An infinite series of finite causes.

[carpedm9587]

Or they simply value some lives over others, perfectly rational.

That was essentially #2

[seer]

That was essentially #2

No it isn't - they could and did see Jews as human but did not value their lives, or valued something over their lives. Nothing illogical about that. If you saw two children drowning, and could only save one, and one was a stranger and the other your child - you will value your child over the other.

[seer]

Clearly not to you.

How could they be logically unalienable? Because the majority may subjectively agree with certain values? That makes no sense.

No - to be a moral relativist - you have to practice moral relativism. Everyone does.

Nonsense.

Look, you may not want to call yourself a carpenter if you make your living in woodcraft, but it doesn't mean you're not a carpenter. You can call yourself a plumber every day of the week, it doesn't make you one if you regularly work with wood. Likewise, a person can call themselves a moral objectivist/absolutist every day of the week, but if they are practicing moral relativism/subjectivism, they are a moral relativist/subjectivist. I have never met anyone who is not, in reality, practicing moral relativism/subjectivism - including yourself. You can dress it up any way you wish, but your moral framework is grounded in your subjective valuing of your "god," and your subjective interpretation of what this "god" wills - which was actually written down by men. You cannot escape moral relativism/subjectivism.

Moral relativism is a meta-ethical theory, one that most people don't hold - thankfully. The moral realist or theist hold that there are universal moral truths, that belief does not depend on what we practice or not.

You do love Technique #3. Unfortunately, and argument from outrage is just not an argument. I see the Nazi throwing Jews into ovens as no different from you disrespecting/disparaging the LGBTQ community or anyone else who has come to a subjective conclusion that "X is right." Each person see's their own moral framework as "right" by definition. If they didn't, they would have a different one. That does not make them "right" in any absolute sense. They may go to their graves believing they were acting morally, as you undoubtedly will about the LGBTQ community. Meanwhile, the rest of us will work to minimize the effect of the actions of those we consider to be immoral, including both the Nazi and you.

Of course in your world I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays... And what gives you the right to minimize anything?

[JimL]

"Swaying" them is an attempt to get them to value as I value so they will derive the same moral code I have derived. For that to happen, they have to see a benefit to themselves from "valuing X." If I cannot help them find one, they will not value X.

But why would you care if they value what you value, why would you care if they derive the same moral code as you have derived if you did not believe that what you value is right, and that what they value is wrong?

If someone's moral code does not align with mine, then I will, by definition, see their moral code as "flawed" or "wrong." After all, I cannot hold two contradictory moral positions simultaneously. It is also possible they will make the same judgment of me.

But you do not only see their moral code as being wrong simply because it doesn't agree with your own moral code, there must be reasons for believing that your moral code is right and theirs to be wrong, no?

Seer's bigotry against the LGBTQ community is a perfect case in point. He values something I do not (his god). It drives his moral code - leaving him seeing me as "immoral" or "wrong" to support the LGBTQ community, and I see him as immoral/wrong to take bigoted stances against them. Unless we can align our valuing, or I can somehow show hm an error in his reasoning from what he values to his moral framework, we are going to continue to evaluate one another as wrong/immoral. It is possible there is no resolution to that, which means we can exhaust the "convince" without resolution. That takes us to isolate/separate or contend to determine who's moral code will become part of our society's expressed moral code, which means it will likely be enforced in law.

I think we need to leave god out of it because god is just mans way of enforcing mans own moral code. When god comes in to play then all reason and common sense goes out the window.

[carpedm9587]

But why would you care if they value what you value, why would you care if they derive the same moral code as you have derived if you did not believe that what you value is right, and that what they value is wrong?

Of COURSE I believe what I value is what people should value. If I didn't, I wouldn't value it myself. That doesn't make it "objective."

But you do not only see their moral code as being wrong simply because it doesn't agree with your own moral code, there must be reasons for believing that your moral code is right and theirs to be wrong, no?

Yes. Because my moral code is rooted in what I value. What I value is based on many influences: culture, family, community, reason, the reality of my humanity, etc.

I think we need to leave god out of it because god is just mans way of enforcing mans own moral code. When god comes in to play then all reason and common sense goes out the window.

No comment...

[carpedm9587]

How could they be logically unalienable? Because the majority may subjectively agree with certain values? That makes no sense.

You use that claim a great deal, Seer. It may not make any sense to you, but it does make sense. Unalienable refers to rights that cannot be forfeited or taken away from an individual. The founders rooted this concept in their belief in a god. The term "unalienable" as defined by the FFs has little/no application to moral relativism/subjectivism, or atheism. The closest we can come is those basic values that appear to transcend most of humanity, and are rooted in our nature as living, sentient beings.

Nonsense.

Moral relativism is a meta-ethical theory, one that most people don't hold - thankfully. The moral realist or theist hold that there are universal moral truths, that belief does not depend on what we practice or not.

As I noted, you can call yourself anything you wish, and reject anything you wish. Since your moral code is actually subjective and relative, you are actually a moral relativist/subjectivist. That you are deluding yourself into believing your moral code is absolute/objective and trying to impose it on others on that basis is irrelevant.

Of course in your world I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays... And what gives you the right to minimize anything?

In your subjective morality, you have determined that taking a bigoted position against the LGBTQ community is (apparently) a moral act. It is immoral in my worldview. I have already outline that the basis for reconciling that difference is likely absent in this exchange, which leaves us with isolation/separation and contention. As more and more people shift their moral framework to acceptance of this community, you and those who think as you do will be increasingly isolated, with limited ability to impose your views on others or impact others with your views. That trend is well underway, though it is stronger in the developed countries than the developing world or theocracies based on Islam, so there is still much work to be done.

[carpedm9587]

No it isn't - they could and did see Jews as human but did not value their lives, or valued something over their lives. Nothing illogical about that. If you saw two children drowning, and could only save one, and one was a stranger and the other your child - you will value your child over the other.

Yes, you will. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. There is a fairly large difference between proactively killing children and choosing one child over another to save when you only have the capacity to save one.

[JimL]

Of COURSE I believe what I value is what people should value.

Why? Is it because you believe your moral values to be right. If so, what do you mean by right?

If I didn't, I wouldn't value it myself. That doesn't make it "objective."

So, you don't think that either one of you are right? If you believe murder to be wrong and someone else thinks it's not wrong, do you believe that neither one of you is correct?

Yes. Because my moral code is rooted in what I value. What I value is based on many influences: culture, family, community, reason, the reality of my humanity, etc.

See above.

[carpedm9587]

Why? Is it because you believe your moral values to be right. If so, what do you mean by right?

Jim, moralizing is the process of separating "right" (ought to) action from "wrong" (ought not to) action from morally neutral action (can do or not do with no moral implication). Each of us sorts actions into those buckets using the same process: we reason from what we value to what we should/should-not do. Actions that protect/enhance what we value we see as "moral" or "right." Actions that endanger or diminish what we value we see as "immoral" or "wrong."

So, you don't think that either one of you are right? If you believe murder to be wrong and someone else thinks it's not wrong, do you believe that neither one of you is correct?

Murder is a bad choice. The term means "an illicit or immoral killing." By definition, murder is wrong. If we use "killing" instead, then it is possible for someone to look at a situation and say, "killing in this context is immoral" and another person to conclude "killing in this context is moral." Assuming each of us is actually speaking out of our individual moral frameworks, I will conclude they are wrong and I am right; they will conclude they are right and I am wrong.

This is what Seer is largely objecting to. He wants there to be an absolute/objective metric to settle this question. Without one, he sees the entire situation as "irrational" and "without resolution." That is unsettling. Yet that is exactly what happens. It may well be that there is no way to resolve this dispute, unless we can a) convince the other to value as we do or b) find a chink in their reasoning that leads them to a flawed morality (based on their OWN valuing).

See above.

Not sure what I sam supposed to be "seeing."

[seer]

Yes, you will. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. There is a fairly large difference between proactively killing children and choosing one child over another to save when you only have the capacity to save one.

The point is what what did the Nazis do that violated logic?

[seer]

As I noted, you can call yourself anything you wish, and reject anything you wish. Since your moral code is actually subjective and relative, you are actually a moral relativist/subjectivist. That you are deluding yourself into believing your moral code is absolute/objective and trying to impose it on others on that basis is irrelevant.

A moral realist or theist believes that universal moral truths exist, by definition then they are not moral relativists.

In your subjective morality, you have determined that taking a bigoted position against the LGBTQ community is (apparently) a moral act. It is immoral in my worldview. I have already outline that the basis for reconciling that difference is likely absent in this exchange, which leaves us with isolation/separation and contention. As more and more people shift their moral framework to acceptance of this community, you and those who think as you do will be increasingly isolated, with limited ability to impose your views on others or impact others with your views. That trend is well underway, though it is stronger in the developed countries than the developing world or theocracies based on Islam, so there is still much work to be done.

You don't know what the future will bring Carp. But I'm glad you agree that I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays.

[carpedm9587]

The point is what what did the Nazis do that violated logic?

It depends on what they actually valued.

[carpedm9587]

A moral realist or theist believes that universal moral truths exist, by definition then they are not moral relativists.

They are moral "objectivists/absolutists" in theory, and moral subjectivists/relativists in practice. I tend to put more weight on what a person is doing rather than what a person is saying, so (IMO) they are moral subjectivists/relativists. You, Seer, call yourself a moral absolutist/objectivist, but I have already shown that your entire moral framework is based on subjectivism. So what you call yourself is inconsequential. There has never been an actual moral objectivist/absolutist, as far as I can tell.

You don't know what the future will bring Carp. But I'm glad you agree that I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays.

You are right, I do not know what the future will bring. The current trends, however, are promising. As for what you think is right, I realize your relative/subjective moral framework has you seeing this activity as right, just as Nazi's likely see their moral framework as "right." I may not be able to convince you otherwise. If I cannot, then we will end up at the other ways for dealing with the disconnect: isolation/separation, and contention. That is the way it has always been.

[seer]

It depends on what they actually valued.

The destruction of the Jews and the taking of their wealth to help the war effort. So they were rational - correct?

[seer]

They are moral "objectivists/absolutists" in theory, and moral subjectivists/relativists in practice. I tend to put more weight on what a person is doing rather than what a person is saying, so (IMO) they are moral subjectivists/relativists. You, Seer, call yourself a moral absolutist/objectivist, but I have already shown that your entire moral framework is based on subjectivism. So what you call yourself is inconsequential. There has never been an actual moral objectivist/absolutist, as far as I can tell.

No Carp, my moral framework is based on the law of God. Whether I always get it right or even understand it correctly doesn't change the fact that I am not a moral relativist.

You are right, I do not know what the future will bring. The current trends, however, are promising. As for what you think is right, I realize your relative/subjective moral framework has you seeing this activity as right, just as Nazi's likely see their moral framework as "right." I may not be able to convince you otherwise. If I cannot, then we will end up at the other ways for dealing with the disconnect: isolation/separation, and contention. That is the way it has always been.

I just want you to agree that I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays.