Marlon Bundo

[Sparko]

Why on earth would I try to ban the eating of pizza - and on what basis would I classify it as wrong? That simply makes no sense. We're talking about a food preference.

it is an analogy, Carp. sigh.

[carpedm9587]

it is an analogy, Carp. sigh.

It fails pretty badly.

[Roy]

Why on earth would I try to ban the eating of pizza - and on what basis would I classify it as wrong? That simply makes no sense. We're talking about a food preference.

Kosher, halal, meat-on-Friday, vegetarianism, veganism, kapu, uncleanness, restrictions on consumption of beef, pork, cat, seafood, chewing-gum, ...

[carpedm9587]

I am.

No - you aren't. Read what I said again. I rejected "unnatural" based on occurance of homosexuality in nature. I said nothing about defending it's morality on that basis.

Picking nits. You were implying that by "natural" homosexuality is therefore morally OK.

AGAIN, you're going to tell me what I'm thinking?

Explain why. What makes an behavior moral or immoral if it is just a relative preference? Why is rape OK for a chimp but not a person?

What makes it moral or immoral is the degree to which the action protects or threatens something we value. That is how we differentiate "ought" from "ought not" and separate moral from immoral. And by "value," I am referring to our most deeply held values (life, liberty, happiness, health, etc.), not our whimsical preferences (pizza, sex positions, colors, car styles, etc.).

Rape is not "OK for the chimp." It is not possible for a chimp to "rape" unless someone can demonstrate to me that a chimp is capable of moral reasoning. Rape is a moral term. It identifies a type of sexual activity we "ought not do." We know chimps have some sentience, and we know they have some degree of self-awareness. I have not seen anything to make me believe they are capable of moral reasoning.

[carpedm9587]

Kosher, halal, meat-on-Friday, vegetarianism, veganism, kapu, uncleanness, restrictions on consumption of beef, pork, cat, seafood, chewing-gum, ...

LOL... good points. OK - there are some people who will argue pizza is immoral (assuming it has meat). I'm pretty sure it's not about the pizza.

[Sparko]

It fails pretty badly.

no. you just want to avoid the implication.

[Sparko]

What makes it moral or immoral is the degree to which the action protects or threatens something we value. That is how we differentiate "ought" from "ought not" and separate moral from immoral. And by "value," I am referring to our most deeply held values (life, liberty, happiness, health, etc.), not our whimsical preferences (pizza, sex positions, colors, car styles, etc.).

And yet aren't those values simply relative preferences? Or are you saying something like the value of life is an objective value (moral)?

Rape is not "OK for the chimp." It is not possible for a chimp to "rape" unless someone can demonstrate to me that a chimp is capable of moral reasoning. Rape is a moral term. It identifies a type of sexual activity we "ought not do." We know chimps have some sentience, and we know they have some degree of self-awareness. I have not seen anything to make me believe they are capable of moral reasoning.

Why is it "ought not to do?" - that is simply your value. The rapist thinks it is "ought to do" because it gives him pleasure.

[Starlight]

~sigh~ The foundations of morality discussion is attacking again...

Carpedm, I've lost track of the discussion in Apologetics on the subject. Did you ever reply to my suggestion that morality be measured by the extent to which a person taking an action had positive/negative intentions toward others as understood by them? If so, could you point me to that reply because I didn't see it in the ~20 pages of side-tracked discussion that followed.

[Starlight]

Or are you saying something like the value of life is an objective value (moral)?

I would say the most useful way of talking/thinking about "morality" is that it's a measure of the extent to which we value other people in general. A person who values everyone else is a benevolent/"good" person, while a person who negatively values everyone else is a malevolent/"bad" person, and a person who places zero value on others is a psychopath/"bad" person.

Thus when we take a particular action, the morality of that particular action lies in the extent to which it is driven by wishing to harm/hurt others in the mind of the person acting, as a result of how much they value others.

[seer]

I'm making perfect sense. The trend to how the LGBTQ is "moving ahead' both in terms of my moral norms and the evolving norms of society. They are "moving behind" as far as people like you are concerned. If society was not working in this direction, and I thought it should - then society would be "behind" from my perspective, and doing fine from it's perspective. When I buck a social moral trend - I am "ahead" by my assessment and behind by society's. I'm not sure why this is confusing to you. It's a natural consequence of recognizing morality as subjective.

You can't have it both ways Carp, you said:

Partly, for the same reason we experience alignment as forward motion we see lack of alignment as "lagging behind." But also behind as measured against the general social trend.

So going with the social trend is moral progress, but then you turned around and talked about you bucking the social trend, which by your own definition would make you morally backward.

[JimL]

No - you aren't. Read what I said again. I rejected "unnatural" based on occurance of homosexuality in nature. I said nothing about defending it's morality on that basis.



AGAIN, you're going to tell me what I'm thinking?



What makes it moral or immoral is the degree to which the action protects or threatens something we value. That is how we differentiate "ought" from "ought not" and separate moral from immoral. And by "value," I am referring to our most deeply held values (life, liberty, happiness, health, etc.), not our whimsical preferences (pizza, sex positions, colors, car styles, etc.).

Rape is not "OK for the chimp." It is not possible for a chimp to "rape" unless someone can demonstrate to me that a chimp is capable of moral reasoning. Rape is a moral term. It identifies a type of sexual activity we "ought not do." We know chimps have some sentience, and we know they have some degree of self-awareness. I have not seen anything to make me believe they are capable of moral reasoning.

And would you say that the conclusions come to us by reason are subjective or objective? I mean would you say that, regarding morals, there are good, or correct conclusions, as well as bad, or wrong conclusions, arrived at by reason?

[seer]

Why on earth would we try to decide between the two opinions? My like of pizza has to do with me - your like of pizza has to do with you. Both can be simultaneously true without contradiction. I'm not seeing your problem with this. Nor am I seeing how this makes this "irrational."

So one man likes wife rape, and another man doesn't. And there is no logical way to judge between the two opinions. You don't like pizza, I do (had it for supper as a matter of fact, nature's perfect food).

[carpedm9587]

no. you just want to avoid the implication.

As you wish, Sparko...

You are very quick to tell me what my thoughts and motives are. You're usually way off the mark - but I'm sure you don't believe that is true, so...

[carpedm9587]

And yet aren't those values simply relative preferences?

Of course. But they are not preferences in the same way "pizza" is a preference. They are deeply rooted preferences like "I value life." and "I value liberty" and "I value happiness." The things we value, we seek to protect. So our moral reasoning is, "if I value life, doing X will protect/enhance life, so it is moral. Doing Y will threaten/diminish life, so it is immoral." We only use the term "morality" in relation to these core values - which are not easily changed. I know no one who uses the term "morality" in reference to pizza.

Or are you saying something like the value of life is an objective value (moral)?

There is no objective value nor is there an objective moral code. The reality is, most of us value life. Most of us value liberty. Our common human condition leads us to value similar things. But what we value is not always identical and the order in which we value is not the same person-to-person. The more similar are the things we value, the more similar our moral codes will be as a result.

Why is it "ought not to do?" - that is simply your value. The rapist thinks it is "ought to do" because it gives him pleasure.

It's a fairly simple formula, Sparko. Each of us seeks to protect what we value. So we say "ought do" to actions that protect/enhance what we value, and we say "ought not" to things that threaten or diminish them. this does not seem overly complex to me.

[carpedm9587]

~sigh~ The foundations of morality discussion is attacking again...

Carpedm, I've lost track of the discussion in Apologetics on the subject. Did you ever reply to my suggestion that morality be measured by the extent to which a person taking an action had positive/negative intentions toward others as understood by them? If so, could you point me to that reply because I didn't see it in the ~20 pages of side-tracked discussion that followed.

LOL. Yes - we are going around again, it seems. I do not know if I responded to you then. I can tell you that I believe the intent behind our actions is indeed a critical part of moralizing - it is not just the action itself. Then you get into all sorts of nuances about actions that intend a good outcome but utilize an immoral means, so intent is not sufficient. For example, if my family is starving, I cannot morally justify stealing food from an elderly couple to feed them if by that act I cause the elderly couple to starve. Is it moral, however, for me to steal from a rich man so I can feed my starving family? Some would look at that and say, "life is a higher value than wealth, so it is a moral act." I look at it and say, I am obligated to protect life above wealth, but that does not render the theft moral. And if there is any way I can feed my family WITHOUT stealing, I am morally obligated to take that path.