.

So if you believe in Tez, then as you said the argument is sound and valid. For you. Because no matter what, whatever moral value you hold are your own subjective values. No matter how you came by them.

I take it as a given that a conclusion based on false premises is flawed. Apparently you think otherwise.

And I can't prove Tez isn't real, so I can't claim you are objectively wrong can I?

You can claim it. You can't prove it absolutely. The proof of such things lies in the preponderance of evidence. It's more like a legal proof than a mathematical one.

And even if I could you would probably just use some other rationalization to hold on to your moral values.

That is a pretty good description of how I see you and Seer's moral process.

Now if morals ARE objectively true, then it matters a great deal if Tez exists or not. But under your premise that morals are subjective, it doesn't matter.

Again - more "green is not blue" arguments. Again, I agree that relative/subjective morality cannot make absolute/objective claims. Again, I ask, "so what?"

And you will note, Sparko that your claims to "absolute/objective" moral standards still does not make your moral framework matter to me. It's your moral framework - not mine. The fact that you've enslaved it to a book of ancient writings, and posted "absolutely/objectively true" labels all over the cover and spine is your issue not mine. It only impacts me to the degree that your moral position in any way impacts or affects me. If it doesn't, I just ignore you. You are free to claim an absolute/objective basis all day long. It doesn't make it so and it doesn't change my moral compass. If it begins to affect me in some way, I will work to isolate/separate to reduce or eliminate that impact. If necessary, I will contend to eliminate that impact.

That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. It works between all of us that way - even those of you who insist (without a shred of supporting argument) that morality is absolute/objective and you know "the way!"

[seer]

When I shut my ears, a person can't convince me of anything, Seer - for good OR bad. That is essentially what you are doing. I don't admire it.



And I could be convinced that the earth is the center of the universe, so I should shut my ears to all mathematics and physics to prevent that from happening? Your logic makes no sense.



I will always be open to any moral discussion that is grounded in reason. Why should I fear this? I have no concern that the Maoist is going to convince me. And listening to his/her arguments gives me insight into how I could perhaps convince them. And if not - nothing ventured, nothing gained. You seem to be in fear that if you let go, for one instance, of your pretend "rock" of absolute/objective morality, you're going to go off the deep end. Meanwhile, since your "rock" contains ancient proscriptions society has moved beyond, you're locked into a mindset you can never escape. Good or bad makes no actual difference to you, even relatively. Only "what in the book."

No Carp, you are not making sense. We are not speaking of math or physics where there are objective answers. We are speaking of subjective personal opinions, where in your world there is no objective good or bad. So you are asking me to reject a belief in moral certainty, and universal moral truths for what? Your opinion? Culturally relative ethics? Better logical arguments that lead no where? Or lead to Gulags? Listen to yourself.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you are not making sense.

You DO know that continually repeating this doesn't actually make it true, right?

We are not speaking of math or physics where there are objective answers. We are speaking of subjective personal opinions, where in your world there is no objective good or bad.

Correct.

So you are asking me to reject a belief in moral certainty, and universal moral truths for what?

You don't have "moral certainty," Seer. It's an illusion. What you have is more like "moral fossilization." You cannot escape the fact that you are as morally relative/subjective as the rest of us. You just have locked your moral framework to a collection of ancient texts - hence "fossilization." What you would be exchanging is a moral relativism/subjectivism in which you have arbitrarily locked onto "the book" (and thereby arbitrarily aligned with a small group of long-dead, ANE men - blindly accepting anything they wrote as "absolute objective moral truth") for a moral relativism/subjectivism in which you are actually thinking for yourself. That thought appears to frighten you, somehow.

Your opinion?

No. YOUR opinion. Right now you have locked your opinion to "the book." I''m suggesting that you release that blind lock and actually think through your moral conclusions.

Culturally relative ethics?

They will certainly be an influence. You might even find that the homosexual and bisexual is actually a decent human being!

Better logical arguments that lead no where?

Better logical arguments that lead to relative/subjective conclusions you can discuss and defend, instead of moral positions you cannot defend in the least.

Or lead to Gulags?

If you think you are actually at risk of this, then your moral fabric is weaker than I thought.

Listen to yourself.

I usually do!

BTW - your entire post is still filled with "green is not blue" argumentation, coupled with fear of somehow going down a "bad moral path." There's not a lot of rationality to it. You give the distinct impression of the small boy huddled under his blanket because he feels safer from the monsters. Like the small boy, if you come out from under those blankets, you might discover that those monsters are largely a figment of your imagination.

[seer]

Your "moral certainty" is an illusion, Seer. You cannot escape the fact that you are as morally relative/subjective as the rest of us. So what you would be exchanging is moral relativism/subjectivism that you have arbitrarily locked onto "the book" for moral relativism/subjectivism in which you are actually thinking for yourself. That thought appears to frighten you, somehow.

Carp I was a moral relativist until my late 30s (so fear is not a problem). And no, I am not a moral relativist today, by definition. And of course I think for myself, that is why I am a moral realist.

No. YOUR opinion. Right now you have locked your opinion to "the book." I''m suggesting that you release that blind lock and actually think through your moral conclusions.

Think through what, for what? So I could go back to relativism like you or the Maoist? No, that doesn't make sense Carp because there are no non-subjective moral truths to be found. Just the endless morass of opinions with no resolutions.

They will certainly be an influence. You might even find that the homosexual and bisexual is actually a decent human being!

No Carp, they, like you, and me, are sinners. But so what? Why does it matter, it's all reduced to opinion in your world anyway...

Better logical arguments that lead to relative/subjective conclusions you can discuss and defend, instead of moral positions you cannot defend in the least.

Right like the Maoist can defend his opinion. And? That tells us nothing about what is right or wrong, it just justifies his personal view.

If you think you are actually at risk of this, then your moral fabric is weaker than I thought.

Again it was you, not me, who said he was opened to being convinced by the Maoist. Which is perfectly rational in your world where a good deductive argument can send your house of cards crashing down.

[carpedm9587]

Carp I was a moral relativist until my late 30s (so fear is not a problem). And no, I am not a moral relativist today, by definition. And of course I think for myself, that is why I am a moral realist.

Seer - you can change the label - but you simply cannot escape the fact that your are a moral relativist/subjectivist. All of us are. You can call a horse a dog - but it's still a horse. You can call a moral relativist/subjectivist a moral realist all day long - but they are still a moral subjectivist/relativist. You simply cannot escape the reality.

Think through what, for what? So I could go back to relativism like you or the Maoist? No, that doesn't make sense Carp because there are no non-subjective moral truths to be found. Just the endless morass of opinions with no resolutions.

More "green is not blue" argumentation. I agree - moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements/conclusions. Again... so what? (and you will remind me, yet again, that moral relativism/subjectivism is not relative/absolute....)

No Carp, they, like you, and me, are sinners. But so what? Why does it matter, it's all reduced to opinion in your world anyway..

More green is not blue...

Right like the Maoist can defend his opinion. And? That tells us nothing about what is right or wrong, it just justifies his personal view.

More green is not blue...

Again it was you, not me, who said he was opened to being convinced by the Maoist. Which is perfectly rational in your world where a good deductive argument can send your house of cards crashing down.

I am open to being convinced by anyone with a rational, credible, argument. That is how rationality and reason work. I have no reason to expect the Maoist will be able to provide that, anymore than I fear the astronomer will be able to form an argument to convince me geocentrism is true. I don't plug my ears and mumble, "nah nah, I can't hear you" because I am afraid of someone else's argument. I listen to the argument, and take it from there.

But if you think you are actually at risk from the Maoist if you acknowledge the relative/subjective nature of morality, then maybe it IS safer for all of us if you continue to cling to the illusion of "moral certainty." Taking a bigoted stance against homosexuals is arguably less problematic than taking a "kill anyone if it serves me" approach.

[JonathanL]

Then you are arguing that being non-rational is equal to or better than being rational. You're entitled to your opinion. I would never attempt to defend that position.

Well, in your worldview, as far as I understand it, there are no objective values, moral or otherwise, so whether or not a person would be willing to defend the position that being non-rational is equal or better when it comes to moral "reasoning" (or perhaps "decision-making" is a better word for it, since "reasoning" implies rational decision-making) would solely depend on whether that person held being rational as a positive value, would it not?

I.e being rational would have to be a value that the person held to as an axiom in order for him to make the conclusion that using logical reasoning in his moral decision making would be better than basing his decisions on non-rational means. It would be impossible to argue for rationality being a positive value or thing that should be strived for, because the moment you try and set up and argument for rationality being a positive value (even if that argument is only to persuade yourself that it should be a positive value for you subjectively) you would be trying to argue for rationality using rationality, i.e begging the question, or arguing in a circle.