Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[The Thinker]

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.

Um, yes it is. Logic is true regardless of who says it. Self-awareness is the whole reason why there is moral concern. No self-awareness, no moral concern. That logically entails that the more self-awareness you have the more the moral concern. Merely denying this does not make it false or any less objective.

[The Thinker]

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

Which is the stupidest reason for basing moral values because you can't show your god is real, second you can't show god cares about people because your religious book is filled with lies and false assertions, third there is no reason to think why your god caring about us gives us any moral worth. If he stopped caring about us would our moral worth suddenly plummet to zero?

And also, on your own view it shows our moral worth is extrinsic and not intrinsic.

[seer]

Um, yes it is. Logic is true regardless of who says it. Self-awareness is the whole reason why there is moral concern. No self-awareness, no moral concern. That logically entails that the more self-awareness you have the more the moral concern. Merely denying this does not make it false or any less objective.

You are just making stuff up Thinker and calling it objective. First, yes you can not have morality without rational minds. That fact however tells us nothing about the degrees of concern we should or should not have. Self-awareness does not tell us about concern. That is completely subjective.

[The Thinker]

You are just making stuff up Thinker and calling it objective. First, yes you can not have morality without rational minds. That fact however tells us nothing about the degrees of concern we should or should not have. Self-awareness does not tell us about concern. That is completely subjective.

You are making stuff up. Would you agree that the more rational a person is the more culpable they are legally and morally? So for example a 5 year old is not as culpable as a 25 year old? And a mentally challenged person is not as culpable as someone who isn't? Do you deny this?

[seer]

You are making stuff up. Would you agree that the more rational a person is the more culpable they are legally and morally? So for example a 5 year old is not as culpable as a 25 year old? And a mentally challenged person is not as culpable as someone who isn't? Do you deny this?

No, I don't deny that we subjectively make those distinctions.

[The Thinker]

No, I don't deny that we subjectively make those distinctions.

But why don't you hold someone less capable of being rational to a higher degree of legal/moral culpability?

Is there a logical basis for your distinctions, or is it completely arbitrary - like throwing a dart at a wall blind-folded?

[seer]

But why don't you hold someone less capable of being rational to a higher degree of legal/moral culpability?

Is there a logical basis for your distinctions, or is it completely arbitrary - like throwing a dart at a wall blind-folded?

Again Thinker, it would not matter if the distinction was arbitrary, that is not the question - you need to demonstrate that it actually is objective. Let me put it this way; when we were discussing the definition of objective you said it would be something that would remain true not matter what any one believed. Like 2+2=4. But these moral questions are not like that. A society may decide to actually hold your five year old morally responsible, while giving the adult a pass. 2+2 equaling 4 can not logically be different, the law of non-contradiction can not be otherwise - no matter what anyone believes. But moral consideration certainly can be different, very different, and are. The Nazi is going to agree with you that 2+2=4, he is not going to agree that putting a round in the back of the head of a Jewish baby is morally wrong. No matter how you cut it ethical ideals are subjective.

[The Thinker]

Again Thinker, it would not matter if the distinction was arbitrary, that is not the question - you need to demonstrate that it actually is objective. Let me put it this way; when we were discussing the definition of objective you said it would be something that would remain true not matter what any one believed. Like 2+2=4. But these moral questions are not like that. A society may decide to actually hold your five year old morally responsible, while giving the adult a pass. 2+2 equaling 4 can not logically be different, the law of non-contradiction can not be otherwise - no matter what anyone believes. But moral consideration certainly can be different, very different, and are. The Nazi is going to agree with you that 2+2=4, he is not going to agree that putting a round in the back of the head of a Jewish baby is morally wrong. No matter how you cut it ethical ideals are subjective.

Of course it matters. We're talking about the difference between something arbitrary (completely subjective) or something logical (completely objective).

What you seem to be admitting is that it is not logical to attribute greater responsibility to a 25 year old than a 5 year old, or a mentally competent person to a mentally insane person, and that this is merely a subjective option that has no logical basis whatsoever.

Is that your view?

What a society decides to do is irrelevant. We're talking about theory here, not practice. A society can act as if 2+2=5, but that wouldn't make it so. I've been telling you this over and over and you still just can't get it. What's wrong with your brain? Is it that you are afraid to admit this point makes sense such that you're actually willing to say it is only a matter of opinion that we expect 25, 45, or 55 year olds to have greater legal responsibility than 5 year olds, or 2 year olds, or heck, 5 month old infants! Remember - think theory and logic, not practice.

[seer]

Of course it matters. We're talking about the difference between something arbitrary (completely subjective) or something logical (completely objective).

But your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to demonstrate that your view is actually objective. The consequences of not being objective is another matter.

What you seem to be admitting is that it is not logical to attribute greater responsibility to a 25 year old than a 5 year old, or a mentally competent person to a mentally insane person, and that this is merely a subjective option that has no logical basis whatsoever.

But it is subjective, but subjective considerations are not necessarily arbitrary - without reasons. I may have good reasons for choosing steak over lobster, but it does come down to personal preference. And most societies do give deference to the young and mentally ill without any regard to your moral theory. So why do we need your ideals?

What a society decides to do is irrelevant. We're talking about theory here, not practice. A society can act as if 2+2=5, but that wouldn't make it so. I've been telling you this over and over and you still just can't get it. What's wrong with your brain? Is it that you are afraid to admit this point makes sense such that you're actually willing to say it is only a matter of opinion that we expect 25, 45, or 55 year olds to have greater legal responsibility than 5 year olds, or 2 year olds, or heck, 5 month old infants! Remember - think theory and logic, not practice.

But I have shown that your theory is unworkable, again: Why should the momentary suffering of the cow (a bullet to the head) outweigh my pleasure in eating it? Please give a straight answer.

[The Thinker]

But your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to demonstrate that your view is actually objective. The consequences of not being objective is another matter.

Which I did. Merely saying it is subjective is not an argument.

But it is subjective, but subjective considerations are not necessarily arbitrary - without reasons. I may have good reasons for choosing steak over lobster, but it does come down to personal preference.

You've totally missed the point. You are comparing apples to oranges. Choosing a food choice is only a matter of opinion. Choosing a rational legal matter is not merely about opinion. Logic comes into play. Otherwise you'd be saying logic plays no role whatsoever in legal matters.

And most societies do give deference to the young and mentally ill without any regard to your moral theory. So why do we need your ideals?

We are debating a component to my moral theory right now - an objective logical aspect that you are denying, when you know damn well that it is not merely a matter of opinion whether it is more logical to attribute less legal culpability to infants than mentally competent 40 year olds.

But I have shown that your theory is unworkable, again: Why should the momentary suffering of the cow (a bullet to the head) outweigh my pleasure in eating it? Please give a straight answer.

No you haven't. Because if you did this would also make sense: Why should the momentary suffering of the human (a bullet to the head) outweigh my pleasure in eating it?

[seer]

Which I did. Merely saying it is subjective is not an argument.

No, it is on you to show that it is objective, which you claimed and which you have failed to do.

You've totally missed the point. You are comparing apples to oranges. Choosing a food choice is only a matter of opinion. Choosing a rational legal matter is not merely about opinion. Logic comes into play. Otherwise you'd be saying logic plays no role whatsoever in legal matters.

No, I said there were reasons and you can have reasons even if it not objective in the sense that you mean. How is it Thinker that we have managed to created laws and ethics apart from YOUR objective criterion?

We are debating a component to my moral theory right now - an objective logical aspect that you are denying, when you know damn well that it is not merely a matter of opinion whether it is more logical to attribute less legal culpability to infants than mentally competent 40 year olds.

No, I'm saying that your logical criterion is not necessary, and never has been.

No you haven't. Because if you did this would also make sense: Why should the momentary suffering of the human (a bullet to the head) outweigh my pleasure in eating it?

Stop avoiding the question. So again, why should the momentary suffering outweigh my pleasure in eating it? But I could ask why does the momentary suffering of the Jewish child outweigh the pleasure the Nazi gets in killing her. Present an objective reason.

[The Thinker]

No, it is on you to show that it is objective, which you claimed and which you have failed to do.

I haven't failed because your argument that it is entirely subjective and not logical to treat a mentally competent person with greater legal culpability than a 5 month old infant is bogus.

No, I said there were reasons and you can have reasons even if it not objective in the sense that you mean. How is it Thinker that we have managed to created laws and ethics apart from YOUR objective criterion?

That's so easy to answer. You are again failing to realize that what we do in practice does not have to be logical. We can create any legal or ethical system based on nonsense we pull out of our behinds. That's not an argument against my objective basis.

But no rational legal or ethical system will be able to deny my objective basis. Again, stop making the stupid mistake of conflating practice with theory. It's getting old.

No, I'm saying that your logical criterion is not necessary, and never has been.

Not necessary for what? Not necessary for having a legal or ethical system? Of course it isn't. Like I said, any old legal or ethical system based on nonsense pull out of our behinds can be created. That's not an argument against my objective basis.

But no rational legal or ethical system will be able to deny my objective basis.

Stop avoiding the question. So again, why should the momentary suffering outweigh my pleasure in eating it? But I could ask why does the momentary suffering of the Jewish child outweigh the pleasure the Nazi gets in killing her. Present an objective reason.

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm merely showing you how your own logic works against you. The suffering you put on another for your pleasure depends on how much that other being can suffer, and for what goal you try to achieve. I have no problem with you killing a bug if it annoys you. Bugs are not sentient to any significant degree. I have no problem with you killing an animal in self defense, or killing a human for that matter. But if you want to kill something merely for your pleasure, then the level of sentience matters. That's why humans are at the top of the list for concern and it goes down the line and decreases until you eventually hit no sentience. So why is it wrong to kill an animal that offers you no harm merely for pleasure? It is alive and sentient and you deprive it of life and cause it to suffer, if even for a little bit. That's the same reason why it's wrong to kill people. Now if you're dealing with a lower ranking being in terms of sentience, like a small rodent that is less sentient than a primate, or a cow, then there is less concern.

[seer]

I haven't failed because your argument that it is entirely subjective and not logical to treat a mentally competent person with greater legal culpability than a 5 month old infant is bogus.

Are you this daft, really?

That's so easy to answer. You are again failing to realize that what we do in practice does not have to be logical. We can create any legal or ethical system based on nonsense we pull out of our behinds. That's not an argument against my objective basis.

But we don't pull it out of our behinds, we have reasons, but those reasons do not have to conform to your logical criterion.

But no rational legal or ethical system will be able to deny my objective basis. Again, stop making the stupid mistake of conflating practice with theory. It's getting old.

BUT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE BASIS, you just made something up and called it objective.

But if you want to kill something merely for your pleasure, then the level of sentience matters.

Why?

[The Thinker]

Are you this daft, really?

You are really that ignorant.

But we don't pull it out of our behinds, we have reasons, but those reasons do not have to conform to your logical criterion.

I never said they do, so please stop attacking a straw man. I said in order for the system to be rational it has to conform to my logical criterion. You can either have rational reasons or irrational ones.

BUT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE BASIS, you just made something up and called it objective.

It is objective. Rationality and logic is objective. It is not merely my opinion that it is more rational to attribute greater legal culpability to a 25 year old than a 5 month old infant. That you think this isn't objective is absurd.

Why?

Because the more sentient something is the more it can feel pleasure and suffer.

[seer]

I never said they do, so please stop attacking a straw man. I said in order for the system to be rational it has to conform to my logical criterion. You can either have rational reasons or irrational ones.

So we have laws against things like murder or rape or theft because we subjectively do not want to live in a society where these behaviors run rampant. We subjectively prefer order to disorder. These reasons would not conform to your criterion yet these are not irrational reasons - are they?

It is objective. Rationality and logic is objective. It is not merely my opinion that it is more rational to attribute greater legal culpability to a 25 year old than a 5 month old infant. That you think this isn't objective is absurd.

Thinker we both know that a deductive argument can be false, depending on the premises and conclusion. I'm not questioning logic but your premises and conclusion. And remember your argument has stopped at P3, you have not offered a conclusion yet. Never mind the problems with quantifying suffering or pleasure, which in itself may make your whole endeavor unworkable, and therefore useless.

Because the more sentient something is the more it can feel pleasure and suffer.

Yes, and what follows from that? That it would be immoral to kill the cow for my satisfaction?