Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[Tassman]

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?

Our rules of behaviour (i.e. morality) facilitates the community living essential for our survival as a social species. They evolved naturally via Natural Selection.

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

Seriously!

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

Only if you are a fatalist or subscribe to the doctrine of Predestination!

[seer]

Our rules of behaviour (i.e. morality) facilitates the community living essential for our survival as a social species. They evolved naturally via Natural Selection.

Again Tass, that does not answer the question - why do you bring a moral judgement against the Hebrews but not against the Chimpanzee when both behaviors are equally determined? Why label one determined behavior morally wrong and not another?

Seriously!

Well I'm glad you admit that nature has no such goal of survival.

Only if you are a fatalist or subscribe to the doctrine of Predestination!

I said nothing about fatalism! Try giving a honest answer, is EVERYTHING we think or do, all our choices, determined - yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

Again Tass, that does not answer the question - why do you bring a moral judgement against the Hebrews but not against the Chimpanzee when both behaviors are equally determined? Why label one determined behavior morally wrong and not another?

The behaviors 'equally determined' in humans, primates, and other animals by natural evolution does not constitute reasoning to bring equal judgement. Morality and judgment of right and wrong has been objectively observed in Chimpanzee communities. Each species has a separate behavioral nature based on the evolved needs of that species, and it is outrageous and irrational to try and judge one species by the behavioral standards of another species.

I said nothing about fatalism! Try giving a honest answer, is EVERYTHING we think or do, all our choices, determined - yes or no?

No.

[Carrikature]

In life Carrikature that is a fact. Those with the power define what is right. The rapist wants to rape, we the majority, who have the power, define that as wrong and jail him. Is my logic off?

You're talking about what's allowed or not. That doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong in a moral sense. Power gives you the ability to define 'allowed' and to enforce it. It doesn't give you the ability to define morality.

[seer]

It doesn't give you the ability to define morality.

Then what does define morality?

[shunyadragon]

Then what does define morality?

Morality is defined as:



If you are asking what determines morality. The Theists, of course, will say God. The philosophical naturalist will say the natural evolution of human behavior to insure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

[Carrikature]

Then what does define morality?

Nothing. Moral facts can only be discovered, not defined. It's a similar concept as physical laws. Our work is descriptive not prescriptive.

[seer]

Nothing. Moral facts can only be discovered, not defined. It's a similar concept as physical laws. Our work is descriptive not prescriptive.

I can understand how we can discover that two rocks plus two rocks equals four rocks, and we can confirm that. How do you discover that murder is wrong and confirm it.

[shunyadragon]

I can understand how we can discover that two rocks plus two rocks equals four rocks, and we can confirm that. How do you discover that murder is wrong and confirm it.

Simply objectively observe different cultures over time and describe how they define the morality of wrongful death, and you will discover and understand the morality of 'wrongful death.'

[Carrikature]

I can understand how we can discover that two rocks plus two rocks equals four rocks, and we can confirm that. How do you discover that murder is wrong and confirm it.

We may not be able to confirm it. There's nothing inherent in 'can be discovered' that implies 'can be confirmed'. I would think discovery entails comparing themes and concepts that pop up time and again. This is more or less how we discover physical laws, after all. Correlation isn't causation, but it's used as an indicator for a reason.

I'd even willing to grant a scenario where it's possible for beings to embody those laws. You could even take that farther and have those beings attempt to impart the concepts to other beings, especially if that's wrapped up in the embodiment. I've never had a problem with God being the embodiment. It's having him be the origin that doesn't work (or, at least, is internally inconsistent as applied).

[seer]

We may not be able to confirm it. There's nothing inherent in 'can be discovered' that implies 'can be confirmed'. I would think discovery entails comparing themes and concepts that pop up time and again. This is more or less how we discover physical laws, after all. Correlation isn't causation, but it's used as an indicator for a reason.

That is why morality is different from the laws of physics and such, they can not be confirmed in the sense that physical laws can. I mean objectively you can confirm that beating a man with a base ball bat causes harm, but calling that immoral is subjective and depends on the circumstance.

I'd even willing to grant a scenario where it's possible for beings to embody those laws. You could even take that farther and have those beings attempt to impart the concepts to other beings, especially if that's wrapped up in the embodiment. I've never had a problem with God being the embodiment. It's having him be the origin that doesn't work (or, at least, is internally inconsistent as applied).

Well I'm not sure how the embodiment of those laws in God would be any more internally inconsistent than if they were embodied in us.

[Carrikature]

That is why morality is different from the laws of physics and such, they can not be confirmed in the sense that physical laws can. I mean objectively you can confirm that beating a man with a base ball bat causes harm, but calling that immoral is subjective and depends on the circumstance.

Sort of. We'd have to limit ourselves to belief statements not fact claims. That is, "I believe that X is contra moral facts" as opposed to "X is contra moral facts". It's a nitpick, but an important one.

Well I'm not sure how the embodiment of those laws in God would be any more internally inconsistent than if they were embodied in us.

It's not the embodiment that's the issue, but the origin. There's nothing inconsistent about an embodiment either in God or man. For 'good' to be meaningful in any way, it can't simply mean 'like God'. Not for a morality discussion, at least.

[seer]

Sort of. We'd have to limit ourselves to belief statements not fact claims. That is, "I believe that X is contra moral facts" as opposed to "X is contra moral facts". It's a nitpick, but an important one.

English please.

It's not the embodiment that's the issue, but the origin. There's nothing inconsistent about an embodiment either in God or man. For 'good' to be meaningful in any way, it can't simply mean 'like God'. Not for a morality discussion, at least.

Why not? What would good have to "be like" to make it meaningful?

[Carrikature]

English please.

What's the difference between saying "That dress is purple" as opposed to "I believe that dress is purple"? The first is a statement about the dress. The second is a statement about your belief. If we have no way of knowing what color the dress actually is, the first statement is pretty useless. We can't confirm or deny its truth.

The same thing would happen with moral facts that can't be confirmed. We wouldn't be able to say "that action is immoral". We'd have no way to confirm or deny its truth. We could say, "I believe that action is immoral".

In both cases, there IS a right answer. Either the dress is purple or it isn't. Either something is immoral or it isn't. We just have no way of knowing for sure what the right answer is. That doesn't have to stop us from trying to figure it out, but it should add a degree of humility to our approach. Less "it must be this" and more "I think it's this". Does that make sense?

Why not? What would good have to "be like" to make it meaningful?

Nothing. Making 'good' mean 'like X' doesn't establish any objective concept of good or bad. It just compares against some arbitrary standard. Good and bad are supposed to be their own standard, not a comparison against another one.

Look at the statement "God is good." If we define 'good' as 'like God', you're left with "God is like God." While true, it's a meaningless statement. More importantly, it's not even what people mean when they say "God is good". Instead, they're saying that God meets some other standard.

[seer]

In both cases, there IS a right answer. Either the dress is purple or it isn't. Either something is immoral or it isn't. We just have no way of knowing for sure what the right answer is. That doesn't have to stop us from trying to figure it out, but it should add a degree of humility to our approach. Less "it must be this" and more "I think it's this". Does that make sense?

Yes, this makes sense, but it seems that we would forever be in the dark. How could we ever come to a conclusion? How could we ever really discover what is moral or not?

Look at the statement "God is good." If we define 'good' as 'like God', you're left with "God is like God." While true, it's a meaningless statement. More importantly, it's not even what people mean when they say "God is good". Instead, they're saying that God meets some other standard.

That does not quite follow. Yes God would be good, and good from our end would be that which conformed to His good, but goodness is only one attribute of God so it can't be reduced to "God is like God." And no, I do not appeal another, independent standard, goodness is an inherent quality of God. As is holiness, justice, kindness, forgiveness, etc... It seems to me that moral questions must stop somewhere - so why not in God?