Marlon Bundo

[carpedm9587]

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

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.

Umm... it's a relative framework, remember? Relativity? What is forward to one is backward to another? So...

...if I believe X is moral, you believe X is immoral, and society has moved to a majority position favoring X, then I and society will see society as "moving forward," and you will see society as "moving backwards."
...if I believe X is moral, and you and society both believe X is immoral and that position is gaining ground, then I will see society as "moving backwards" and you and society will see society as "moving forwards."

This seems fairly simple to me. I'm not sure why it is a source of confusion.

[carpedm9587]

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?

When I encounter someone who's apparent moral code differs from mine, there are three possibilities:

1) They do not value the same things I do. In that case, my path to convincing them is to show (if I can) how/why the thing I value is worth valuing. Example: using Seer's much-repeated "gassing the Jewish children," Hitler may have done this because he simply does not value life - or values it selectively. So I would have to convince him to value all human life equally.
2) They value the same things I do, but have a flaw in their moral reasoning. Example: Hitler may value all life equally, but somehow has managed to convince himself that Jewish children are not human. Now my avenue is to show him how Jewish children are equally human.
3) They value the same things I do and have the same moral code I do, but they are not living up to their own moral code. Example: Hitler may have, deep down, believed it was wrong to gas these people, but some negative personal experience, or some short-term gain was clouding his judgment and he was violating his own moral code. Now my avenue is to show him the disconnect between his own moral code and his actions.

I am never guaranteed to succeed. That is why, when all attempts to "convince" have been exhausted, individuals and society resort to a) ignoring the disconnect, b) isolation/separation, or c) open conflict.

[carpedm9587]

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).

I'll leave the pizza comment aside as irrelevant. And yes, there are logical ways to approach the moral discussion. They are not guaranteed to work because people are not always logical. I just summarized the approach for JimL. I'll let you use that as the model for this issue as well.

Meanwhile, I will note that your objection is still a variation on "subjective morality is not objective." Note that that sentence STILL does not say anything except to affirm the definition of subjective. It's a tautology - not an argument.

[seer]

Umm... it's a relative framework, remember? Relativity? What is forward to one is backward to another? So...

...if I believe X is moral, you believe X is immoral, and society has moved to a majority position favoring X, then I and society will see society as "moving forward," and you will see society as "moving backwards."
...if I believe X is moral, and you and society both believe X is immoral and that position is gaining ground, then I will see society as "moving backwards" and you and society will see society as "moving forwards."

This seems fairly simple to me. I'm not sure why it is a source of confusion.

So then Carp it it is not social trends that measure moral progress, it sill all comes back to your personal opinion. Social trends really make no difference at all. So one wonders why you even brought that up.

[carpedm9587]

So then Carp it it is not social trends that measure moral progress, it sill all comes back to your personal opinion. Social trends really make no difference at all. So one wonders why you even brought that up.

Because the individual is primary in moral decision making. It doesn't matter how many people think "X" is morally right, if I think it is morally wrong, for me it is morally wrong. The social moral code is the expression of the aggregate of the individuals in the community. It will have a feedback influence on the moral codes of some of its members, that is inevitable. But each individual derives their moral framework: me, you, Sparko, JimL, all of us.

And yes, morality is a matter of opinion. It just isn't the whimsical trivial kind of opinion you and other "objective" moralists like to paint it to be. That is what I refer to when I tell you that one of your "triad" of arguments is the "argument from ridicule/diminishment."

As for why it came up - I frankly don't remember what prompted that part of the discussion. There have been too many exchanges.

[seer]

Because the individual is primary in moral decision making. It doesn't matter how many people think "X" is morally right, if I think it is morally wrong, for me it is morally wrong. The social moral code is the expression of the aggregate of the individuals in the community. It will have a feedback influence on the moral codes of some of its members, that is inevitable. But each individual derives their moral framework: me, you, Sparko, JimL, all of us.

And yes, morality is a matter of opinion. It just isn't the whimsical trivial kind of opinion you and other "objective" moralists like to paint it to be. That is what I refer to when I tell you that one of your "triad" of arguments is the "argument from ridicule/diminishment."

As for why it came up - I frankly don't remember what prompted that part of the discussion. There have been too many exchanges.

Then your whole point about moral trends and progress was pretty much meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

Then your whole point about moral trends and progress was pretty much meaningless.

Sure, Seer. That's exactly what it means...

[Teallaura]

A book about "a day in the life of the VP" is "not political?" Exactly how is that even possible?

Substitute 'partisan'. And no, a book about what the VP does day to day isn't the same thing as a book making a point about an issue.

I can't think of an instance where King or Gandhi made their points by targeting the work of an opponent's kid.

[Teallaura]

How political/apolitical was the original book? Has anyone actually read it who can weigh in on that subject? I've seen discussion on that here but it all looked like speculation rather than the result of reading it.

Amazon link to original book.


From article about original book:

In a statement to CNN, the publisher of Pence's book said, "It's unfortunate that anyone would feel the need to ridicule an educational children's book and turn it into something controversial and partisan."

Source

[NorrinRadd]

Umm... the job is a political job. How could a book about a political job NOT be political...?

Perhaps "not partisan" would have been more to your liking?

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps "not partisan" would have been more to your liking?

First, there is a huge difference between "political" and "partisan."

Second, I'm not sure the degree to which it would have been seen as "partisan." I haven't read it. I've only seen some descriptions and it sounds innocuous enough. Given that Charlotte wrote the book and Charlotte bought one of the Oliver books, I suspect "not too much."

[carpedm9587]

Substitute 'partisan'. And no, a book about what the VP does day to day isn't the same thing as a book making a point about an issue.

Agreed.

I can't think of an instance where King or Gandhi made their points by targeting the work of an opponent's kid.

His 24-year old "kid" is a young adult doing something good (a children's book with proceeds going to charity. Oliver & Co. took the opportunity to make a statement about something I consider equally good, and are also donating the proceeds to charity. Although the book is about Marlon Bundo, the parody is about Pence. It is one I happen to agree with. It is also (apparently) a well-written children's book (Oliver had it partly read/animated on his show). I am in support.

[Charles]

Why not?

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

Can God Be Good Without Us?

And if there is a God (which I am yet to see you prove) it seems to follow that since human beings do not have value in and of themselves their value is based on the fact that God loves them and if he did not then torturing babies, killing and so on would be ok. Just like a lot of Christians find Hell to be just, because they don't care for humans but for what what God says. We find ourselves among the roots of religious extremism in this case only with the difference that luckily and by sheer accident, Christians do not go as far as ISIL or other with the same basic assumptions about God's role in moral philosophy (if you can even call it philosophy).

[Teallaura]

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

You forgot whales and dolphins, endangered species, and Paleo-diets...

[Teallaura]

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...

You attacked the analogy instead of addressing the issue - it's a common tactic for you when you don't like the implications or where the argument may lead. Deflection really doesn't fool anyone, especially if it becomes habitual.