Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

Then that is your problem - and why you are not actually following my arguments. You are trying to force them into the only thing you care about: outcomes. I have said little/nothing about outcomes.



No. "human rights" are a thing. Morality is about categorizing action. Michel could reason that "honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good."



Quite possible.



Again - if you make moral statement about "things" - I find that odd. Morality is about choices of action. Aligning this statement with my adjustments for the first one would yield, "Seer interprets his translated copies of copies of copies of the original Christian bible to conclude honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.



First - you can only make the statement "worse" from a reference point. The Maoist conclusion seems "worse" to me. It seems "worse" to you. It seems "worse" to anyone who adopts our moral framework or one like it. It seems "worse" from the perspective of the moral frameworks expressed by most cultures and societies. The Maoist will not see it as "worse." They will likely see it as "better"

As for your conclusion - I have never said anything about "outcomes." I would be inconsistent to take an absolute position on outcomes, begin that I understand morality to be relative/subjective. My comments have been about process, and the consequences of applying or not applying reason.

In your scenario above - if I and the Maoist have both applied reasoning to arrive at our conclusions, we have a methodology available to explore the disconnect. We can determine if the problem is a difference in premises - or if it is a failure in the chain of reasoning. Either way, as long as we used reasoning - there is a significantly higher likelihood (barring rational error) that our moral conclusions will actually align with our underlying valuing. The alignment of conclusion to valuing is more likely in a rational process than an irrational or non-rational process. This is an objectively true reality.

That does not mean there is a guarantee that either of us will convince the other. That will only happen is a) we can influence one another's valuing, or b) we can find a flaw in the structure of the reasoning. But the opportunity for dialogue exists. And if alignment doesn't happen - we will resort to ignore, isolate/separate, or (more likely) contend.

As the Maoist and I engage in our rational discussion, you will be sitting by the side pointing to your bible repeating, "but the book says X." It is all you CAN do. You cannot make a reasoned argument - and you have essentially no hope of alignment. ALL you can do is ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. But (based on your own posts) that is a safer place for you - because it eliminates any chance that the Maoist might actually convince you. Locked into your "what does the book say" thinking, you cannot be swayed.

But it is not just the Maoist who cannot sway you. Neither can the person who finds bigotry buried in your moral conclusions. Neither will the person who finds any form of inequity buried in your moral conclusions. You will cling to those, because you cannot possibly be wrong. You have the absolute moral certainty of your god behind you. Except you cannot even begin to rationally defend that claim - as I have shown multiple times.

You claim 100% moral certainty. You claim inerrant moral truths. But you point to the same bible that other Christian sects point to - and you do not all agree on its meaning. How can this be, asks, Michel, if you have "inerrant moral truths" with "100% certainty?" Sinfulness gets in the way, you will likely respond. Really? Sinfulness prevents the human heart from adhering to gods inerrant moral truths? Makes the human person blind to some of them?

So how do you know your own sinfulness is not making you blind to some of those inerrant moral truths?

And the "moral certainty" just collapsed....

Ok we will do it your way:

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

The Maoist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is not a moral good.

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

So which is more important Carp, the process or the result?

[carpedm9587]

You know - I tend to get detailed with my answers - because I want them to be rigorous and thorough. I end up being too verbose. So here's my "succinct" response as an alternative.

Let's try again, you referenced outcomes and of course outcomes are the only thing that counts in IMHO, so...

IMHO, this is the primary problem in our communication. You are trying to squeeze my comments into your "outcomes" narrative when little of what I have been saying has anything to do with outcomes.

1. Carp reasons = human rights are a moral good.

Not the way I would word it - but accepted for argument's sake.

2. The Maoist reasons = killing dissidents is a moral good.

Quite possibly.

3. Seer take scripture at face value = human rights are a moral good.

Again, not the way I would word it - but accepted for argument's sake.

As far as outcomes reasoning doesn't doesn't change outcomes, it may in fact make outcomes worse, as with the Maoist.

So a few things come to mind.

1) I have never claimed that moral reasoning provides any guarantee of outcomes. This has been your issue, not mine.

2) You cannot assess "worse" without a frame of reference. In this case, the Maoist's conclusion is worse in reference to my moral framework. It is "worse" in reference to yours. It is "worse" in reference to most people's interpretation of the so-called "Christian" moral framework. It is "worse" as measured by the moral frameworks of most people. Because most people align with your moral framework and mine, this moral conclusion is as close to "universal" as morality gets, and it is this near-universal level of agreement that leads many to believe this truth is "absolute and objectively true." It's not. It's merely widely held.

3) Meanwhile, assuming that the Maoist, like me, is reasoning from what they value to their moral conclusion, the Maoist and I have an objectively better PROCESS for arriving at moral conclusions. The fact of that process creates an opportunity for discussion/debate between us that does not exist with you. It provides an opportunity for possible alignment. That "objectively better" process is being assessed not by the actual alignment (i.e., the outcome) but rather by the internal consistency between premise and conclusion. I take it as a given that it is always a better process to apply rational arguments to arrive at conclusions than to not. Any other position is essentially self refuting, since you have to apply reason to make the case.

[seer]

You know - I tend to get detailed with my answers - because I want them to be rigorous and thorough. I end up being too verbose. So here's my "succinct" response as an alternative.



IMHO, this is the primary problem in our communication. You are trying to squeeze my comments into your "outcomes" narrative when little of what I have been saying has anything to do with outcomes.



Not the way I would word it - but accepted for argument's sake.



Quite possibly.



Again, not the way I would word it - but accepted for argument's sake.



So a few things come to mind.

1) I have never claimed that moral reasoning provides any guarantee of outcomes. This has been your issue, not mine.

2) You cannot assess "worse" without a frame of reference. In this case, the Maoist's conclusion is worse in reference to my moral framework. It is "worse" in reference to yours. It is "worse" in reference to most people's interpretation of the so-called "Christian" moral framework. It is "worse" as measured by the moral frameworks of most people. Because most people align with your moral framework and mine, this moral conclusion is as close to "universal" as morality gets, and it is this near-universal level of agreement that leads many to believe this truth is "absolute and objectively true." It's not. It's merely widely held.

3) Meanwhile, assuming that the Maoist, like me, is reasoning from what they value to their moral conclusion, the Maoist and I have an objectively better PROCESS for arriving at moral conclusions. The fact of that process creates an opportunity for discussion/debate between us that does not exist with you. It provides an opportunity for possible alignment. That "objectively better" process is being assessed not by the actual alignment (i.e., the outcome) but rather by the internal consistency between premise and conclusion. I take it as a given that it is always a better process to apply rational arguments to arrive at conclusions than to not. Any other position is essentially self refuting, since you have to apply reason to make the case.

see above

[carpedm9587]

Ok we will do it your way:

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

The Maoist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is not a moral good.

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

So which is more important Carp, the process or the result?

I have no way to answer that question. For each of us, our moral conclusions are important. Given the inter-subjectivty of morality, if we want to have reasoned/rational discussions about morality, the process is also important. And frankly, ANY argument that takes the form "irrationality or non-rationality is just as good or possibly better than rationality when the conclusion is subjective" will simply fail before it even starts - as I have already repeatedly shown. You and Sparko can say this all day long - but I am pretty sure you KNOW you do not live that way.

That being said, we've only met for a few hours. If you truly make subjective decisions and find irrational/nonrational approaches to be equally as good or better than a rational one, I would ask you to give me one example of a significant subjective decision (after all, moral conclusions are pretty significant, right?) you made irrationally or nonrationally. Flipping a coin. Rolling a dice. Picking a slip from a jar. You might use this approach to decide which household task you're going to tackle today. I doubt that you use the approach for any major life choices.

[carpedm9587]

see above

I did - see my response.


And yes - I am aware that my "succinct" response wasn't much more succinct

[carpedm9587]

You know, it dawns on me that there is another way to do this. See below.

Ok we will do it your way:

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

The Maoist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is not a moral good.

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

So which is more important Carp, the process or the result?

So here is your problem, Seer. We can shift your little analogy this way:

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a moral good.

The White Supremacist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a NOT moral good. Some people have no right to marry (homosexuals, opposite race people, Jews with non-jews, etc.)

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a NOT moral good. Some people have no right to marry (opposite race people and religions are OK, but not those homosexuals)

So Carp will see the white supremacist and Seer's positions as immoral. The white supremacist will give Seer a thumbs up, but complain he doesn't go far enough and see Carpe is immoral. Seer will give the white supremacist a thumbs up, but complain he goes too far, and see Carpe as (at least partially) immoral).

And what can Seer do? Basically continually repeat "but that's not what the book says." Michel can engage in a rational discussion with the white supremacist and see where the disconnect is. It is possible they will not achieve alignment - but there is also a possibility they will. There is a process providing a vehicle for discourse - addressing the intersubjective aspect of morality. That does not exist with Seer. He cannot defend his position beyond "this is what the book says." And he will never be able to escape this view. He can never question it. He can never examine its basis or ramifications. No rational argument can ever persuade him that he is taking an ill-advised and harmful path. He has to remain locked "to the book" and he will forever see what's moral and immoral in terms of what is "in the book." And he will see this intransigence as "a good thing."

And when he encounters another Christian who disagrees with him on one moral point or another, their entire discussion about morality will reduce to "what do the words say" and "what do the words mean." Impact on society - makes no difference. Impact on individuals - makes no difference. Logical consistency with other moral positions - makes no difference. The ONLY thing that makes a difference is "what does the book say."

[seer]

You know, it dawns on me that there is another way to do this. See below.



So here is your problem, Seer. We can shift your little analogy this way:

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a moral good.

The White Supremacist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a NOT moral good. Some people have no right to marry (homosexuals, opposite race people, Jews with non-jews, etc.)

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic rights of all consenting adults to marry and be intimate with the person they love is a NOT moral good. Some people have no right to marry (opposite race people and religions are OK, but not those homosexuals)

So Carp will see the white supremacist and Seer's positions as immoral. The white supremacist will give Seer a thumbs up, but complain he doesn't go far enough and see Carpe is immoral. Seer will give the white supremacist a thumbs up, but complain he goes too far, and see Carpe as (at least partially) immoral).

And what can Seer do? Basically continually repeat "but that's not what the book says." Michel can engage in a rational discussion with the white supremacist and see where the disconnect is. It is possible they will not achieve alignment - but there is also a possibility they will. There is a process providing a vehicle for discourse - addressing the intersubjective aspect of morality. That does not exist with Seer. He cannot defend his position beyond "this is what the book says." And he will never be able to escape this view. He can never question it. He can never examine its basis or ramifications. No rational argument can ever persuade him that he is taking an ill-advised and harmful path. He has to remain locked "to the book" and he will forever see what's moral and immoral in terms of what is "in the book." And he will see this intransigence as "a good thing."

And when he encounters another Christian who disagrees with him on one moral point or another, their entire discussion about morality will reduce to "what do the words say" and "what do the words mean." Impact on society - makes no difference. Impact on individuals - makes no difference. Logical consistency with other moral positions - makes no difference. The ONLY thing that makes a difference is "what does the book say."

Carp, is it a straight answer beyond you?

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

The Maoist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is not a moral good.

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

So again which is more important, the process or the result?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, is it a straight answer beyond you?

Carp reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

The Maoist reasons = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is not a moral good.

Seer, following Scripture = honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

So again which is more important, the process or the result?

I actually did answer this question. I said I have no way to answer it. They are both important.

It's kind of like asking, "what's more important, the color of your house, or the way you selected the color." If the color is important to you, then how you choose it is likewise important. Putting a blindfold on and randomly pointing your finger at the Home Depot color chart isn't likely to get you something you (or your wife) will find pleasing. If any color will do, then the way you choose it is not all that important. The blindfold will be fine. Since morality tends to be important to us, the way we choose it is likewise important.

[Sparko]

Read what you just wrote, Sparko. It says, "that's not what we're doing" and then you turn around and do exactly what I described all in one paragraph. You cannot show a single inconsistency - you can simply repeat, over and over, you're not consistent. If I am not consistent, Sparko - specifically WHAT is inconsistent? And try to avoid telling me that moral relativism/subjectivsm isn't absolute/objective.



It's not. I cannot even imagine this hypothetically.

Really? wow Carp you sure lack imagination.

Now listen very very carefully, Sparko. I'll type this slowly.

I...have...never...said...your...moral...conclusio ns...are...absolutely...objectively...wrong. Never. Not once. Not ever. I would be completely inconsistent if I did so - and I would agree with you that I am being inconsistent. It has NEVER happened. YOU and Seer have - on many occasions - added that to my meaning. It is not my thought. It is not part of my argument. It is not my belief.

Where did I say anything in my hypothetical about your accusing us of saying our conclusion was objectively wrong? This is what you do. You read into what we say stuff we never said in order to burn a straw man. I am talking about the METHODOLOGY of coming to a SUBJECTIVE conclusion. That's it. Nothing about the conclusion being wrong or objective in any way. I even said that specifically. Go back and read what I said again:

I can come up with a formula that shows 4+1=410 and you can come up with a formula that proves 4x1=41 - and neither of us is objectively right or wrong. Both answers are subjectively correct to each of us. You arguing that my formula is wrong would be nonsense. As would me complaining that you shouldn't use multiplication to get your result. What method we each used wouldn't matter. UNLESS the result was objective. If math is objectively true then the method to reach an answer matters a great deal.

I have not complained about your choice of formula. I have pointed out the consequences of your choice of formula -

Yes you have complained bout our choice of formula. You claimed that me basing my morals on the bible is flawed and inferior. It would be like me complaining your use of multiplication was flawed in the example above. Since the result is subjective anyway, it doesn't matter how you got there as long as you feel it was right for you.


And the 'consequences' would be the conclusion of the formula/methodology which would be a SUBJECTIVE moral value. So above you said, "I...have...never...said...your...moral...conclusi ons...are...absolutely...objectively...wrong. Never. Not once" and here you just admitted you are complaining about the consequences of my methodology which you already said was a subjective moral value. And you don't see any inconsistency here?

and I have pointed out the inconsistency of suggesting that a conclusion that is reached irrationally or non-rationally is "just as good" as a conclusion that is reached rationally when the issue is subjective. I have pointed out that you and Seer do not function that way in any other part of your life - so your argument is inconsistent.

but if morals are subjective then the conclusion would be "just as good" as any other method of reaching that subjective moral value. How can you say it is not? Are you now arguing Green is Blue or something?

Do you have the right to make your conclusions irrationally or non-rationally? Absolutely.

Do you have a prayer of convincing me that is a good process? Not in the least.

That's your problem not mine. I don't have a chance of changing your mind even using flawless logic, as this thread proves. You merely ignore what people write, read something entirely different and dismiss it with a "green is not blue!"

Yes - you could. Morality is, after all, subjective. But if you arrived at your conclusions rationally, we could explore them rationally and determine where the disconnect is - and whether or not there is a possibility of alignment. Since they are not - that avenue of discussion is closed.

All you are saying here is if we used the same methodology you would have a better chance to convince me of your subjective value. So what? If you used the same methodology as I do, I would have a better chance of convincing you that my morals are correct. All you are doing is trying to stack the deck in your favor. It doesn't mean my method is any better or worse than yours.

The end result is subjective so the method to reach that result doesn't really matter to anyone but themselves.

So you again remind us that subjective/relative morality is not absolute/objective. And then you wonder why I prefer "green is not blue" is a shorter way of writing that?

Again you see a keyword and shut off your mind and repeat your nonsense. MY point was that if morals are subjective, then your complaining about the methodology to reach that subjective conclusion is only of interest to yourself. I am at a loss why you can't see to read what I am saying. You don't have to agree but to just flip a switch and say "green is not blue" is insane.

No - This is where you jump the rails. Reason is applied to both subjective and objective conclusions. I have shown this repeatedly. If your statement here is correct, the implication is

a) apply reason to objective conclusions
b) any approach is fine for subjective ones.

This is what your statement says. So - your choice of a house was subjective. There is no "objectively" better house. Which house is better depends on whether you want to minimize maintenance, maximize luxury, want too have enough rooms to raise a family of six, believe stucco is more attractive than vinyl siding, what city you would prefer to live in, whether or not you value being close to family, and the list goes on and on and on. The choice of a house is entirely subjective. By your argument - there is no difference between examining these various issues and making a reasoned choice, or putting the addresses of all of the houses on sale in a large hopper and pulling one out randomly.

You and I BOTH know the process matters - for both objective and subjective decisions. You make this argument over and over again - and yet you do not LIVE this claim in your every day life. And yes - I am "guessing" on the latter one, but I am reasonably certain you did not choose who to marry, your house, your car, or your profession randomly. If I am wrong - and you actually believe that no process can be shown to be superior for subjective conclusions, and you actually live your life this way - by all means correct me. The idea is so far fetched I think I will probably ask to have it verified by someone that knows you.

And I have shown that if the result is subjective then it doesn't matter. No mention of objectively here at all. You keep reading that into my posts because that is what you want to see. Stop and try to understand what I am actually saying.
Like in the math example, if the result is something subjective, then the reasons used to reach that value are just as subjective. If two people can use two different arguments to come to two opposite moral results, then it should be obvious to you that the method is as subjective as the result. So neither method can be superior. Superior would be an objective measurement. Since only YOU care about me using the bible as my method then it is just your subjective opinion that my methodology is inferior, correct? Because you want to stack the deck to make it easier to convince me. I can just as easily claim your methodology is inferior because you are not basing your morals on a supreme authority. Because if you did, I would have a better chance of convincing you that my supreme authority is better than yours.

[seer]

There is no way to answer it. For each of us, the outcome of our moral reasoning is important, because we are trying to sort our action into "ought" and "ought not." The process for achieving that is likewise important. Random selection provides no mechanism for ensuring that our moral conclusions will align to our valuing.

Really Carp, you can't answer it? I would think that outcome is paramount, since moral reasoning itself does not necessarily lead to moral good. Like with our Maoist friend.

[carpedm9587]

Really Carp, you can't answer it? I would think that outcome is paramount, since moral reasoning itself does not necessarily lead to moral good. Like with our Maoist friend.

First, I edited the response after I wrote it.

Second, I know you think the outcome is paramount, Seer. But I do not see how you can rationally separate the outcome from the way it is derived. To repeat my edited post:

It's kind of like asking, "what's more important, the color of your house, or the way you selected the color." If the color is important to you, then how you choose it is likewise important. Putting a blindfold on and randomly pointing your finger at the Home Depot color chart isn't likely to get you something you (or your wife) will find pleasing. If any color will do, then the way you choose it is not all that important. The blindfold will be fine. Since morality tends to be important to us, the way we choose it is likewise important.

[seer]

First, I edited the response after I wrote it.

Second, I know you think the outcome is paramount, Seer. But I do not see how you can rationally separate the outcome from the way it is derived. To repeat my edited post:

It's kind of like asking, "what's more important, the color of your house, or the way you selected the color." If the color is important to you, then how you choose it is likewise important. Putting a blindfold on and randomly pointing your finger at the Home Depot color chart isn't likely to get you something you (or your wife) will find pleasing. If any color will do, then the way you choose it is not all that important. The blindfold will be fine. Since morality tends to be important to us, the way we choose it is likewise important.

Correct, morality is important to me that is why I believe in universal moral truths, not the ever shifting morality of relativism. And to me outcome must be paramount since reasoning could just as well lead to Gulags. How is that any better than randomly pointing your finger at the Home Depot color chart as far as outcome?

[Sparko]

Oh horse hockey. Your "all men are sinful" and "all men are as filth before god" thinking is getting in the way of common sense. You don't even live as if this is true. The vast majority of actions you take every day are premised on the assumption that you can mostly trust the people in this world. Every morning you get up and (hopefully) brush your teeth. From the creation of the ingredients in that toothpaste to its presence in your bathroom cabinet, do you have ANY idea how many human hands it passed through? How many people COULD have done something to it to cause you harm? But you squeeze that stuff into your mouth without a thought. You eat food that has passed through countless hands (many of them probably illegal immigrants) without a thought. You go down the road at 60 miles an hour and pass vehicle after vehicle traveling at 60 miles an hour in the opposite direction by a matter of feet - largely unconcerned that one of them will intentionally swerve to kill you (and themselves). Your every day is FILLED with acts of trust in your fellow person - as are all of our actions every day. And the vast majority of the time - we're right. Every now and then - someone breaks that trust, and tampers with that Tylenol bottle. Or fails to put that protective software on the plane to save a few bucks. And why are we so outraged by it? Because it challenges the general bond of trust in our fellow humans that we all live by.

If the world were so screwed up - you'd be living in a deep forest, creating your own food, and staying as far away as possible from your fellow man. You don't even live according to THIS claim you are making. You spout about the evil of humanity, and then go blithely about your life intrinsically believing that you can trust most things made by and supported by your fellow humans.

The only thing keeping people in check is the law and consequences Carp. And judging by the way they just legalized abortion up to even live birth I say the law is not really much help in some areas.

My point was exactly the point I made - not the point you have turned it into (you do this frequently). My point was that "claims of certainty" in the face of the reality about the Christian bible are not defensible. I used the U.S. constitution as a comparison. So why do you make this claim you cannot defend? Because you have a magical god who can overcome ALL of those problems and give you "inerrant truth." So if this is true, why is it there are so many version of this "inerrant truth" in existence? You are going to tell me "sinfulness." God can overcome all of these other things, but "sinfulness" stops him cold.

Oh..and by the way, if "sinfulness" keeps humanity from perfectly grasping inerrant truths - it means it prevents YOU from grasping them to0. So your claims to moral certainty - they kind of just vaporized.

ETA: BTW, the fact that a "claim of certainty" is not defensible is exactly why I have no said anything about the "accuracy of the bible." I can no more pierce this veil of uncertainty to make absolute statements about accuracy than you can.

Where have I or Seer ever made claims to moral certainty? This is you making up our argument for us again so you can burn a straw man.

So you think the bible is accurate then?

Sorry, Sparko, but you cannot rationally defend this position. There is simply no way of doing so. See my notes above...

I already told you that you need to study Textual Criticism. We have so many manuscripts from the NT for example that we can reliably reconstruct the original from those manuscripts and fragments. And again I never claimed certainty.

Yes - I know what you believe.

So when the Old Testament Law given by God says Homosexuality is sinful... you do the math.

Sparko - you are making a statement about my motivations. You cannot know my motivations. I am the only one who knows those, and I have shared them to/with you. Can can choose to not believe me if you wish, but when you state them as a fact, you are repeating a groundless assertion that the one person in a position to know the truth has testified is not true. That is a lie. Period. If pointing out that you need to continually lie about me in this way is counter to TWeb rules, then kick me off the service. If pointing out a lie when it is repeatedly and falsely uttered is against Tweb rules - then this is not the kind of place I thought it was.

What I think you are doing is my subjective view of what I see you doing. That is not a lie. I truly believe what I am saying. I don't even think you realize what you are doing sometimes. It is so bizarre. But I am not lying. So stop accusing me of it. READ OUR RULES.

Alternatively, you can simply stopping asserting this outright lie and move on. You cannot know my motivations - and you cannot show that my reasoning is "post-factum" to my conclusions. It's a lie. Period. Stop repeating it - or get used to being called out for doing so.

Then get used to being moderated.

ETA: but if you ARE going to kick me off for calling you on your repeated and groundless assertions about my motivations and inner processes, you might at least have the dignity to return my donation. I donated it on the assumption that this was a basically honorable forum. However, I leave that choice to your conscience.

I have no idea what donation you made but if you want it back I will give it back, just PM me and let me know. And nobody said anything about kicking you off.

ETA: I just looked through the paypal receipts and could not find any donations by you going back to 2016. Did you donate under a different name?

Someones opinion is not a lie. It is their opinion.

I won't bother with the biblical inaccuracy issue since I have never said a word about it. Should you not have to adhere to your own standards, Sparko - and show where I have?

So then you believe the bible to be completely accurate then. Great. Then your objection about certainty (which I never claimed) is dismissed.

As for the rest, I have also made no bones about belief in god being a matter of faith - because we are talking about a magical being whose existence (or nonexistence) cannot be shown by logic or science. So the claim "you can't prove me wrong" is a little hollow. I cannot prove unicorns don't exist either. I cannot prove Isis, Allah, or any of these gods don't exist either. I can't even prove there are no leprechauns on the furthest planet in the universe from earth. If someone wants to believe any of these things - they are free to. If they want to convince me about arguments that depend on them, they had better have something better than "you can't prove I'm wrong."

But not the entirety of that post is "opinion." It is an objective fact that you cannot rationally sustain your claims. However, it is my conclusion that your "herd" is these unknown men and not "god." I can definitely show that your are following this collection of unknown men. I cannot prove that this collection of unknown men weren't "magically inspired" by the god you cannot show actually exists.

So can I claim you are lying about me following the herd then?

[carpedm9587]

Where did I say anything in my hypothetical about your accusing us of saying our conclusion was objectively wrong? This is what you do. You read into what we say stuff we never said in order to burn a straw man. I am talking about the METHODOLOGY of coming to a SUBJECTIVE conclusion. That's it. Nothing about the conclusion being wrong or objective in any way. I even said that specifically. Go back and read what I said again:

I can come up with a formula that shows 4+1=410 and you can come up with a formula that proves 4x1=41 - and neither of us is objectively right or wrong. Both answers are subjectively correct to each of us. You arguing that my formula is wrong would be nonsense. As would me complaining that you shouldn't use multiplication to get your result. What method we each used wouldn't matter. UNLESS the result was objective. If math is objectively true then the method to reach an answer matters a great deal.

OK - so let me repeat this back to you and you tell me if I have it right. Sparko believes "if the conclusion is a subjective one, how we arrive at the conclusion makes no difference. All approaches are equally good because the outcome is subjective."

Is that your claim?

Yes you have complained bout our choice of formula.

I have pointed out that your choice of formula eliminates the possibility of rational dialogue between the two involved parties. A conclusion that is not rationally arrived at cannot be rationally discussed. I take that as a given. Ergo - I find your process inferior, because I find "rational decision making is objectively better (especially for important decisions)" to be an objectively true statement.

You claimed that me basing my morals on the bible is flawed and inferior.

It is. I have not disputed your right to use it, or said anything about the rightness or wrongness of the outcomes. Your process is inferior because it is not based on reason..

It would be like me complaining your use of multiplication was flawed in the example above. Since the result is subjective anyway, it doesn't matter how you got there as long as you feel it was right for you.

I'll wait for your response to my question above.

And the 'consequences' would be the conclusion of the formula/methodology which would be a SUBJECTIVE moral value. So above you said, "I...have...never...said...your...moral...conclusi ons...are...absolutely...objectively...wrong. Never. Not once" and here you just admitted you are complaining about the consequences of my methodology which you already said was a subjective moral value. And you don't see any inconsistency here?

No - because once again you have twisted what I have said to be something I have not said. I have never - not once - made a statement about the "truth" or "untruth" or "goodness" or "ungoodness" of your outcomes in THIS discussion. I DO think your moral position on homosexuality is an immoral one - as measured against my moral framework. But that assessment has nothing to do with my comments about the inferiority of your process. Your process also leads you to conclude "random killing is immoral," and that is actually a good outcome (as measured by my moral framework). None of this current discussion has been about your outcomes. You and Seer keep wanting to make it about that. That's not my problem.

but if morals are subjective then the conclusion would be "just as good" as any other method of reaching that subjective moral value. How can you say it is not?

For the same reason I have said it from the outset - there is no way to assess "just as good" or "better" or "worse" without a reference frame.

That's your problem not mine.

So - since morality is not only relative/subjective, but also inter-subjective (i.e., your moral outcomes impact me and mine impact you - to one degree or another), then a process that a) provides a higher degree of assurance that individual moral outcomes will align with the individual's valuing and b) makes discussing moral outcomes a possibility is inherently better than a process that reduces the alignment of moral outcomes with valuing and eliminates the possibility of inter-personal discourse. This is true for individuals living in a society. b) has no impact for individuals who are completely isolated.

I don't have a chance of changing your mind even using flawless logic, as this thread proves.

You don't have a chance of changing my mind, Sparko, because you cannot accurate address the arguments I have actually made. Instead, you twist most of them into something I have not said, and then diligently attack your strawman without responding to what has actually been said.

You merely ignore what people write, read something entirely different and dismiss it with a "green is not blue!"

You have made this statement about me before. The first time I accept it as a mistake/opinion. I explicitly told you what my process is. I read each post I respond to twice, and then carefully respond to the individual points made, even at the risk of raising your ire at my "chopping up your posts." The emphasized part is an untruth. State it again as a fact and you will, IMO, be shifting into "outright lying" territory.

All you are saying here is if we used the same methodology you would have a better chance to convince me of your subjective value. So what?

The first sentence is true - sort of. If you used a rational approach, then we would have a better chance of convincing one another. A rational approach provides a mechanism for exploring the disconnect. Are the premises different? Is the reasoning sound? Since morality is inter-subjective (i.e., your moral positions impact me and mine impact you) I consider that dialogue important in a society. That is the "so what." Since your process lacks that component, I consider your process inferior because it diminishes the possibility of achieving moral alignment.

If you used the same methodology as I do, I would have a better chance of convincing you that my morals are correct. All you are doing is trying to stack the deck in your favor. It doesn't mean my method is any better or worse than yours.

You are correct that if I used your bible and followed the same herd as you, we would align more easily. That addresses the intersubjective element. It does not address the issue of aligning moral outcomes to personal valuing. "Following the herd" means your moral outcomes will align to what "the herd" values. It's the equivalent of "doing what all of the other kids at school do."

Again you see a keyword and shut off your mind and repeat your nonsense. MY point was that if morals are subjective, then your complaining about the methodology to reach that subjective conclusion is only of interest to yourself.

I'm pretty sure you can assume that statement I make here are made because they are important to me. Some of them are about what I believe is important for society as a whole as well - but even those are my opinion and my assessment. I don't usually set out to express what is important to others. I DO set out to express what I think SHOULD be important to others, if they are interested in a society that functions well, with people contributing to the community and working out issues.

I am at a loss why you can't see to read what I am saying. You don't have to agree but to just flip a switch and say "green is not blue" is insane.

When your argument reduces to "green is not blue" - then it reduces to "green is not blue." There's not much I can do about that. I cannot add content to an argument someone else makes that is not there.

And I have shown that if the result is subjective then it doesn't matter.

No - you've said it several times. You have not "shown" it. But I'll wait for your response to my question above before commenting further.

No mention of objectively here at all. You keep reading that into my posts because that is what you want to see. Stop and try to understand what I am actually saying.

I do that with every post.

Like in the math example, if the result is something subjective, then the reasons used to reach that value are just as subjective.

No

If two people can use two different arguments to come to two opposite moral results, then it should be obvious to you that the method is as subjective as the result.

No - I disagree, Sparko. And you are confirming here that my reflection of your position is accurate.

So neither method can be superior. Superior would be an objective measurement.

Yes - it is objectively better to reason to a conclusion - subjective or objective - than to not.

Since only YOU care about me using the bible as my method then it is just your subjective opinion that my methodology is inferior, correct?

Your methodology is inferior because it lacks a rational mechanism for examining outcomes.- All you can do is ask, "what does the book/herd" say." You cannot deviate from it. You cannot examine the outcomes critically. You are impervious to inconsistencies between Moral Position A and Moral Position B. Your only measure is "what does the book say."

Because you want to stack the deck to make it easier to convince me.

A rational methodology provides a basis for dialogue, Sparko. BOTH sides gain the ability to discuss/debate/compare and argue the merits. You also gain the ability to determine consistency between positions.

I can just as easily claim your methodology is inferior because you are not basing your morals on a supreme authority.

You can make the claim - but you will have a hard time with it because a) you cannot show that such an authority exists, and b) you cannot show that it's moral positions would be in any way binding on me.

Because if you did, I would have a better chance of convincing you that my supreme authority is better than yours.

You would STILL lack the ability to compare your own moral positions, or discuss their merits. Your morality would still be "what does X say?"

[carpedm9587]

Correct, morality is important to me that is why I believe in universal moral truths, not the ever shifting morality of relativism.

"Universal" moral truths exist to the degree that there is alignment between individuals. In other words, "random killing is wrong" appears to be a "universal moral truth" for no other reason than it is almost universely accepted as a moral norm. It is not so widely accepted because it is some "law of morality" in the sense that there is a "law of noncontradiction" (in reason) or "law of gravitation" in physics.

And to me outcome must be paramount since reasoning could just as well lead to Gulags.

And your process leads you to reject homosexuality. And to accept male dominance as "good." You are assessing everything from the perspective of "gulags" and ignoring that you hold positions many of us consider "immoral" and defend them, just as the Maoist defends their gulags. When you make this comment, I find myself noting, "and somehow you think you're better than the Maoist?"

How is that any better than randomly pointing your finger at the Home Depot color chart as far as outcome?

It is better for the reasons I have cited now numerous times: it provides a mechanism for evaluating moral outcomes. You can only blindly swallow "what the herd wants." If your bible contained a moral defense of gulags, you would be arguing with me that gulags are moral. If the bible contained a justification for jihad, you would be arguing with me that jihad is moral. You cannot assess the moral outcomes themselves - or even look for consistency between moral outcomes. You can only blindly swallow and blindly follow.

And frankly, your bible contains MANY moral prescriptions for many amazingly bad things. And you are not following all of them. You and those like you have found ways to rationalize picking and choosing moral positions and ignoring the ones that you (presumably) deem "truly horrendous." You will quote the OT for moral guidance when it suits you, and then explain that the "new law obviates the old law" when it doesn't. Your moral process is such a mixed bag of random selection, it lacks even basic common sense.