Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[shunyadragon]

I'm not comparing anything idiot - that is a question YOU invented. This is not about comparison. You are such a deceiver. I'm asking for a logical argument for why might does not make right in a godless universe.

The logical fallacies are pilling up like manure in the Stock Yards. Requiring an argument for the negative is the fallacy from Arguing from Ignorance.

[hansgeorg]

The logical fallacies are pilling up like manure in the Stock Yards. Requiring an argument for the negative is the fallacy from Arguing from Ignorance.

One view of that implication would actually follow from your view: if all extant moralities are all there is, and none reflects any natural morality binding on all, then between competing moralities, might (including but not limited to mighty persuasion of opponents) really would be right.

Try to find a logical fallacy in that one!

[The Thinker]

I'm really unclear about what your conclusion is. I mean in "C" you just repeated your premises - and I'm not sure what you mean about a rational basis since you agreed that subjective reasons are valid. But still I don't get why the suffering of others is wrong if it serves ones self interest or pleasure. Besides your say so.

Because morality depends on sentience, where generally suffering is bad and pleasure is good, and that's the basis for objective morality. C is more than just a repeat, it's the logical conclusion of the premises which you either agree to, or cannot refute.

[seer]

Because morality depends on sentience, where generally suffering is bad and pleasure is good, and that's the basis for objective morality. C is more than just a repeat, it's the logical conclusion of the premises which you either agree to, or cannot refute.

No Thinker it only works in your own mind. It is purely your opinion that the suffering of one is morally wrong even if it serves another's pleasure or self interest.

You said:

C: Because morality depends on sentience (P2) where unnecessary harm is bad and pleasure is good and where the more pleasure is good and the more harm is bad (P3) it logically entails that harming creatures that can suffer is morally wrong

.

I say that depriving one of pleasure that he may well have had through the suffering of another is morally wrong.

[shunyadragon]

One view of that implication would actually follow from your view: if all extant moralities are all there is, and none reflects any natural morality binding on all, then between competing moralities, might (including but not limited to mighty persuasion of opponents) really would be right.

Try to find a logical fallacy in that one!

I do not believe argument by implication is persuasive. The archeological and anthropological evidence of primitive Stone Age peoples of the past and today is that the survival of humans as a species is not might, but the moral and ethical base that insured cooperation and morals that insured the stability of the family structure and community. There is extensive evidence of compassion and healing of the wounded and elderly, which would not reflect the rule of might. Yes, within the communities hierarchies developed based on those traits best suited for survival, but might itself did not always determine the hierarchy. Yes, there is throughout the history conflict and at times the rule of might and competition for resources determined which community or tribe survived. and dominated, but again the survival of humans in families and communities was not necessarily dependent on might.

The bottom line is morality and ethics is what it is throughout history. and it is not possible to hypothetically propose a morality and ethics of a world with God from a world without God.

[Tassman]

Yes seriously, they could equally enjoy them as wives.

...or rape them as legitimate

So are all our choices determined or not?

You cannot explain how your alleged LFW overrides your lifetime accumulation of subconscious beliefs and attitudes. Until you do then you have no argument against determinism.

OK, so we are determined by the forces of nature that have no goals to have goals? Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Inasmuch as all natural creatures have goals (at the very least the instinctive goal of survival) to this extent, the forces of nature do have goals.

But again, you have no idea how nature will determine us to act in the future, we could just as well revert to the barbarism of the past - all perfectly natural

No, not subjective at all, except to those "Christians" who reject scripture.

What your saying is that Christian morality is not subjective except for those that interpret scripture differently from you. Gotcha!

[seer]

...or rape them as legitimate

Tass, this makes no sense from your worldview - they were just determined to do this by the forces of nature. Is it "not good" when chimps do the same thing? Why do you bring a moral judgement against the Hebrews but not against the Chimpanzee? Both are equally determined.

You cannot explain how your alleged LFW overrides your lifetime accumulation of subconscious beliefs and attitudes. Until you do then you have no argument against determinism.

Actually Joel has been doing a good job in the other thread, go read that. But I will ask again - are all our behaviors determined - yes or no.

Inasmuch as all natural creatures have goals (at the very least the instinctive goal of survival) to this extent, the forces of nature do have goals.

Again, nature does not have the goal that we should survive, it could care less, just look at all the species that have gone extinct.

Are you a prophet? Do you know how the forces of nature will develop us morally in the future? Do you know that we won't become more cruel and selfish? Islam is sweeping the world, who knows maybe they will dominate one day. Just doing waht nature determined them

What your saying is that Christian morality is not subjective except for those that interpret scripture differently from you. Gotcha!

Nonsense, they don't interpret scripture differently, they often reject scripture.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker it only works in your own mind. It is purely your opinion that the suffering of one is morally wrong even if it serves another's pleasure or self interest.

You said:

It doesn't only work in my mind. This is logically derived. You cannot have P1 and P2 without coming to P3 and then eventually to C. You're saying morality does depend on sentient life, which can only be the case because sentient life can suffer and feel pleasure. But then you're trying to say suffering and pleasure have nothing to do with right and wrong, which is absurd, because the only reason why we have right and wrong is because we have sentient beings that can feel pleasure or suffer. Take that away and there is no morality.

I say that depriving one of pleasure that he may well have had through the suffering of another is morally wrong.

Then you're saying it's ok for someone to rob you and rape your family for their pleasure.

[seer]

It doesn't only work in my mind. This is logically derived. You cannot have P1 and P2 without coming to P3 and then eventually to C. You're saying morality does depend on sentient life, which can only be the case because sentient life can suffer and feel pleasure. But then you're trying to say suffering and pleasure have nothing to do with right and wrong, which is absurd, because the only reason why we have right and wrong is because we have sentient beings that can feel pleasure or suffer. Take that away and there is no morality.

No Thinker, like I said earlier one can make a deductive argument that is sound but completely wrong. But that is not even the case here. I'm not saying that pain or pleasure do not or can not be a consideration when deciding moral questions but that standard or criterion is too subjective or based on opinion. There could be a number of reasons why a person or culture morally objects to murder or rape for instance that are not grounded in the pain/pleasure principle. And they are valid.

Then you're saying it's ok for someone to rob you and rape your family for their pleasure.

That is exactly the point! Of course, subjectively, I would not want that to happen to my family.

[shunyadragon]

No Thinker, like I said earlier one can make a deductive argument that is sound but completely wrong. But that is not even the case here. I'm not saying that pain or pleasure do not or can not be a consideration when deciding moral questions but that standard or criterion is too subjective or based on opinion. There could be a number of reasons why a person or culture morally objects to murder or rape for instance that are not grounded in the pain/pleasure principle. And they are valid.

An important issue here that supercedes pleasure and pain is the evolutionary survival of the human species requires the family, community, morals and ethics, or simply the human species could not survive naturally.

That is exactly the point! Of course, subjectively, I would not want that to happen to my family.

No one would! That is why Naturally evolved morals and ethics are essential for survival of the family, community and the human species.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, like I said earlier one can make a deductive argument that is sound but completely wrong. But that is not even the case here. I'm not saying that pain or pleasure do not or can not be a consideration when deciding moral questions but that standard or criterion is too subjective or based on opinion. There could be a number of reasons why a person or culture morally objects to murder or rape for instance that are not grounded in the pain/pleasure principle. And they are valid.

Sure there can be a number of reasons, but only mine is logically valid because it is derived from the source of morality - which is the fact that sentient life can suffer and feel pleasure. Anything that deviates from this - like grounding morality in a god - is illogical.

That is exactly the point! Of course, subjectively, I would not want that to happen to my family.

And subjectively someone else wouldn't want that to happen to their family, and that's one reason why it's objectively wrong for you to do that to them. The logical outcome to this situation will be that people would have to realize it is wrong to do this to someone - or else if they don't, they will not be able to say "It's ok for me to do X but not if someone does it too me."

[seer]

Sure there can be a number of reasons, but only mine is logically valid because it is derived from the source of morality - which is the fact that sentient life can suffer and feel pleasure. Anything that deviates from this - like grounding morality in a god - is illogical.

Thinker you already agreed that subjective reasoning (I don't want to live in a disordered society) was valid. In other words we do not have to meet your criterion to have a valid rational for ethics. The other point I have not brought up is, even if your position is logically sound - so what? What does it get us? How does it change anything?

And subjectively someone else wouldn't want that to happen to their family, and that's one reason why it's objectively wrong for you to do that to them. The logical outcome to this situation will be that people would have to realize it is wrong to do this to someone - or else if they don't, they will not be able to say "It's ok for me to do X but not if someone does it too me."

You can't just turn a subjective reason into an objective one by magic. It is purely subjective and valid. "Do unto others" is subjective. Never mind the fact that I sill don't see why on your pain/pleasure model why the pain of another should logically trump my pleasure if his pain serves or increases my pleasure. You would say that it is immoral to cause that person suffering, but one could just as easily say that it is immoral to deny my pleasure.

[Tassman]

Tass, this makes no sense from your worldview

It makes perfect sense from myNOT

- they were just determined to do this by the forces of nature. Is it "not good" when chimps do the same thing? Why do you bring a moral judgement against the Hebrews but not against the Chimpanzee? Both are equally determined.

Nope! We are not the passive victims of fate as you have been told many times; your belief system seems to depend upon denial and promulgation of deliberate lies.

Actually Joel has been doing a good job in the other thread, go read that. But I will ask again - are all our behaviors determined - yes or no.

Once again, if you cannot explain how your alleged LFW overrides your lifetime accumulation of subconscious beliefs and attitudes then you have no argument against causal determinism. So please explain.

Again, nature does not have the goal that we should survive, it could care less,

Again, all natural creatures have goals (including the instinctive goal of survival). So, to this extent, the forces of nature demonstrably do have goals.

just look at all the species that have gone extinct.

Indeed! What a wasteful creator god. .

Are you a prophet? Do you know how the forces of nature will develop us morally in the future? Do you know that we won't become more cruel and selfish? Islam is sweeping the world, who knows maybe they will dominate one day. Just doing waht nature determined them

Nonsense, they don't interpret scripture differently, they often reject scripture.

There are numerous interpretations of scripture...are they all wrong except yours, is that it? Oh the arrogance!.

[seer]

It makes perfect sense from myNOT

No Tass it does not make sense from your world view. Why do you bring a moral judgement against the Hebrews but not the Chimpanzee when both behaviors are equally determined? Are we not just as determined as the ape?

Again, all natural creatures have goals (including the instinctive goal of survival). So, to this extent, the forces of nature demonstrably do have goals.

Nonsense, if nature had a goal of survival then why have literally millions of species gone instinct?


Again, is EVERYTHING we think or do, all our choices, determined - yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

Again, is EVERYTHING we think or do, all our choices, determined - yes or no?

Unless you are a Calvinist, NO!

The concept of determinism in the natural scientific view does not propose that 'EVERYTHING we think or do, all our choices, determined.'