Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

OK - A breathing space, so I'll respond

Yes you could decide that human life is generally not valuable, murderers do it all the time. But that "influence" is probably deeper than we realize.

I have never suggested it wasn't "deep" or that it didn't profoundly accept us. What I have said, from the outset, is that there is a difference between "being influenced by" (which I acknowledge) and "intentionally, consciously submitting your moral reasoning to." We all are prone to the former. Between you and I, you do the latter and I do not.

Except the results in this case remain the same. Your reasoning just brought you back to valuing human life.

A person can conclude that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees "because the teacher said so" or they can learn geometry and prove it themselves. In both cases, they come to the same conclusion. Which one is actually applying reasoning? And which one is more likely to swallow a bad result without question?

As far an immature moralizer, if I follow your reference to moral reasoning from Kohlberg's, I am more mature than you since I come to universal moral truths - you don't. The point being, you could not even got off the moral reasoning ground except for the fact that you were born in a Christian nation.

Seer - what on earth makes you think I do not arrive at universal principles? You seem t be confusing "universal" with "objective" or "absolute." Note Kohlbergs language: "what if everyone did that?" That is exactly what the relative/subjective moralist does. But he also taints his moral by references to "inherent." Value is never "inherent" - it is assessed by the individual. A thing has no "value" until someone sees it as valuable.

Well no Carp, Western Civilization is rather unique in world history. Sure, many countries have piggybacked off that. Show me what other ancient culture came to the belief that humans had inalienable rights or inherent value?

And why does that matter? I don't believe anything has "inherent value" or that people have "inalienable rights." That's a hold-over of your absolutist/god-centered moralizing. A thing or person's value is measured by the valuer. I have value to myself. I have value to my wife (she tells me) and my family. The "value" I have diminishes as you move away from my circle of influences. People who don't know me will not consider me to be "of value" whatsoever. They may do so in the abstract - because they value "other humans." Some people don't - which creates moral outcomes that are at odds with those held by most of us.

Right and I too hold many positions that deviate from the herd.

I am very doubtful about that - but let's test it. Tell me one belief you hold that is at odds with what is written in the bible.

Tell me again Carp, of what use is moral reasoning if it can lead to both human rights and Gulags?

You are asking the wrong question, Seer. The right question is, "which form of moral reasoning is more likely to arrive at a good outcome: one based on reason, or one that simply "follows the herd." The first has a possibility of being reasoned with. The second does not. The second is prone to mob mentality - going wherever "the herd" leads. The first is less prone to such things.

Why is that any better than what the herd says?

It is not "necessarily" better. A rational man may reason to a conclusion most of us find immoral. A "follow the herd" man may stumble upon a moral principle we all find moral. A rational man can be reasoned with and there is a possibility of shifting the moral stance. A "follow the herd" man cannot. There are only three ways to shift such a man:

1) convince them have misunderstood the herd
2) the herd changes its mind
3) they abandon "follow the herd" morality

In your case, 3) is impossible because you believe your "herd" is actually the inspired words of god. Any deviation from "the book" is essentially rejecting some aspect of god, which you cannot/will not do. 2) is not possible because your "herd" lived 2000-3500 years ago and their writings are frozen in time. Your basis is a book - and the book is not going to change. That leaves 1) and since your morality is based on a book, that path just gets into endless "what do the words mean" discussions. And you don't even know for certain you have the right words at all (for reasons already cited).

And to be honest Carp, as you agreed, you could not argue to a different moral conclusion with the Maoist who starts with different premises. Now what?

Again - what I said is that I could not necessarily argue with the Maoist. That does not mean I have no possibility of doing so. If they are reasoning to their moral position (and not just following their own herd) I have two avenues for approaching their conclusion: 1) if we have identical value structures, find errors in their reasoning or 2) if we have differing value structures, try to influence their valuing. Neither is guaranteed to work. When it doesn't, the "now what?" is what it always is: ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend - depending on the issue. That's how it has always worked, Seer. Even for you. Though you claim to be an absolute/objective moralist, you function identically to a relative/subjective moralist. You simply have abandoned reasoning in favor of "the herd."

That is fine, but the ONLY rational thing for one who believes that Scripture is inspired is to follow it. It would be irrational not to.

Unless, of course, you had the audacity to actually challenge that belief. To see through the "magical thinking" and apply reason.

And if God created sex to be practice only between a man and a woman then by that restriction homosexuality would be immoral. That logically follows. You don't believe in such a God, but in our worldview this is perfectly rational.

In your "follow the herd" morality, Seer, it absolutely follows. It's one of the many reasons I am no longer Christian. When I cannot rationally come to the same moral conclusion that is clearly listed in the bible, something is wrong. It could be me. But it also could be that what I believe about the bible is simply wrong. After a significant journey, I came to the latter conclusion. I could find no rational basis for a "creator of all" to give one flying fig, when two people love each other, whether they had the same genitals or different genitals. I cannot imagine a "supreme being" that shallow. Love does not harm. It does not covet. It does not deceive. Saying "you two - your act is sinful" on no basis other than whether they are XX and XY or both XX or both XY makes no rational sense. If there were a god - and it could create all that is - it seems fairly evident to me that it would not be an irrational being.

So I conclude that the bible is a marvelous testament to the beliefs of its authors. It is marvelously revealing of the culture of that period and place. But it tells us nothing about actual gods, and it is no more an authority on morality than any book you can pick up at Barnes and Noble that expresses the moral views of its author. Following the moral norms of the bible is merely another form of "following the herd." That herd, however, is long dead.

[seer]

You are asking the wrong question, Seer. The right question is, "which form of moral reasoning is more likely to arrive at a good outcome: one based on reason, or one that simply "follows the herd." The first has a possibility of being reasoned with. The second does not. The second is prone to mob mentality - going wherever "the herd" leads. The first is less prone to such things.

It is not "necessarily" better. A rational man may reason to a conclusion most of us find immoral. A "follow the herd" man may stumble upon a moral principle we all find moral. A rational man can be reasoned with and there is a possibility of shifting the moral stance. A "follow the herd" man cannot. There are only three ways to shift such a man:

1) convince them have misunderstood the herd
2) the herd changes its mind
3) they abandon "follow the herd" morality

In your case, 3) is impossible because you believe your "herd" is actually the inspired words of god. Any deviation from "the book" is essentially rejecting some aspect of god, which you cannot/will not do. 2) is not possible because your "herd" lived 2000-3500 years ago and their writings are frozen in time. Your basis is a book - and the book is not going to change. That leaves 1) and since your morality is based on a book, that path just gets into endless "what do the words mean" discussions. And you don't even know for certain you have the right words at all (for reasons already cited).



Again - what I said is that I could not necessarily argue with the Maoist. That does not mean I have no possibility of doing so. If they are reasoning to their moral position (and not just following their own herd) I have two avenues for approaching their conclusion: 1) if we have identical value structures, find errors in their reasoning or 2) if we have differing value structures, try to influence their valuing. Neither is guaranteed to work. When it doesn't, the "now what?" is what it always is: ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend - depending on the issue. That's how it has always worked, Seer. Even for you. Though you claim to be an absolute/objective moralist, you function identically to a relative/subjective moralist. You simply have abandoned reasoning in favor of "the herd."

Yes Carp, it is about outcomes and moral reasoning doesn't get us anywhere. It is very unlikely that you could convince the Maoist because he begins with a completely different assumption. The main one will be that he assigns a higher value to the collective over individual human life, individual human life being expendable in service of the collective. And yes, I base my moral beliefs on Scripture, which means that the Maoist could not, through his moral reasoning, convince me that human life has little or no value. But you are in fact opened to the possibility of being convinced by the Maoist if his rationale is better than yours.

[carpedm9587]

Yes Carp, it is about outcomes and moral reasoning doesn't get us anywhere.

Actually - it does. I've had no problem with it whatsoever. Your problem, Seer, is that it does not always get us to the morality of "the herd" (i.e., the book) that you follow - and you object to such things. You cannot do anything BUT object, because you have no rational basis for disputing a moral position. All you can say is "it's not in the book."

It is very unlikely that you could convince the Maoist because he begins with a completely different assumption.

I agree. It is indeed unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. So if "likely to convince" is your measure, how much more successful do you think you will be with your "it's in the book" responses?

The main one will be that he assigns a higher value to the collective over individual human life, individual human life being expendable in service of the collective.

He might indeed say exactly that. As I have noted multiple times, the possibility of a reasoned argument exists. It is not guaranteed. We know that.

And yes, I base my moral beliefs on Scripture, which means that the Maoist could not, through his moral reasoning, convince me that human life has little or no value.

And you could not convince him that it does. I'm not seeing an improvement.

But you are in fact opened to the possibility of being convinced by the Maoist if his rationale is better than yours.

I am indeed open to examining any moral precept to verify it is was soundly arrived at. If it is well rooted in what I value and in reason, I am in no danger of becoming a Maoist. But you appear to be expressing fear about this possibility. I have to wonder how much that drives you.

Seer, your objection here merely underscores that I have been saying: you are unable to be shifted from any moral position because it is moral if it is "in the book." You are following the herd (i.e., the book), and assuming that the moral principles in "the book" are always sound. So if there are any unsound moral principles, you will cling to them as strongly as the Maoist clings to his, as convinced as he is that you are right. You are at the mercy of "the book."

As I have said repeatedly, when a moral position is not rationally arrived at, it cannot be rationally disputed. When a moral position is rationally arrived at, the possibility of rationally disputing it exists. That makes all the difference.

And it explains why you cannot budge off the homosexuality position one iota. You are a slave to "the book" and the book says "no" to homosexual intimacy. You are so much a slave to the book, that you are even trying to argue that irrational conclusions are somehow better than rational ones. I doubt you would make that argument in very many (if any) other parts of your life. But your blind devotion to "the book" drives you to take some pretty irrational positions.

BTW - I noticed that you discarded some fairly pointed parts of my previous post. I find myself wondering why.

[Sparko]

I don't do "FIFY" - but I think you are trying to say "it won't mean anything absolutely/objectively." But we already know that, don't we. After all - it's relative/subjective. So you are (again) complaining the relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. So, once again, duly noted. We already agree on that. But you're not saying anything. You're just repeating definitions.

if "good" is a relative term, then it has no meaning other than as a personal preference.

They thought it was (apparently). I and most of my fellow humans disagreed. Fortunately, there were more of us than them and we were able to end it. Unfortunately, we are entering a new age of "anti-them." Hopefully we will be able to make that end too.

And it was their personal preference that gassing the "unworthy" was a good thing. Purifying the Arian race and all that. And you can't say it wasn't good, other than as you saying it is your preference that gassing jews is not a good thing. It has no real meaning. No different than if I like the sound of a certain music style and you think it is just noise. It just becomes whoever is the strongest or most popular gets to set the rules. We won WW2 so our views on gassing Jews became the prominent view and we think it was "bad" instead of "good" but objectively it means nothing. A century from now it may be "good" again.

That's what I mean by "it means nothing"

What I argue is that my morality is rooted in reason. Your and Seer is rooted in "following a herd." My evidence is simple. When asked why I find something moral or immoral, I will provide the underlying value structure and the reasoning that leads me to my moral conclusion. When you or Seer are asked, your answer is essentially "it's in the book," or some variant thereof. Every argument you make about morality ends up at "because the bible says so.

You believe your morality is based on reason. but it is merely your preference based on you personal values, that you picked up along the way. Then you find a way to rationalize those values and call it "reason" - every one has a "reason" they believe what they believe, Carp. But since there is no objective standard of "good" - your reasoning on what is moral can't appeal to any real standard of "good" or "better" so what you are doing is just using your personal standard as a goal, and then "reasoning" a way to justify your morality. But it is all a self-contained circular bit of self-delusion.

And we follow God. If we are a "herd" it is because we are all his sheep and he is our shepherd. We don't follow the herd. the herd follows God.

What I actually said, if you go back and read, was that you were conflating universalism with absolutism. You correctly noted that it was not absolutism but objectivism that was in question, so I corrected and noted that you were conflating universalism with objectivism. Conflating is not the same as equating.

It means confusing the two in such a manner as to them being the same thing. So it does mean "equating"

It means you are somehow combining of crossing the meanings of the two. I do subscribe to moral universalism: the belief we each have that if the entire world aligned with our moral framework, it would be a heavenly place. That is a natural byproduct of believing our moral framework is "the best." That is not the same as moral objectivism, which believes that there is a moral basis independent of human thought/belief that we should all be aligning to.

I argue out of moral universalism - not moral objectivism. There is no conflict. I can believe that the world would be better if eeryone held my moral views, without believing they are based on an objective standard.

Universalism is not Objectivism. I was not conflating anything. YOU WERE. I was correcting you on that. You were accusing me of conflating the two.

As has been noted in my conversation, this argument conflates moral universalism (the world would be better if everyone used this moral principle) with moral absolutism (there is a fixed, unchanging, absolute moral norm everyone should align to). I hold the former position (for what I hope are pretty obvious reasons) - but not the latter. You hold both positions, but you confuse the two - hence this incorrect argument of yours (and others).

You were the one confusing Absolutism with Objectivism. I know the difference between Universalism and Objectivism. I already explained it to you.

I understand that you think that the world would be better if everyone followed your moral rules. Because you have placed YOURSELF int the place of God and think you know best for everyone. Because you are a self-centered atheist. You have made yourself to be God. Which was the sin of Satan: Pride. Nothing much changes does it?

So I follow a moral code that is set by God and you believe yourself to be God and expect everyone to follow your moral code. Which one of us is delusional?

[seer]

Actually - it does. I've had no problem with it whatsoever. Your problem, Seer, is that it does not always get us to the morality of "the herd" (i.e., the book) that you follow - and you object to such things. You cannot do anything BUT object, because you have no rational basis for disputing a moral position. All you can say is "it's not in the book."

And what rational basis do you have for disputing the Maoist?

I agree. It is indeed unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. So if "likely to convince" is your measure, how much more successful do you think you will be with your "it's in the book" responses?

Right, unless he converted he will not change his mind.

And you could not convince him that it does. I'm not seeing an improvement.

And where is exactly your improvement concerning the Maoist?

I am indeed open to examining any moral precept to verify it is was soundly arrived at. If it is well rooted in what I value and in reason, I am in no danger of becoming a Maoist. But you appear to be expressing fear about this possibility. I have to wonder how much that drives you.

No Carp, the point is, if his rationale is better than yours then by your own lights you would accept it. And you can not say you are no danger since, logically your views are up for grabs, depending on the logic. Mine are not.

As I have said repeatedly, when a moral position is not rationally arrived at, it cannot be rationally disputed. When a moral position is rationally arrived at, the possibility of rationally disputing it exists. That makes all the difference.

Right, the Maoist can not rationally dispute my position - he can yours, and even make a better argument which you would have to accept or reject your dependence on moral reasoning.

BTW - I noticed that you discarded some fairly pointed parts of my previous post. I find myself wondering why.

1. Because you write too much (what we are discussing is the core of the debate anyway).

2. I don't need your autobiography concerning why you are not a Christian in every other post.

[carpedm9587]

And what rational basis do you have for disputing the Maoist?

1. If he values as I value - then there is an error in reasoning that can be exploited.
2. If he does not - then I can attempt to influence his values, understanding that these are the root of any moral conclusion
3. If neither is possible/true, then I have no avenue but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

You have no access to 1) or 2) - you have to go straight to 3) because your moral authority is your interpretation of "the book."

Right, unless he converted he will not change his mind.

So how, exactly does that make your way "better?"

And where is exactly your improvement concerning the Maoist?

See above, and my previous posts.

No Carp, the point is, if his rationale is better than yours then by your own lights you would accept it. And you can not say you are no danger since, logically your views are up for grabs, depending on the logic. Mine are not.

In order for me to shift to his stance, my valuing would have to align with his. Presumably, my reasoning would then get us to the same place. But that is basically how it works, Seer. You don't value as the Maoist does (i.e., you value "the book" and "god") so you arrive at a different moral conclusion than the Maoist. I am no different. I just don't root my morality in "the book." Following "the book" eliminates any reasoning whatsoever. So if "the book" contains immoral precepts, I will blindly adopt them - because I do not question and I do not challenge. I do not reason.

Right, the Maoist can not rationally dispute my position - he can yours, and even make a better argument which you would have to accept or reject your dependence on moral reasoning.

You are correct - the Maoist cannot rationally dispute your position because it is not rational. And you seem somehow proud of this. You have taken the "safe" road, which I suspect gives you a sense of security. You seem to be afraid of "being wrong" or "making a mistake." Your blind allegiance to your book gives you the illusion that you are protected from such mistakes. You are not. You have simply transferred the risk from the Maoist to "the book" and eliminated the prospect of actually uncovering any errors by adopting blind devotion to "the book." So you will continue to call homosexuals "sinful" with no access to an argument for why it is actually wrong - except "it's in the book." And you won't even be able to rationally explain the moral principles we actually agree on. Your only answer can ever be "it's in the book." You will even defend irrationality as somehow superior to rationality, as you now have done multiple times. By definition, I would take that as an irrational position.

1. Because you write too much (what we are discussing is the core of the debate anyway).

Guilty

2. I don't need your autobiography concerning why you are not a Christian in every other post.

I will endeavor to refrain from making references to my path out of Christianity, since it seems to be a sore point.

[seer]

1. If he values as I value - then there is an error in reasoning that can be exploited.
2. If he does not - then I can attempt to influence his values, understanding that these are the root of any moral conclusion
3. If neither is possible/true, then I have no avenue but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

You have no access to 1) or 2) - you have to go straight to 3) because your moral authority is your interpretation of "the book."

I already told you he doesn't value what you value in one, therefore everything that follows is meaningless to him. And why on earth do you think you can influence his subjective values with your subjective values? Based on what?

So how, exactly does that make your way "better?"

Where did I say mine was better?

In order for me to shift to his stance, my valuing would have to align with his. Presumably, my reasoning would then get us to the same place. But that is basically how it works, Seer. You don't value as the Maoist does (i.e., you value "the book" and "god") so you arrive at a different moral conclusion than the Maoist. I am no different. I just don't root my morality in "the book." Following "the book" eliminates any reasoning whatsoever. So if "the book" contains immoral precepts, I will blindly adopt them - because I do not question and I do not challenge. I do not reason.

Again, since your position is based on subjective premises and since your moral reasoning flows from that you have to admit that it is possible for the Maoist to convince you. It is not possible for him to convince me.

You are correct - the Maoist cannot rationally dispute your position because it is not rational. And you seem somehow proud of this. You have taken the "safe" road, which I suspect gives you a sense of security. You seem to be afraid of "being wrong" or "making a mistake." Your blind allegiance to your book gives you the illusion that you are protected from such mistakes. You are not. You have simply transferred the risk from the Maoist to "the book" and eliminated the prospect of actually uncovering any errors by adopting blind devotion to "the book." So you will continue to call homosexuals "sinful" with no access to an argument for why it is actually wrong - except "it's in the book." And you won't even be able to rationally explain the moral principles we actually agree on. Your only answer can ever be "it's in the book." You will even defend irrationality as somehow superior to rationality, as you now have done multiple times. By definition, I would take that as an irrational position.

I have no idea what you mean by rational. Tell me rationally why humans have value? If you say that assigning value is merely a subjective judgement, then in what sense is that rational? Never mind the fact that what ever moral position you hold is largely ignorant of the future consequences of those positions. You can not, nor will you ever, be able to understand all the moving parts connected to, and ramifications of, any moral position you hold. How exactly are moral positions so plagued with ignorance be rational in any sense of the word?

[carpedm9587]

I already told you he doesn't value what you value in one, therefore everything that follows is meaningless to him.

The Maoist may or may not value as I value - it depends on the Maoist. If he doesn't, then we're left with 2) and 3)

And why on earth do you think you can influence his subjective values with your subjective values? Based on what?

I can do it because people can influence one another. Remember - we're influenced by the things around us and our interactions? Is it likely? I have no idea until I know which Maoist in what situation and get a chance to try. The more diverse our backgrounds, the less likely I will be able to.

Where did I say mine was better?

On what basis do you think it is even "equally good?"

Again, since your position is based on subjective premises and since your moral reasoning flows from that you have to admit that it is possible for the Maoist to convince you. It is not possible for him to convince me.

Seer - your morals are also based on a subjective premise: that the book is a moral authority. If you didn't value "the book," you wouldn't have the moral framework you have. You and Sparko like to claim "moral objectivism" and "moral absolutism," but you live moral subjectivism and moral relativism.

And yes - it is possible for the Maoist to convince me. And it is not only impossible for the Maoist to convince you - it is impossible for anyone to convince you about anything. You will always be right (in your own mind) so long as you "follow the book." "The book" is your herd. So you are following the moral dictates of the people who wrote it.

You are protected from the Maoist, Seer, by virtue of the irrational basis of your moral framework. And you seem to be proud of that.

I have no idea what you mean by rational. Tell me rationally why humans have value?

I cannot - as you know. Humans don't have implicit value. They have value to those who value them. Moral conclusions are reasoned to (rationally) from premises that are our valuing. The valuing itself may be rationally based, or influenced. Morality is not mathematics, Seer. It's like law, as we have discussed.

That appears to be your problem. For you - to be rational - something has to trace back to some rock solid, objective, rational foundation - otherwise it's irrational. But the word "rational" does not include the concept of "objective." It merely means "based on reason." My values may be based on reason - or may not be. Many things influence what we value. But the moral principles that flow out of them are based on thought and reason.

You don't even have THAT. Your entire edifice is devoid of reason. Your only method for assessing morality is "is it in the book." So you are effectively crossing your fingers hoping that the people who wrote "the book" used reason to arrive at their conclusions - but you don't know. But it's OK - you can simply retreat into the magical thinking that there is a god behind it that makes it all work. How do you know this god is? It's in the book, of course. And round and round you go.

If you say that assigning value is merely a subjective judgement, then in what sense is that rational?

I don't believe I ever said that what we value is always arrived at rationally. We initially adopt what we value almost 100% from influence, lacking the ability to reason. Hopefully, we think those things through as we get older. Eventually, however, we hit the bedrock of simple personal experience/preference. That is what morality is - a statement of preference for Action A over Action B.

Never mind the fact that what ever moral position you hold is largely ignorant of the future consequences of those positions. You can not, nor will you ever, be able to understand all the moving parts connected to, and ramifications of, any moral position you hold.

No human can, Seer, so knowing all future outcomes is not part of the moral equation.

How exactly are moral positions so plagued with ignorance be rational in any sense of the word?

Calculating Pi is a rational process. I can never get to the end of that process or know what all of the numbers are. Does that make the calculation irrational? (ignoring the fact that it's actually called an irrational number, of course... )

[seer]

I can do it because people can influence one another. Remember - we're influenced by the things around us and our interactions? Is it likely? I have no idea until I know which Maoist in what situation and get a chance to try. The more diverse our backgrounds, the less likely I will be able to.

Sure and I'm just as likely to convince Him of God and universal moral truths.

On what basis do you think it is even "equally good?"

I totally forgot what we were talking about and am to lazy to go back...

Seer - your morals are also based on a subjective premise: that the book is a moral authority. If you didn't value "the book," you wouldn't have the moral framework you have. You and Sparko like to claim "moral objectivism" and "moral absolutism," but you live moral subjectivism and moral relativism.

That does not follow, whether one subjectively accepts Scripture or not tells us nothing about whether it is true or not.

And yes - it is possible for the Maoist to convince me. And it is not only impossible for the Maoist to convince you - it is impossible for anyone to convince you about anything. You will always be right (in your own mind) so long as you "follow the book." "The book" is your herd. So you are following the moral dictates of the people who wrote it.

You are protected from the Maoist, Seer, by virtue of the irrational basis of your moral framework. And you seem to be proud of that.

I still I don't know what you mean by irrational. What law of logic have I violated? Even if one just follows the herd, what law of logic does that violate? It seems to me that what you call irrational is just as subjective as your ethics.

I cannot - as you know. Humans don't have implicit value. They have value to those who value them. Moral conclusions are reasoned to (rationally) from premises that are our valuing. The valuing itself may be rationally based, or influenced. Morality is not mathematics, Seer. It's like law, as we have discussed.

That appears to be your problem. For you - to be rational - something has to trace back to some rock solid, objective, rational foundation - otherwise it's irrational. But the word "rational" does not include the concept of "objective." It merely means "based on reason." My values may be based on reason - or may not be. Many things influence what we value. But the moral principles that flow out of them are based on thought and reason.

OK, so you can not rationally support the idea that humans have value, which is your jumping off point. This is why when you were speaking of "true premises" recently, I jumped on that and you back off and said what is true for you.

You don't even have THAT. Your entire edifice is devoid of reason. Your only method for assessing morality is "is it in the book." So you are effectively crossing your fingers hoping that the people who wrote "the book" used reason to arrive at their conclusions - but you don't know. But it's OK - you can simply retreat into the magical thinking that there is a god behind it that makes it all work. How do you know this god is? It's in the book, of course. And round and round you go.

Carp, that is nonsense. Believing in universal moral truths is not magical thinking, because if it is there are a lot of atheists who do so. And how do I go around and around more than you with your relative moral views. Talk about a morass...

I don't believe I ever said that what we value is always arrived at rationally. We initially adopt what we value almost 100% from influence, lacking the ability to reason. Hopefully, we think those things through as we get older. Eventually, however, we hit the bedrock of simple personal experience/preference. That is what morality is - a statement of preference for Action A over Action B.

Right so your very foundation, your logical jumping off point (human value) is not rational.

No human can, Seer, so knowing all future outcomes is not part of the moral equation.

Of course it must be, if your moral conclusions have severely negative consequences down the road then you have accomplished exactly the opposite of what you intended. Ignorance is never rational.

[Sparko]

The more Carp argues, the less I believe in his relative morality. And the less I think he believes it. He seems so invested in being "right" when his whole premise is that no one is right because there is no objective truth.

His best bet to show he actually believes what he claims would be to simply say, "I believe what I want to believe and that's it. What you believe is what you believe and that's fine too"

[carpedm9587]

Sure and I'm just as likely to convince Him of God and universal moral truths.

And if you do - you will have blinded another person into abandoning moral reasoning.

I totally forgot what we were talking about and am to lazy to go back...

Now THAT made me chuckle...

That does not follow, whether one subjectively accepts Scripture or not tells us nothing about whether it is true or not.

Your entire acceptance of "the book" as true is based on subjective assessments, Seer. You cannot escape it. It's based on conjecture and assumption, and circular reasoning.

I still I don't know what you mean by irrational.What law of logic have I violated? Even if one just follows the herd, what law of logic does that violate? It seems to me that what you call irrational is just as subjective as your ethics.

Irrational: not logical or reasonable.

So it can mean that you have violated some law of logic (which is not what I am saying), or that you have arrived at your conclusions without the benefit of logic or reason. Perhaps it would be better I simply used "nonrational" for the latter, and avoid the confusion. Why is homosexuality immoral? Because "the book says so." There is no logical relationship between the question about homosexuality and "the book." There are tons of books that say homosexuality is immoral, tons that say it is moral. You have chosen a book - and arbitrarily based your morality on it. You cannot explain WHY homosexuality is wrong - all you can answer is "because the book says so."

OK, so you can not rationally support the idea that humans have value, which is your jumping off point. This is why when you were speaking of "true premises" recently, I jumped on that and you back off and said what is true for you.

Carp, that is nonsense. Believing in universal moral truths is not magical thinking, because if it is there are a lot of atheists who do so.

First of all - I believe my moral code should be universalized. I don't know of too many people who don't. You are confusing "universalized" with "objective." I've covered this before. And the atheists who believe in objective and/or absolute moral principles are equally engaging in magical thinking. They cannot show the existence of ANY of these, yet they cling to them. Personally, I think it is the "vestigial organ" of living in a highly religious society. The idea that morality might be a personal and inter-personal exercise seems to frighten many people. They keep running back to the safety net of "objective moral frameworks. Their willingness to cling to them despite an inability to show how/where these thing have such an existence is also "magical thinking."

And how do I go around and around more than you with your relative moral views. Talk about a morass...

Mostly, the round and round is due to your inability to see that you have no actual argument against subjective/relative morality. All you can do is continually repeat the definition.

Right so your very foundation, your logical jumping off point (human value) is not rational.

It MAY be nonrational. It depends on the specific value in question. But even one that is rationally arrived at will ultimately root in experience. I value human life because of my experience of living (I can not give you a rational argument for why I enjoy living), my experience of others in my life (I can not give you a rational argument for why I enjoy other people - even you!), and the social contract (I can articulate why the social contract holds).

Of course it must be, if your moral conclusions have severely negative consequences down the road then you have accomplished exactly the opposite of what you intended. Ignorance is never rational.

To this I can only say, "so what?" When has unintended and unforeseeable consequences of an act EVER factored into the definition of what is and is not moral? You keep tossing this in as if it somehow relates to the conversation - but it simply doesn't. You have no clue what the outcome of your moral choices are in your (artificial) "objective morality" than I do. And if you try to go down the road of "but god does," you will have a very hard time demonstrating that every moral choice made in alignment with the moral framework of the Christian bible has always and will forever result in nothing but good outcomes.

[seer]

Irrational: not logical or reasonable.

So it can mean that you have violated some law of logic (which is not what I am saying), or that you have arrived at your conclusions without the benefit of logic or reason. Perhaps it would be better I simply used "nonrational" for the latter, and avoid the confusion. Why is homosexuality immoral? Because "the book says so." There is no logical relationship between the question about homosexuality and "the book." There are tons of books that say homosexuality is immoral, tons that say it is moral. You have chosen a book - and arbitrarily based your morality on it. You cannot explain WHY homosexuality is wrong - all you can answer is "because the book says so."

First Carp, you are not just speaking of any book, but the most influential book of human history. The book that largely influenced western culture for a thousand years. The only reason you even think about human rights the way you do is because you were raised in a largely Christian nation where God given rights and intrinsic human worth were paramount. And your opinion on homosexual behavior somehow trumps that linage of moral influence? Second, any argument you make supporting homosexual behavior is going to begin with subjective premises, in reality your preferences. Why on early would it be irrational to not share your preferences? Why is homosexual behavior moral? Because Carp says so. That is the bottom line.

To this I can only say, "so what?" When has unintended and unforeseeable consequences of an act EVER factored into the definition of what is and is not moral? You keep tossing this in as if it somehow relates to the conversation - but it simply doesn't. You have no clue what the outcome of your moral choices are in your (artificial) "objective morality" than I do. And if you try to go down the road of "but god does," you will have a very hard time demonstrating that every moral choice made in alignment with the moral framework of the Christian bible has always and will forever result in nothing but good outcomes.

Of course you have to say so what. Remember we are speaking of your superior moral reasoning claim. But that is bunk. Nothing in your view is objectively or inherently wrong, there are only subjective considerations. If you don't know future outcomes then you can not reason whether any moral position is actually good or bad since you can not know the moral ripple effect. What you think is good may actually turn out to be bad. That is non-rational. The point with God is that He would know all outcomes (good or bad), His moral law is based on perfect knowledge - hence perfectly rational.

[carpedm9587]

First Carp, you are not just speaking of any book, but the most influential book of human history. The book that largely influenced western culture for a thousand years.

What on earth does THAT have to do with anything? You're appealing to the masses, Seer. You're just doing it over time. And your argument appears to be "the book has authority because it's had it for so long." You're jumping from one irrational argument to another.

The only reason you even think about human rights the way you do is because you were raised in a largely Christian nation where God given rights and intrinsic human worth were paramount.

As I have noted before, that is likely. Again, what difference does that make? A mature moralizer recognizes influences, but does not enslave themselves to them, as you have.

And your opinion on homosexual behavior somehow trumps that linage of moral influence?

If it is rooted in reason, yes.

Second, any argument you make supporting homosexual behavior is going to begin with subjective premises, in reality your preferences.

Absolutely. I have never claimed otherwise.

Why on early would it be irrational to not share your preferences?

I have never made this claim, so I have no response.

Why is homosexual behavior moral?

First, I have never said "homosexual behavior is moral" any more than I would ever say "heterosexual behavior is moral." Both can be moral or immoral, depending on context. Sex is like any other act; its morality is determined by context and intent. Second, I argue that homosexual behavior is on the same moral plane as heterosexual behavior for many reasons, but the primary one is that the only difference between the two acts is the genome of the two actors. Basing morality on genome makes no sense. No one can control their genome or be responsible for it. So if an act is declared moral for one set of people with one genome and immoral for another set of people and the only difference is genome, the problem lies with the declaration - not the act.

Further, there is no explicit harm being done. Harm is a major indication of something being immoral (though not necessarily always). Finally, it simply makes no rational sense. Why would love between two mature, consenting, individuals ever be a "bad" thing? On what basis could anyone even begin to make that argument?

Because Carp says so. That is the bottom line.

All moral positions are personal. Just because you have hitched your wagon to the moral framework of the bible doesn't mean it wasn't YOU that hitched your wagon that way, and YOU making the preferential decision to use the Christian bible instead of the Quran (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in the Middle East); the Tripitakas (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in the China); or the Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Veda (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in India or Pakistan).

Of course you have to say so what. Remember we are speaking of your superior moral reasoning claim. But that is bunk. Nothing in your view is objectively or inherently wrong, there are only subjective considerations. If you don't know future outcomes then you can not reason whether any moral position is actually good or bad since you can not know the moral ripple effect. What you think is good may actually turn out to be bad. That is non-rational. The point with God is that He would know all outcomes (good or bad), His moral law is based on perfect knowledge - hence perfectly rational.

I have emphasized your (repeated) problem. The underscored part is positioned as an objection. As an argument. As somehow a claim that this is a problem with relative/subjective moralizing. Read it carefully, Seer. It's not an objection. It's not an argument. It's a repetition of the definition of subjective and/or relative. It is your ONLY true rebuttal that you come back to over and over and over again, without realizing that you have not said anything. You've just repeated a definition we've both already agreed to, but you've repeated it with contempt and dismissal. It's like sneering, "yeah, but blue is not green" and thinking you've actually said something.

For the rest - you base your morality on a god you cannot show exists, on a book you have preferentially and subjectively adopted as "your source" and "your authority," and justified your stance by adding concepts to morality (i.e., infinite responsibility) that are nowhere else included in the concept of morality.

And you remain blind to it. I realize your "faith-based" opinion of me is that I am blinded to all of what you know. What you do not see is that you have blinded yourself. You are like the man who has removed both of his own eyes, and then walks around telling others how they cannot see as he sees. Part of me feels for you. I've been there. I know how attractive the whole thing is, how self-perpetuating it is designed to be, and how difficult it is to escape. Another part of me wishes I could put your eyes back. Unfortunately, only you can do that.

And I think we have (once again) run our course here. I expect your next response will be more of the same (as I'm sure you probably see my responses), and we've been around this horn many, many, many, times. Based on our discussion over dinner, I assume you still think you are "showing me the consequences of my beliefs/philosophy." I wish it were possible to convey to you how much you really aren't. You have not shown me a single consequence of recognizing morality as subjective and relative. Morality does not change just because we believe differently. Morality is what morality is within the human (sentient) experience. I see it's subjective/relative nature all around me. How it works is exactly how I describe it. The difference between us is that I see it and accept it and attempt to work in it, while recognizing that I was so steeped in "absolute/objective" thinking concerning morality for so long, that I struggle sometimes to drop the habit. You do not have that struggle because you remain embedded deeply in the absolute/objective illusion.

Anyway - I need to get some work done. Given the number of times we've ended these threads, and the number of times they come around again, I suspect we'll have this discussion against someday! See you then!

[Sparko]

um if God the Creator designed human beings, how would it be irrational to follow his moral rules? I would think that the designer knows best how his creations should act.

Since we believe the bible to be the true word of God, it is entirely rational to want to follow the morals set out by God in the bible. It is irrational to not do this.

[seer]

What on earth does THAT have to do with anything? You're appealing to the masses, Seer. You're just doing it over time. And your argument appears to be "the book has authority because it's had it for so long." You're jumping from one irrational argument to another.

The point is Carp, it just isn't any old book. The book and culture that largely influenced the way you think about human rights today...

As I have noted before, that is likely. Again, what difference does that make? A mature moralizer recognizes influences, but does not enslave themselves to them, as you have.

But so what if I'm enslaved to it? What do you have to offer but subjective preferences?

If it is rooted in reason, yes.

Why is your particular reasoning process the determiner of what is moral or not?

Absolutely. I have never claimed otherwise.


I have never made this claim, so I have no response.

So I don't share your premises, so I won't come to the same conclusions. So why again is homosexuality moral - because you say so? Why should that matter?

First, I have never said "homosexual behavior is moral" any more than I would ever say "heterosexual behavior is moral." Both can be moral or immoral, depending on context. Sex is like any other act; its morality is determined by context and intent. Second, I argue that homosexual behavior is on the same moral plane as heterosexual behavior for many reasons, but the primary one is that the only difference between the two acts is the genome of the two actors. Basing morality on genome makes no sense. No one can control their genome or be responsible for it. So if an act is declared moral for one set of people with one genome and immoral for another set of people and the only difference is genome, the problem lies with the declaration - not the act.

Further, there is no explicit harm being done. Harm is a major indication of something being immoral (though not necessarily always). Finally, it simply makes no rational sense. Why would love between two mature, consenting, individuals ever be a "bad" thing? On what basis could anyone even begin to make that argument?

First how do you know there won't be long term harm to a culture? And who says basing morality on genome in certain cases makes no sense? In your relative world Carp that is just a matter of personal preference. And you just agreed that not sharing your preferences is not irrational.

All moral positions are personal. Just because you have hitched your wagon to the moral framework of the bible doesn't mean it wasn't YOU that hitched your wagon that way, and YOU making the preferential decision to use the Christian bible instead of the Quran (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in the Middle East); the Tripitakas (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in the China); or the Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Veda (which you would likely be quoting if you were born/raised in India or Pakistan).

Again Carp, if, as in your world, it's all personal and relative (nothing objective) then it certainly it would not be irrational to base morality on genome in certain cases. It would just be a matter of personal preference. And as you said, not sharing your personal preferences is not irrational.

I have emphasized your (repeated) problem. The underscored part is positioned as an objection. As an argument. As somehow a claim that this is a problem with relative/subjective moralizing. Read it carefully, Seer. It's not an objection. It's not an argument. It's a repetition of the definition of subjective and/or relative. It is your ONLY true rebuttal that you come back to over and over and over again, without realizing that you have not said anything. You've just repeated a definition with both agreed to, but you've repeated it with contempt and dismissal. It's like snarling, "yeah, but blue is not green" and thinking you've actually said something.

For the rest - you base your morality on a god you cannot show exists, on a book you have preferentially and subjectively adopted as "your source" and "your authority," and justified your stance by adding concepts to morality (i.e., infinite responsibility) that are nowhere else included in the concept of morality.

And you remain blind to it. I realize your "faith-based" opinion of me is that I am blinded to all of what you know. What you do not see is that you have blinded yourself. You are like the man who has removed both of his own eyes, and then walks around telling others how they cannot see as he sees. Part of me feels for you. I've been there. I know how attractive the whole thing is, how self-perpetuating it is designed to be, and how difficult it is to escape. Another part of me wishes I could put your eyes back. Unfortunately, only you can do that.

And I think we have (once again) run our course here. I expect your next response will be more of the same (as I'm sure you probably see my responses), and we've been around this horn many, many, many, times. Based on our discussion over dinner, I assume you still think you are "showing me the consequences of my beliefs/philosophy." I wish it were possible to convey to you haw much you really aren't. Morality does not change just because we believe differently. Morality is what morality is within the human (sentient) experience. I see it's subjective/relative nature all around me. How it works is exactly how I describe it. The difference between us is that I see it and accept it and attempt to work in it, while recognizing that I was so steeped in "absolute/objective" thinking concerning morality for so long, that I struggle sometimes to drop the habit. You do not have that struggle because you remain embedded deeply in the absolute/objective illusion.

Anyway - I need to get some work done. Given the number of times we've ended these threads, and the number of times they come around again, I suspect we'll have this discussion against someday! See you then!

Sorry Carp, none of that counters the point that your moral positions are largely based in ignorance. Yet you some how see that as "rational."