Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalism: a paper tiger?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 125 (434127)
11-14-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
11-14-2007 9:49 AM


First let me say that you raise some very interesting points, some very real conundrums for relativism, or relativists I should say. Quite exciting actually.
However it keeps getting mucked up by rewriting some of my responses as cliche strawmen, or (and again this is sometimes) apparently speaking well beyond your scope of knowledge to the point of blatant contradiction. Your Katrina photo and a statement that I have argued "ANYTHING that makes someone different than myself obviates me of any responsibility for their welfare" is patently false. It is in stark contrast to what I said.
If we can clean this up I think what we have to say to each other, whether we agree or not, would be very interesting.
I'm biting at my nails because I want to respond right now, but I HAVE to be doing something else... I'm already late!
Since this has been moving OT, I will return to start a new thread. Man I HOPE it can be tonight, but it may not be for a day or two. It will incorporate a response to points you brought up in this post.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2007 9:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2007 7:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 125 (434183)
11-14-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
11-14-2007 3:53 PM


Your Katrina photo and a statement that I have argued "ANYTHING that makes someone different than myself obviates me of any responsibility for their welfare" is patently false.
Had you ever been to New Orleans? I had. That was certainly a different culture than the one I'm from. Radically different from anything I had ever lived in.
It's not a strawman, Holmes, when I apply your exact reasoning to situations that highlight how absurd it is. Obviously, you have never said that I couldn't help the victims of Katrina. It's just that, to be intellectually honest, you would have to conclude that I could not!
If we can clean this up I think what we have to say to each other, whether we agree or not, would be very interesting.
I think we can.
Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.
Obviously, it would be folly in the extreme to think that the solutions of my culture, my neighborhood, my community could be transplanted verbatim halfway across the world and have positive results. I think we've seen the results of that kind of thinking writ large across the Middle East lo the past several years.
It's a serious mistake to disregard completely local customs, local outlooks, local solutions to problems. It would be a disaster. And to come in as an outsider to a culture and attempt to solve problems in a way that people are going to respect and help with is a difficult problem indeed.
But to say that it is difficult is not to say that it is impossible, or to say that there's no reason to think of problems as problems, or to simply abandon all hope of rendering aid to people not like ourselves, as you would seemingly have us do. It's simply hard.
Think of it like a neighborhood, Holmes. When neighbors can't get over their differences, when they're afraid to engage with each other for fear of misunderstanding or out of distrust, neighborhoods suffer for it. We see communities like these in our own country, in the roughest conditions. And, of course, declining conditions drive residents into even more insular and disconnected attitudes.
But when neighbors act like neighbors, explore each other's viewpoints, share what works for them, and yes - enforce community standards when it becomes necessary - the neighborhood is vibrant. People feel safe and problems come to have solutions. And, hey, what works at one house doesn't work at another, without taking into account how the people of one home differ from another. Obviously. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share. And, yes, when a neighbor threatens the community by violating its standards, our differences can't mean that we don't take action.
It's ultimately selfish to withhold from others the benefits we enjoy. It's ultimately racist to assert that those who are not like us can gain nothing from what we have to offer them, or they from us. I'm sorry you object to that, but it's true. Language, culture, and race are not excuses for us to close our hearts to one another, regardless of what precious multi-culturalism might tell you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2007 3:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2007 1:25 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 98 by nator, posted 11-15-2007 6:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 125 (434212)
11-14-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-13-2007 1:25 AM


Re: A clarification.
I'm not speaking in generalities. I'm trying to find out what you men. I still don't know who you refer to as rationalists, why you bother to mention post-modernists or why you think that "relativists" engage in the sort of contradictions you refer to.
Alright, then let me clarify what I mean. When I included postmodernism, I did so because the societal tone is concurrent with these beliefs. The postmodernist era is using terms like, "tolerance," "relativism," "pluralism," etc. I used Rationalists because many that ascribe to such belief systems often do so against their own pragmatism.
If that isn't broad enough for you, then I'll happily change the title, since I believe you have a point.
The titles are secondary, in my opinion, next to the material. I don't think the actual premise of my thread has even been discussed at this point.
So, if the strawman has been sufficiently slain to everyone's satisfaction, I would like to know if anyone else thinks these inconsistencies present a problem, or if they think it is inconsequential.
The message I'm getting here is the silly threat "believe in absolute morality or Nemesis Juggernaut will lie about you !".
Well, then you got the wrong message.
As you've admitted if there is an absolute morality we don't know it .
Not that we can't know it, but that we can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt to one another. The easy thing to do is simply to defer to a relativist mindset.
But I have a question:
Elsewhere, Crashfrog had said that he believes some morals to have object value-- namely, female circumcision. Is there any justification under any circumstance, whatsoever, that would make the surgical removal of the clitoris morally acceptable?
We have no demonstrably reliable way of even approximating it. So, for all practical purposes there IS no absolute morality. Surely honesty demands that we take a "relativist" position given these facts.
If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.
In your estimation, if morals are only relative, then having an equal say in what social mores become fixed isn't a moral question either. Is it right that some people's morals get more say than others? Would it be right for a group to condemn you to die for whatever justification they could surmise? Is it immoral for them to take away your set of morals?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2007 1:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2007 1:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 2:04 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2007 11:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 125 (434239)
11-15-2007 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
11-14-2007 7:58 PM


It's not a strawman, Holmes, when I apply your exact reasoning to situations that highlight how absurd it is. Obviously, you have never said that I couldn't help the victims of Katrina. It's just that, to be intellectually honest, you would have to conclude that I could not!
If you believe that is the intellectually honest conclusion derived from my reasoning, then there was a serious miscommunication.
I have now opened a thread in the coffee house on this topic. I apologize that it has sort of a retread feel, and doesn't answer all of your questions... but it was to make it as short as possible for a solid intro.
I hope it will be much clearer what borders I actually draw and why. I advanced an attack on your position, however left you free field to reask some of your questions, on top of just responding to mine.
From what you said in the last portion of your post, I think we could have a very interesting discussion. I like the neighborhood analogy and wish I saw it before I wrote mine so I could keep our exchange consistent from this thread to that one. Ah well.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2007 7:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 95 of 125 (434242)
11-15-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
11-14-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A clarification.
Just to let you know I opened a thread on the issue of human rights, moral relativity, and cultural diversity.
If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.
The above statement is not correct. If there is no absolute morality, there can be many moral systems. It is just that there is no way to judge between them.
On FGM, there can be plenty of justification for abhorring the practice. As long as one's outrage is consistent with one's moral system it is justified. The problem, for absolutists, is that for another person they can also be justified in not abhorring it according to their moral system. Relativism would say they are both correct.
In a way your criticism would be like saying just because there is no absolute best flavour, there can be no justification for having a favorite (best) flavour.
If an absolutist can tell which moral system is more justified, then we can answer which moral position is MORE just than the other. How does one tell?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-14-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2007 8:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 125 (434246)
11-15-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
11-14-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A clarification.
quote:
Alright, then let me clarify what I mean. When I included postmodernism, I did so because the societal tone is concurrent with these beliefs. The postmodernist era is using terms like, "tolerance," "relativism," "pluralism," etc. I used Rationalists because many that ascribe to such belief systems often do so against their own pragmatism.
OK, so you were using labels you didn't understand. What you are really against is a general attitude in society. You want everyone to agree exactly on what is and isn't moral.
quote:
The titles are secondary, in my opinion, next to the material. I don't think the actual premise of my thread has even been discussed at this point.
So, if the strawman has been sufficiently slain to everyone's satisfaction, I would like to know if anyone else thinks these inconsistencies present a problem, or if they think it is inconsequential.
I don't think that there are any strawmen present. If you represent your own argument poorly and misleadingly then failures to understand it are your fault. You can't accuse others of constructing strawmen when they honestly misudnerstood what you wrote - not least becasue you didn't even understand what you wrote.
Whether there is a real problem obviously depends on the reality of the situation. So far we have only Chesterton's outdated attack on everyone who disagreed with his beliefs (and no reason to believe that it is anything more than propaganda) and a vague assertion on your part. Without even a real, concrete example. If that's all that there is to it then it's hard to say that there is a real problem.
quote:
Not that we can't know it, but that we can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt to one another. The easy thing to do is simply to defer to a relativist mindset.
There's sufficient disagreement that we can say that even that is an obvious overstatement. The fact is,that you cannot even provide a good reason for thinking that there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality - but millions still believe that it IS morally wrong. The implication that you have strong arguments for every moral rule you might consider is a blatant falsehood.
quote:
If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.
There are two errors here. Since subjective morals are all we have your first statement effectively denies that any morality exists in practical terms. It's surprising how many people who claim to be moral absolutists are in fact nihilists. But subjective moral values certainly DO exist and they ARE what we use - and practically every statement about morality is about them. Denying that they exist is just silly. Secondly there are certainly valid reasons for abhorring female "circumcision" (a needless operation, more drastic than circumcision and without even the supposed health benefits). That abhorrence is not the result of a moral judgement.
quote:
In your estimation, if morals are only relative, then having an equal say in what social mores become fixed isn't a moral question either. Is it right that some people's morals get more say than others? Would it be right for a group to condemn you to die for whatever justification they could surmise? Is it immoral for them to take away your set of morals?
If you've got a better system then describe it. Pretending that a particular set of subjective moral views is objectively true doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And the whole business of deciding WHOSE moral views are to benefit from this false elevation seems far more open to abuse than anything we have currently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-14-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2007 10:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 125 (434271)
11-15-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
11-14-2007 3:35 PM


quote:
The idea that love or respect for anyone requires egalitarian access to role placement, power positions or other, is a specific moral world view and is NOT necessary.
Sure it is.
Respect between adults is impossible if one side thinks they are fundamentally deserving of power over, and in fact fundamentally superior to, the other by way of their gender.
That's what patriarchy is.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2007 3:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2007 4:51 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 125 (434272)
11-15-2007 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
11-14-2007 7:58 PM


quote:
Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.
Boy howdy, is that ever true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2007 7:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 99 of 125 (434312)
11-15-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
11-14-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A clarification.
If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever.
If there is no absolute humour, then there is no humour whatsoever.
If there is no absolute beauty, then there is no beauty whatsoever.
And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.
And if there is no humour, then there is no justification for laughing at Billy Connolley.
And if there is no beauty, then there is no justification for finding Jessica Alba attractive.
Is it right that some people's morals get more say than others?
Morals are just agreements people come to in order to live peacefully with one another. They are just methods for structuring and regulating human interactions with one another. Not everybody agrees with each other on what is moral and what is not, but a consensus emerges. If you want to do something that the consensus considers immoral, you may find yourself facing social consequences. Courts and legal systems are a way of regulating social consequences to avoid the human tendency for disproportionate retaliation enflamed by passion by deferring the ruling to a third party.
In some systems, one person or group of people gets more say in what should be regulated and what should be considered immoral in the society. This is unfair, and democracy is the best way we have of trying to combat this tendency...it is evidently unfair to allow a unrepresentative group of people tell everyone else what is right and wrong in their social interactions.
Would it be right for a group to condemn you to die for whatever justification they could surmise?
It wouldn't be right according to my morality, but other moralities have functioned with this being 'right'. Sometimes they don't function very well, and people start to rebel and demand change; that depends how much of an iron fist the group in question can maintain and for how long.
Is it immoral for them to take away your set of morals?
I'd say brainwashing or indoctrination was immoral, yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-14-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 6:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 125 (434371)
11-15-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
11-15-2007 6:28 AM


Respect between adults is impossible if one side thinks they are fundamentally deserving of power over, and in fact fundamentally superior to, the other by way of their gender.
That there is a link between certain characteristics and certain roles, does not inherently mean anyone believes people are fundamentally DESERVING of power, or SUPERIOR. If you disagree I'd be interested in your clarifying that point given the hereditary v patriarchy example I gave. I think it is valid, and if not why not?
Remember, I'm not trying to discredit the idea that patriarchal systems CAN be misogynist, or argue some vast percentage are or are not. The point is that patriarchy is not inherently a power grab by one gender over another. It can arise, and exist, naturally without much rancor.
I gave the example of how natural division of labor in a more primitive (read lack of luxury and safety) society might naturally lead to division of labor where men are placed in the more dangerous roles. That would make sense based on general needs for communities in such conditions. I think it is our success in achieving safety and leisure time, which has allowed us the freedom to rethink role specification since there are no longer necessities of time/resource management.
While you argued that women can be stronger, smarter, etc than a man, you did not challenge my response that on average (especially in a homogeneous culture) that would not be the case, so why would expectations for roles change based on rarer exceptions.
And I should caveat smarter might no be so rare. Unfortunately, stronger would be a key part of warrior, scout, and hunter roles. It would not make sense to suddenly have a leader from a non warrior background in charge of defenses and negotiations (which could often involve being viewed as physically powerful by other tribes).
Even if a singular woman could beat out all the men of the village, that would likely NOT be learned before roles were ingrained (including by herself).
But again, for argument let's say they saw her strength. There is more to differences between men and women than a penis. I already noted that childbirth and child rearing would eat up a lot of time, so why have that person be a dedicated warrior class? And outside of actually giving birth, women are routinely effected (weakened) by their periods. That's down time.
Further, and pardon my graphicness at this point, in such communities hygiene is not like it is in the modern West. Being fragrant on a hunt would be a huge disadvantage, not to mention leaving blood trails. A retreating warrior force would not want that during pursuits, and traditional H-G societies generally produce excellent trackers.
Doesn't this make sense, when viewed at "ground level"?
That's what patriarchy is.
If you wish to define patriarchy as men dominating women in a naked power grab, enforced by cruel, or uncaring dominance, that is fine. But then I am referring to something else.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 11-15-2007 6:28 AM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 125 (434406)
11-15-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by petrophysics1
11-14-2007 8:27 AM


Re: The catch-22
As a conservative, previous to your posts of the last several days, I held that ALL liberals were irrational. This at least had been my personal experience.
I see now that I was in error, and that we are not in quite as much trouble as I thought.
Well, I think H has a very valid point when offering a caveat to not paint with such a broad brush.
I obviously maintain more conservative beliefs than I do liberal one's. That said, there is no way to discount the fact that there are both wonderful liberals and conservatives. Some of my very best friends are liberals, just as some are moderates, just as some are conservatives.
For me, when I denounce liberalism as a scourge, I do so under the pretense and context of extremism, which not all are apt to ascribe to themselves. Perhaps that's not fair, since it consolidates the affable one's unwittingly as well.
Truth be told, I can handle a moderate liberal better than I could a raging conservative. Perhaps extremism would be the only thing I paint with a broad brush...?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by petrophysics1, posted 11-14-2007 8:27 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 11-15-2007 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 125 (434453)
11-15-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Silent H
11-15-2007 1:36 AM


Re: A clarification.
quote:
If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.
The above statement is not correct. If there is no absolute morality, there can be many moral systems. It is just that there is no way to judge between them.
Then what will you say to the person in another country that just butchered a little baby? Hey, in my country, we think that's bad. But I understand that in your country its fine. Is intruding in their moral code itself either moral or immoral? Which would make you more immoral: Stepping in and supplanting their view on morality, or letting them butcher the child because it respecting other people's morals is moral?
Either way you are forced to make a decision irrespective of circumstance. Either way you have to give up one moral to advance another.
On FGM, there can be plenty of justification for abhorring the practice. As long as one's outrage is consistent with one's moral system it is justified. The problem, for absolutists, is that for another person they can also be justified in not abhorring it according to their moral system. Relativism would say they are both correct.
One group may call it objectively right, while another group calls it objectively wrong. It doesn't mean that points of view are true. One is true, or it is not. Obviously this presents a problem for atheists because they don't believe in God, then by what measure is something objectively good or bad? Its almost as if they would have to default to relativity. Its either that or concede that some kind of Higher Power/Authority exists.
But to bring it back in to perspective, is there any justification in your mind, or any circumstance that would allow FGM to not be wrong?
In a way your criticism would be like saying just because there is no absolute best flavour, there can be no justification for having a favorite (best) flavour.
No, because some things obviously are subjective. Using that as a clever way of getting around a moral principle is an underhanded tactic. Couldn't I just as easily say that unless flavor is subjective, then it doesn't exist otherwise? Obviously not, but that is tantamount to what you are suggesting here.
If an absolutist can tell which moral system is more justified, then we can answer which moral position is MORE just than the other. How does one tell?
That's the problem. How can you prove it? At the same time, can you honestly sit there and explain why you are innately appalled by the butchered baby? When you protest that innocent life being senselessly snuffed out, you are appealing to their better judgment; their conscience. What defense will have against it using a relative moral?
"Well, it sure seems bad to me. I know you see it otherwise. I'm not suggesting that what you have done is bad, per say, I'm just giving you my opinion on the matter."
What justification does the judge have? How would the law make sense? How can we keep people accountable? What would accountability mean in a relative world? What purpose is there in even sharing your opinion in such as way that suggests it is superior to my opinion? Society can't function with such flippancy.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2007 1:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 3:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 125 (434461)
11-15-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
11-15-2007 2:04 AM


Re: A clarification.
OK, so you were using labels you didn't understand.
No, I was using labels I did understand, but was perhaps not using a term broad enough in the spectrum because it encompassed more than just Rationalists and Postmodernists.
What you are really against is a general attitude in society. You want everyone to agree exactly on what is and isn't moral.
That would be great, but its unfeasible, so, no, that's not what I'm after.
I don't think that there are any strawmen present. If you represent your own argument poorly and misleadingly then failures to understand it are your fault. You can't accuse others of constructing strawmen when they honestly misudnerstood what you wrote - not least becasue you didn't even understand what you wrote.
I've stated, in no uncertain terms, that I should have used a term more broad than just Rationalists and Postmodernists. You seem bent on keeping the argument at the level of definitions. What is left, presumably, is mowing down the strawman.
Whether there is a real problem obviously depends on the reality of the situation. So far we have only Chesterton's outdated attack on everyone who disagreed with his beliefs (and no reason to believe that it is anything more than propaganda) and a vague assertion on your part.
Chesterton's piece is not about postmodernism. However, I couldn't help noticing the parallels between Chesterton's contemporaries juxtaposed by mine. When I read it, I just had to laugh aloud. I thought I would share the irony.
What exactly is the message of propaganda that you presuppose for Chesterton?
The fact is,that you cannot even provide a good reason for thinking that there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality - but millions still believe that it IS morally wrong.
The popularity of something is not a determining factor alone. And I have presented a treatise, on numerous occasions, about why I believe it is immoral.
The implication that you have strong arguments for every moral rule you might consider is a blatant falsehood.
Yours, I suppose, are exculpated?
Since subjective morals are all we have your first statement effectively denies that any morality exists in practical terms.
If there was no practicality in it, there would be no need to espouse it in the first place.
It's surprising how many people who claim to be moral absolutists are in fact nihilists.
Please explain this since you are in essence saying that opposites are synonymous.
But subjective moral values certainly DO exist and they ARE what we use - and practically every statement about morality is about them. Denying that they exist is just silly.
Whoa, hang on a minute. I am not denying that relative morals exist. I say homosexuality is wrong. You say homosexuality is right. Therein lies moral relativity. The problem is, absolute morals must exist, not only from a philosophical point of view, but in a much more tangible way. The only difference being that one is not provable by nature. But that certainly doesn't negate the truth.
Secondly there are certainly valid reasons for abhorring female "circumcision" (a needless operation, more drastic than circumcision and without even the supposed health benefits). That abhorrence is not the result of a moral judgement.
What?!?!? Its not? So you are only concerned with the possible risk of health? You see nothing morally wrong with female circumcision from a moral point of view?
Secondly, I don't believe that. By concerning yourself for the safety of a human being, you are in essence espousing a moral in itself-- that its righteous to care about the well-being of others, and wicked to place them in undue danger.
If you've got a better system then describe it.
Listening to what God has instructed. Period. But you won't bring yourself to even entertaining the notion, so that in your ambivalence, you can try and remain justified.
Pretending that a particular set of subjective moral views is objectively true doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And the whole business of deciding WHOSE moral views are to benefit from this false elevation seems far more open to abuse than anything we have currently.
What?!?!?! What in the holy heck do you call laws? Did you make those laws? Did you have a say in those laws? People-- people other than yourself, make subjective moral views objective all the time.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 2:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2007 2:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 125 (434462)
11-15-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
11-15-2007 6:33 PM


Re: The catch-22
You do realize that Petrophysics accuses nearly all liberals of being irrational, while also claiming to be able to read minds, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2007 6:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 12:17 AM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 125 (434485)
11-16-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
11-15-2007 10:41 PM


Re: The catch-22
You do realize that Petrophysics accuses nearly all liberals of being irrational, while also claiming to be able to read minds, don't you?
Yes, but he can only read minds with those who also possess "The Shining." If you had The Shining, you could do it too. If you can't read minds, it means you don't have The Shining.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 11-15-2007 10:41 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 11-20-2007 3:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024