|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A critique of moral relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm talking about the current series of posts which aren't directly related to the marriage issue. He's not being specific now, he's being vague and evasive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm not making you. You CHOSE to. I'm just asking you to explain why you think that's what he believes when it seems very unlikely to me. And if you don't know it then I think you shouldn't have done it at all. But it was your decision to to it - unprompted by me. So don't blame me for 'making' you do it. Because it isn't true. I've discussed the issue of contraception with Catholics in the past and the Catholic church seems confused on the matter. Still the official position is that NFP is acceptable and it is therefore not required that every sex act be for the purpose of reproduction. Moreover, infertile couples are permitted to marry and have sex and therefore producing children is not a necessary part of marriage or sex to the RC Church either. And the Catholic Church takes a relatively hard line on this issue so to suggest that mainstream Christianity takes an even harder line is quite wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your first post misrepresented mainstream Christian doctrine. Your second admitted that but said that we should assume that NJ had those views - for no good reason. And in the third you insisted that you didn't want to talk about NJ's views (and tried to blame me for "making" you do it) - having just done exactly that.
So I have to wonder what the real point of any of it was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Two points off the top of my head. The "is murder wrong" question where he doesn't explain which definition of murder he's using (despite all the discussion) and only in his last post did he mention that he meant "absolutely wrong" which presumably means wrong in an absolute sense.
The second is the basis of the link between homosexuality and bestiality in his argument which he refuses to explain. And there's no explicit references or links in the posts you list. It seems more like general memories (which may or may not refer back to the threads you have in mind)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there. Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is. Simply arguing that both are forbidden in Leviticus won't do since it doesn't touch on the reasons why they are forbidden. If thats all he's got - and it seems it is - then my point, that he sees them as arbitrary rules - is sustained. Which is why it's odd that you and he keep disagreeing with me but not producing any valid alternative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well I'm not doing that. I'm asking him to explain what he's saying now.
quote: This is the first time you've given a reference to a specific thread - I certainly didn't know it was "the Haggard thread" you were talking about. And if someone is making vague comments now the answer is not to go diving into the archives in the hope of finding some explanation somewhere. If NJ had provided a clear reference in place of simply answering then I would not be complaining - but that's not the case. Trawling the archives is not the same as following a link or even being given the name of a thread (and even searching a thread can be something of a chore, even with the 300 post limit)
quote: He's been vague in this thread and the other threads run at the same time. And you haven't been pointing at anywhere specific. Just because he has bene more specific at some time in the past is no excuse for refusing to explain himself with anything other than denials.
quote: Well you disagreed with me when I said that the connection was that there was nothing actually wrong with either. And that's saying the same thing.
quote: Well if there's no good reason for allowing or forbidding any particular marriage - which is your version of NJs position - why worry about it ? I'd say that there are good reasons for allowing marriages on more or less the current basis (it seems to work and wholesale change would cause problems which require us to justify making the change). Fairness requires that we extend that to gays (because their relationships are so similar to heterosexual relationships that we consider valid marriages) and because they are denied some of the basic benefits (like hospital visiting rights for partners) on the basis that they are not married. But there's no such reason to extend it to allow marriage to non-humans until there are non-humans actually capable of being a full partner in a marriage.
quote: The only objectionable thing there is that it isn't really true. It's an official position that doesn't really reflect the attitudes on the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I find Rrhain's recent posts rather ranty so I tend to skim those.
quote: I guess you still don't understand my point. NJ is explicitly arguing that unless you think that homosexuality is immoral you shouldn't think that the other things on the list are immoral either. But there has to be some basis for this argument. And if it isn't that the various behaviours are so similar that the same objections must apply to each or that there is no good reason to forbid any of them it must be based on an understanding of the reasons WHY they should be banned. So if he shrugs his shoulders and says "I dunno" he's saying that his argument is unfounded since he doesn't know of any basis for it.
quote: Have a look at the earlier posts in the Haggard thread again. Archer Opteryx points out that Iano regards Jar wanting Hovind to get the sentence he's earned as far worse than Haggard taking crystal meth and paying a male prostitute for gay sex.... Talk about subjective morality ! Anyway looking at the thread it looks like NJ's argument is that non-absolute morals should be ignored. And he's ignoring all the refutations, including my point that in saying that he's arguing for nihilism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well that's interesting because I HAVE been listening to what I am saying. I wish I could honestly say that you have been listening to what I've been saying. But I can't,
quote: Because I can see reasons to object to bestiality which I consider adequate and I can't see similar reasons to object to homosexuality. Why can't I do that ? That's what I'm asking and you aren't answering.
quote: You are considered a bigot because you keep making inflammatory comparisons and some take them as representing your true thoughts. How does this contradict moral relativism ? Your second point is even sillier. If I've got a standard I just compare the action against the standard. What on earth is the problem there ? Where's this supposed compromise ?
quote: In some cases it is because of your choice of examples. In my case the assertion hasn't passed over my head. It's just that you haven't managed to support it. Even when I ask.
quote: So far as I know nobody uses the first argument. The latter in is only used as a refutation of the claim that homosexuality is unnatural - without the qualification that it is only unnatural to humans. True it leaves open the possibility that homosexuality might be unnatural to humans - but it does refute any suggestion that homosexual behaviour should be automatically considered unnatural. In the context it is actually used it's good enough - unless and until a case is made that homosexual behaviour really is unnatural to humans. I've not seen that done. The usual response is to shift the goal-posts. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes it does. The question is, do I have a good case ? Who do other people agree with ? Whose position is more consistent with basic moral principles ? And you can't offer anything better. You've admitted that you can't prove any moral absolutes. Believing in moral absolutes won't solve disagreements - not in itself.
quote: Calling someone a bigot is not really a moral judgement, so your point fails. To make it work you would have to admit to being a bigot but argue that tere was nothing wrong with that.
quote: I hope that means that you are not going to turn to nihilism to "prove" your point. Because it won't.
quote: Why not ? It doesn't follow from the arguments raised. You get called a bigot because you keep making these assertions without providing any reason why you need to do it. Your behaviour does raise the reasonable suspicion that you think that all these activities are equivalent.
quote: In this case mainly from society, although there may be a genetic element, too. (There almost certainly is in the case of incest).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:I refer you to your title for this subthread. I have already stated that morality is intersubjective and used language as an analogy. Agreement is important. quote:The most basic elements of morality - those that lie at the base of our social instincts. e..g fairness. quote: i.e. your point is irrelevant since the problem is there even if we believe in an absolute morality. And relative systems work too - so long as they aren't challenged. But any system will be challenged because - as you admit - there's no way to prove any system correct. Sooner or later someone will challenge the status quo. And in a world like ours with competing systems that claim to be moral absolutes you will never get a system that is unchallenged unless you lock yourselves away from the world.
quote: Only because you agree that it is morally wrong to be a bigot. Look at the definition.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source big·ot [big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. No explicit reference to a moral judgement there.
quote:I based that comment on your argument that only absolute morals count. If you really believe that then an acceptance that we don't have an absolute morality could lead you to nihilism - and your statement resembled a threat closely enough that it could have meant that. quote:Sorry I can't let you get away with evading this issue - after all it's a perfect opportunity for you to show that you are not a bigot. That you actually have a good reason for linking homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia and incest in your argument. Odd that you are so reluctant to take advantage of it. And the forum rules do require you to support your points. quote:No, I'm suggesting that it looks as if you are implying that the acts are so similar that they should be judged together. I'm sure that you're going to prove that isn't so by providing a good argument instead of just evading the issue. Again. quote:THIS society is divided on the issue. Enough people do not feel that homosexuality is wrong - or that if it is wrong there should still be no legal or civil penalties for homosexuality and homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. The law now provides for a good deal of equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Even in your society things have moved that way in parts at least. And of course getting morals form society isn't simply a matter of agreeing with the majority. There is still an individual element, differing priorities, different evaluations, different applications of the basic moral principles. quote:I refer you back to your chosen title. I am referring to a genetic basis for aspects of morality - e.g. the aversion to incest. Not to advantages or disadvantages of genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes, that is what he's saying. It still makes no sense. Why can't my relative code permit homosexuality and bar the rest ? And why does he keep evading the question ? Obviously he's hiding something. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: OK so lets go over the problems with that position. Firstly the fact that I haven't given those reasons doesn't offer much support to your claim that there I can't possibly have any. The more so since others HAVE given reasons. Secondly even if I didn't have reasons others could - and you know that they do. Thirdly at this point you are arguing FOR permitting bestiality. The only concession you can reasonably hope to get is that there is nothing wrong with bestality. For the record I consider bestiality to be the equivalent of using a live animal as a sex toy. The animal is not capable of giving rational consent and cannot be assumed to have any desire for the act whatsoever. Moreover the animal is likely to suffer distress or even actual physical harm.
quote: All I did was explain why others called you a bigot. That isn't making a rule.The reason I gave was NOT simply objecting to homosexuality but the offensive way you go about it. Thirdly the rule you falsely attribute to me does not involve any judgement of you whatosever. So honesty compels me to deny your assertion.
quote: It does mean something to you. That's why you're so determined to deny it. And no I'm not appealing to any universal moral - just the common element of our moral standards. So the "contradiction: is simply your invention. It's what you want me to say - not what I said. And the fun thing is that I haven't even called you a bigot yet. Want to read tht e title of the post again ?
quote:If I did call you a bigot it would still be saying something other than the moral judgement you (incorrectly) attribute to it. It would still mean that you are intolerant and prejudiced even if you see nothing wrong with that. quote: You can't just scroll down and look ?
quote: And the answer is by applying the standard. If you've got a standard of good and evil you use it to work out what is good and what is evil. Isn't that obvious.
quote: An axiom should be self-evidently true. Not something that on the face of it appears to be false. You've had answers to your specific examples. You haven't demonstrated any contradictions. Invented, yes, but that doesn't count. Resorting to fabrication only shows the weakness of your case. {add para}So can you actually explain the basis of your argument ? Because I see none that is self-evidently - or even probably - true. And your continued evasion only makes it more likely that you are simply using it as an excuse to be offensive - or that you are hiding your reasons because you really are the bigot that some have concluded that you are. {end} quote:The fact that animals do engage in homosexual behaviour demonstrates that it is natural to them. quote: Assuming that your argument does not rely on equivocation it's a strawman. Nobody is making the argument you mention. So you've got no point. Just more misrepresentation. Edited by PaulK, : Added paragraph (marked) to emphasise a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I missed this the first time. It misses my point completely.The equivalence I refer to is an equivalence of the acts - a very close equivalence of the acts - not the moral judgement made about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I largely agree. There are shared basics and they are part of human nature. Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.
The points of difference are less important. I'd put fairness up with the rest, no matter that it overlaps with empathy. I'd also point out that application of the values listed does require knowledge. I'd point out that old applications of these basic values can become traditions, and adhered to even if the original basis has been discredited or forgotten. The systems of morality we have constructed around the basic underlying values are almost entirely learned, not derived anew. This they may contain errors or rules that no longer make sense given our current society - which, of course, has greatly changed over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: A very important point. I have to agree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024