Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[seer]

I think harm is a better term than suffering, here. Unless you're going to claim pleasure is a moral good, which has the same issues as suffering being morally bad, you can't really claim it as a higher priority.

Well that is Thinker's view, the more pleasure the better, the more suffering the worse. But that is my point - there is no objective way to prioritize these things.

Also, a utilitarian system would aim at net change. You'd have to show that the 'good/pleasure' gained outweighs the 'bad/harm(suffering)'. Doing so involves its own set of assertions.

Again, how does one objectively prioritize or quantify such things?

[shunyadragon]

You mean like your subjective view that the greater the self-awareness the greater the moral concern?

No he specifically asked 'Good according to what objective standard?'

I ask the same question.

[seer]

No he specifically asked 'Good according to what objective standard?'

I ask the same question.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD. There is God's law however, which is subjective to Him and binding on all humanity.

[shunyadragon]

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD. There is God's law however, which is subjective to Him and binding on all humanity.

Needs more explanation.

[seer]

Needs more explanation.

All ethics, in the end, revolve around personal opinion. You have your opinion, I mine, one culture theirs, another culture theirs. And of course God has His. And His is supreme since He has the ability to enforce His moral law universally and His view is grounded in His immutable moral character and His omniscience.

[The Thinker]

You mean like your subjective view that the greater the self-awareness the greater the moral concern?

No, that's objective. I was wondering if you had an objective standard.

[The Thinker]

But that is merely an assertion. Why should the suffering of a creature that is much less self aware than me take priority over my pleasure?

It can. I'm not saying it isn't. It depends on how sentient it is. What about a creature that was 1% less sentient than you? And then we can ask again about 2%, and 3%, and so on.

[The Thinker]

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD. There is God's law however, which is subjective to Him and binding on all humanity.

Except for the fact that your god doesn't exist.

Minor technicality.

[seer]

It can. I'm not saying it isn't. It depends on how sentient it is. What about a creature that was 1% less sentient than you? And then we can ask again about 2%, and 3%, and so on.

But you can not even quantify these things. How much does the much less self-aware cow suffer with a bullet to the head? Is that monetary suffering outweigh my pleasure in eating him? My uncle used to snap the necks of chickens, they did not suffer at all as far as I could tell. So why shouldn't I eat him?

[seer]

Except for the fact that your god doesn't exist.

Minor technicality.

That is your opinion.

[seer]

No, that's objective. I was wondering if you had an objective standard.

No Thinker your view is decidedly not objective. It is clearly an opinion. The greater the self-awareness the greater the moral concern? Who says? You? And again, there is no objective standard - a moral standard that exists in-spite of what anyone believes.

[Carrikature]

Well that is Thinker's view, the more pleasure the better, the more suffering the worse. But that is my point - there is no objective way to prioritize these things.

Again, how does one objectively prioritize or quantify such things?

I don't think we can say "there is none" with any real certainty. We can certainly say we know of none, though. I'm not sure how subjective is a deal-breaker, though. When you make the claim that humans deserve more moral consideration, what is that based on? Even granting an objective moral source, the interpretation and implementation of the commands received is extremely subjective.

[seer]

I don't think we can say "there is none" with any real certainty. We can certainly say we know of none, though. I'm not sure how subjective is a deal-breaker, though. When you make the claim that humans deserve more moral consideration, what is that based on? Even granting an objective moral source, the interpretation and implementation of the commands received is extremely subjective.

Well humans have a more worth to God, that is why we deserve more consideration.

[The Thinker]

But you can not even quantify these things. How much does the much less self-aware cow suffer with a bullet to the head? Is that monetary suffering outweigh my pleasure in eating him? My uncle used to snap the necks of chickens, they did not suffer at all as far as I could tell. So why shouldn't I eat him?

The same argument can be made if someone snaps your neck -- according to your own logic. Therefore there's nothing wrong with snapping other people's necks on your worldview.

[The Thinker]

That is your opinion.

No it's a fact. Your god is not even coherent, like LFW. As such it's impossible it can be true.