Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[The Thinker]

What do you mean objective? Non-Reductive Naturalism and Reductive Naturalism are both objective? Are they both true? No, they are invented, and they can not both be true.

Either one of them is true. The point is they are not subjective.

Well no, it would not apply in a lot of situations. Sure creatures generally would prefer pleasure to pain. The rapist desires the pleasure of raping. And?

And? And pleasure derived from torturing something else for fun is obviously wrong because the rapist wouldn't want that done to him, and if this was allowed, everyone would be suffering at the hands of others.

But you already agreed that it would not be wrong to kill the deer for food, and it would be wrong to kill the human. And no, as a Christian you know I make a distinction between human beings and animals. I mean sure, you can make up any meta-ethical theory you wish, that does not make it true or useful. So do you have a P4 or conclusion?

I'm not making one up, I'm deriving one. So if you deny P3, then you are saying it is totally arbitrary what we prefer to kill and eat for food. Is that your position?

[Jim B.]

Well I do believe that what is good is what conforms to the will and commands of God, what is evil is what violates those. I would take a modified view of Divine Command Theory which often paints God's commands as arbitrary (see Robert Adams' modification which is closer to my position).

I agree that what is good conforms to the will and commands of God. I would say God's nature is to instantiate the good. There are things God *cannot* do, such as have a perverse will or commit suicide, merely by divine fiat, but that's no limitation on God's power.

[seer]

I agree that what is good conforms to the will and commands of God. I would say God's nature is to instantiate the good. There are things God *cannot* do, such as have a perverse will or commit suicide, merely by divine fiat, but that's no limitation on God's power.

Well we agree. God acts from His good and immutable moral character.

[seer]

Either one of them is true. The point is they are not subjective.

Well which thing is true 1. Moral features of the world are reducible to some set of non-moral features or 2. Moral features of the world are not reducible to some set of non-moral features?

And? And pleasure derived from torturing something else for fun is obviously wrong because the rapist wouldn't want that done to him, and if this was allowed, everyone would be suffering at the hands of others.

There you go, you embraced the subjective; you wouldn't want that done to you to justify your theory.

I'm not making one up, I'm deriving one. So if you deny P3, then you are saying it is totally arbitrary what we prefer to kill and eat for food. Is that your position?

No my position is that human beings are not on the same level as animals and that we deserve a higher moral consideration, which is the view of most cultures for most of history. And even without your logical justification we don't go around eating chickens one day and our neighbor the next.

Also: Can you define suffering or pleasure in a non-subjective or objective way? Is it merely physical? Psychological? And isn't it a fact that suffering often makes us stronger and better able to adapt and survive, and seeking pleasure can make of self-indulgent and weak?

[The Thinker]

Well which thing is true 1. Moral features of the world are reducible to some set of non-moral features or 2. Moral features of the world are not reducible to some set of non-moral features?

Either one can be true, but I think Reductive Naturalism is true. But both are objective.

There you go, you embraced the subjective; you wouldn't want that done to you to justify your theory.

You completely ignored my second point, which even if somehow the first one is wrong, the second one by itself can justify the argument.

No my position is that human beings are not on the same level as animals and that we deserve a higher moral consideration, which is the view of most cultures for most of history. And even without your logical justification we don't go around eating chickens one day and our neighbor the next.

Based on what logical justification? Is it completely arbitrary? Based on personal taste?

Also: Can you define suffering or pleasure in a non-subjective or objective way? Is it merely physical? Psychological? And isn't it a fact that suffering often makes us stronger and better able to adapt and survive, and seeking pleasure can make of self-indulgent and weak?

I think you're confusing the experience of suffering or pleasure as being subjective, with the fact that if person X is suffering, that is objectively true to everyone. Person X's suffering is subjective to them, but the fact that they're suffering is objective to everyone else. Suffering doesn't always make us stronger, and we don't know when it will or when it won't. That's why most rational people don't go around purposely making everyone else's life miserable.

[seer]

Either one can be true, but I think Reductive Naturalism is true. But both are objective.

But you said both were true, but that is a contradiction. So something can be objective and not true? But again, I'm not sure how you are using the term objective here. It seems to me that ethical naturalism is a made up ethical theory and therefore subjective. For instance you claim: Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion. Please demonstrate how that is so.

You completely ignored my second point, which even if somehow the first one is wrong, the second one by itself can justify the argument.

You said in your second half, that everyone would be suffering at the hands of others. Yes, that may be a consequence, but that in itself does not make any less subjective. In other words, why is it wrong for everyone to suffer at the hands of others? Granted I would not subjectively want to live in such a world but that does not make it an objective moral wrong.

Based on what logical justification? Is it completely arbitrary? Based on personal taste?

Yet you just presented a theory based on personal taste! "I don't want that done to me!" Stop being a hypocrite, you can not escape the subjective nature of ethics!

I think you're confusing the experience of suffering or pleasure as being subjective, with the fact that if person X is suffering, that is objectively true to everyone. Person X's suffering is subjective to them, but the fact that they're suffering is objective to everyone else. Suffering doesn't always make us stronger, and we don't know when it will or when it won't. That's why most rational people don't go around purposely making everyone else's life miserable.

It is a fact of nature that suffering often makes us and a species stronger and better able to survive. And when I run six miles or pump iron or get into a boxing ring (well when I used to) I certainly was embracing suffering/pain for a greater goal. So suffering is not categorically bad or immoral. In any case do you have a P4 or a conclusion?

[The Thinker]

But you said both were true, but that is a contradiction. So something can be objective and not true? But again, I'm not sure how you are using the term objective here.

I said "Either one of them is true." By that I meant either A or B. But not both at the same time of course.

It seems to me that ethical naturalism is a made up ethical theory and therefore subjective. For instance you claim: Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion. Please demonstrate how that is so.

That's like saying gravity is a made up theory and therefore subjective. Ethical naturalism is a metaethical theory describing what morality is. How do we demonstrate this so? My first 2 premises do, which you agree with.

You said in your second half, that everyone would be suffering at the hands of others. Yes, that may be a consequence, but that in itself does not make any less subjective. In other words, why is it wrong for everyone to suffer at the hands of others? Granted I would not subjectively want to live in such a world but that does not make it an objective moral wrong.

No, people suffering at the hands of others is objective. It isn't my opinion that a child being tortured with hot knives is suffering. Now the question is why is suffering bad? Given our nature, we don't like it, and it negatively hinders our well being. And if someone wants to suffer, they can get another consenting adult to torture them.

Yet you just presented a theory based on personal taste! "I don't want that done to me!" Stop being a hypocrite, you can not escape the subjective nature of ethics!

The difference here is that you're talking about your subjective tastes for what you do to other sentient beings. Saying "I don't want that done to me," is subjective about what I don't want done to me. Saying "I don't care about what you want done to you," is making a claim on what you want to do without someone's consent. It's like someone saying "I prefer eating humans to animals, and I don't care if seer doesn't want to be eaten."

It is a fact of nature that suffering often makes us and a species stronger and better able to survive. And when I run six miles or pump iron or get into a boxing ring (well when I used to) I certainly was embracing suffering/pain for a greater goal. So suffering is not categorically bad or immoral. In any case do you have a P4 or a conclusion?

All your examples are of things you doing to yourself. That's different from doing things to other people. Imagine I decide to burn your house down because I decide that you having to be homeless will make you struggle and become a better person. So according to you that will be totally moral since struggling makes people better. Right? Disagree? Well then you see why your view is mistaken. We're talking about what we do to each other, not ourselves. That's what morality is. So your examples are misguided.

[seer]

I said "Either one of them is true." By that I meant either A or B. But not both at the same time of course.

Well which one is objectively true - I mean you did say that BOTH were true.

That's like saying gravity is a made up theory and therefore subjective. Ethical naturalism is a metaethical theory describing what morality is. How do we demonstrate this so? My first 2 premises do, which you agree with.

Yes I agree that self-aware creatures can suffer, but logically nothing morally follows from that.

No, people suffering at the hands of others is objective. It isn't my opinion that a child being tortured with hot knives is suffering. Now the question is why is suffering bad? Given our nature, we don't like it, and it negatively hinders our well being. And if someone wants to suffer, they can get another consenting adult to torture them.

But again, that is subjective, not the suffering part but the part, where we deem it bad because we would not personally like it. That is completely subjective.

The difference here is that you're talking about your subjective tastes for what you do to other sentient beings. Saying "I don't want that done to me," is subjective about what I don't want done to me. Saying "I don't care about what you want done to you," is making a claim on what you want to do without someone's consent. It's like someone saying "I prefer eating humans to animals, and I don't care if seer doesn't want to be eaten."

We don't like it

All your examples are of things you doing to yourself. That's different from doing things to other people. Imagine I decide to burn your house down because I decide that you having to be homeless will make you struggle and become a better person. So according to you that will be totally moral since struggling makes people better. Right? Disagree? Well then you see why your view is mistaken. We're talking about what we do to each other, not ourselves. That's what morality is. So your examples are misguided.

That does not change the fact that suffering often makes us stronger and better survivors, so suffering is not categorically bad or immoral. In any case do you have a P4 or a conclusion?

[The Thinker]

Well which one is objectively true - I mean you did say that BOTH were true.

No I did not. I said either one is true. Either A or B.

Yes I agree that self-aware creatures can suffer, but logically nothing morally follows from that.

Logically something does, because the whole reason why there is morality is because sentient beings can suffer.

But again, that is subjective, not the suffering part but the part, where we deem it bad because we would not personally like it. That is completely subjective.

No it's not subjective, my first 2 premises lead to it being objective:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.

Now we're on premise 3:

P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.

It is not a matter of opinion that creating suffering is bad for sentient beings.

We don't like it

It's more than that. Consent obviously plays a role in morality. But you are confusing what you are doing to yourself, with what you are doing to others. Do you not see a difference in that?

That does not change the fact that suffering often makes us stronger and better survivors, so suffering is not categorically bad or immoral. In any case do you have a P4 or a conclusion?

In general it is. And once you understand morality concerns mainly what we do to other sentient beings, not ourselves, your objections disappear.

[seer]

No it's not subjective, my first 2 premises lead to it being objective:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.

Now we're on premise 3:

P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.

It is not a matter of opinion that creating suffering is bad for sentient beings.

Yes, but your problem again is P3, like I said if the suffering of the animal increases my pleasure or my survival why is that bad? In other words, why does the animals suffering take priority over my pleasure?

[The Thinker]

Well we agree. God acts from His good and immutable moral character.

Good according to what objective standard?

[The Thinker]

Yes, but your problem again is P3, like I said if the suffering of the animal increases my pleasure or my survival why is that bad? In other words, why does the animals suffering take priority over my pleasure?

The same reason why another person's suffering takes priority over your pleasure in general situations: because it can suffer, but the more it can suffer the greater the moral concern, and the less it can suffer the less the moral concern. So the suffering of a bug, not so bad, the suffering of a dog, much worse.

[seer]

The same reason why another person's suffering takes priority over your pleasure in general situations: because it can suffer, but the more it can suffer the greater the moral concern, and the less it can suffer the less the moral concern. So the suffering of a bug, not so bad, the suffering of a dog, much worse.

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?

[seer]

Good according to what objective standard?

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

[Carrikature]

Yes, but your problem again is P3, like I said if the suffering of the animal increases my pleasure or my survival why is that bad? In other words, why does the animals suffering take priority over my pleasure?

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.

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.