Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[seer]

Yes, and our personal beliefs about why a thing is moral or immoral is based on some process of reason, I would hope. So I'm simply asking why you find homosexuality to be immoral, by what reason did you come to that conclusion?

That God exists, that He created human sexuality to be shared between a man and a woman, a man and his wife in the covenant of marriage. What deviates from that, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc... are a violation of that created order and therefore immoral/sinful.

[Charles]

That God exists, that He created human sexuality to be shared between a man and a woman, a man and his wife in the covenant of marriage. What deviates from that, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc... are a violation of that created order and therefore immoral/sinful.

But you don't know if God exists or at least you cannot prove it. And I assume you are aware of the naturalistic fallacy? You cannot derive at an "ought" from an "is". So even if God exists and even if he created human sexuality to be shared between man and woman like you describe then how does it follow that it is immoral for two men to have sex? So far you have pointed to dogma. You have not pointed to a philosophical reasoning explaining why it is wrong. You are only at the level of stating that it is wrong.

Did God have any particular reason for creating human beings this way? Could God have chosen that homosexuality was not sinful? Again, we are back at the very questions you have been unable to answer since we started discussing ethics.

Prediction: You will not be able to answer this time either, so my post is going to be ignored.

[carpedm9587]

That God exists, that He created human sexuality to be shared between a man and a woman, a man and his wife in the covenant of marriage. What deviates from that, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc... are a violation of that created order and therefore immoral/sinful.

And therein lies one of the chief advantages that recognizing that morality is relative/subjective brings: a heightened ability to change. As we grow as a species, and begin to rethink old patterns of thinking, the relative/subjective moralist is open to arguments about what is valued and consequent impacts on moralizing. So when the next person comes along who says, "wait, we've been thinking about this all wrong and it is doing harm," the subjective/relative moralist is not locked into binary thinking, and is better able to consider and change. It still takes time and is resisted (we're stubborn humans after all), but the inherent flexibility is there.

The moralist who claims their moral code is absolute/objective can also change, but the mechanism is different. Someone has to say, "wait, we didn't interpret what god wants correctly!" Then there is a long, complex process off reinterpreting what god was "actually saying" to fit the new moral paradigm, and then that becomes the new "absolute." But rethinking what "god wants" is dicey, and is resisted - so you (ironically) end up having theistic moralists hanging on to unjust systems longer than relative/subjective thinkers.

The most modern example of this is homosexuality. The "what god wants" reads as Seer described it above - resulting in homosexuals being labeled "sodomizing degenerates" and denied access to things every other married couple takes for granted (survivor benefits, visitation rights, inheritance rights, even parenting rights). The subjective/relative moralists have recognized this, and realized the basic injustice of treating couples differently on the basis of what is or is not between their legs. We recognize love is love, and holding a position that love between people with the same equipment between their legs is "bad" is really no different than holding a position that love between people with different skin color is "bad." Both are injustices.

But the absolute/objective moralist has this "god-given code" and they have to find a way to reconcile this view with that code. Some sects have accomplished this, but the more conservative the sect that less likely it is to be willing to make this change, perpetuating what most of us (now) have come to realize is a form of bigotry and prejudice. There are still people today who view marriage between a black person and a white person as "bad," but they have been marginalized to the fringes of society, and if they speak that position out loud, they are widely decried by the rest of us. Someday, the same will be true of those who continue to hold the position about same-sex couples, and their voices will not be able to do much harm anymore.

But the shift is young and fragile. There is still a HUGE segment of our population that rejects these relationships, and wants our laws to revert to what they were before. So for those of us who have moved on, and left the prejudice and bigotry behind, we must remain vigilant - so that the situation does not revert and thus require even more years or decades for equality and acceptance to take hold.

[Charles]

And therein lies one of the chief advantages that recognizing that morality is relative/subjective brings: a heightened ability to change. As we grow as a species, and begin to rethink old patterns of thinking, the relative/subjective moralist is open to arguments about what is valued and consequent impacts on moralizing. So when the next person comes along who says, "wait, we've been thinking about this all wrong and it is doing harm," the subjective/relative moralist is not locked into binary thinking, and is better able to consider and change. It still takes time and is resisted (we're stubborn humans after all), but the inherent flexibility is there.

The moralist who claims their moral code is absolute/objective can also change, but the mechanism is different. Someone has to say, "wait, we didn't interpret what god wants correctly!" Then there is a long, complex process off reinterpreting what god was "actually saying" to fit the new moral paradigm, and then that becomes the new "absolute." But rethinking what "god wants" is dicey, and is resisted - so you (ironically) end up having theistic moralists hanging on to unjust systems longer than relative/subjective thinkers.

I agree with quite many of your points. However I think you fail to mention that other versions of absolute/objective ideas of moral code exist. And I don't see why you would be in a better position to change your view than anyone following say a deontological or utilitarian approach (as much as those two views differ).

[carpedm9587]

I agree with quite many of your points. However I think you fail to mention that other versions of absolute/objective ideas of moral code exist. And I don't see why you would be in a better position to change your view than anyone following say a deontological or utilitarian approach (as much as those two views differ).

[CARPESPLAIN]

I think ANY belief that moral codes are "absolute" and "objective" reduces the flexibility of the moralizer. After all, how can something that is fixed to one thing ever change?

As for "universal," all moralizers deal in universals. The absolute/objective moralizer believes their moral code is binding on all people, regardless of their views. The relative/subjective moralizer evaluates all actions (theirs and that of others) according tho their moral code. I do not just believe "discrimination against the LGBTQ communityis immoral" for me to do, I believe it is immoral for anyone, anywhere, at any time to do. As you note, there are many absolute/objective moral codes attributed to god. Christians have one. Islam has one. Judaism has one. Hinduism has one. Pretty much every religion addresses moral issues. As with the subjectivist/relativist, each group thinks their moral code should be binding on everyone. The same is true of the moral relativist.

Indeed, the only real major difference I see between the two is that the moral relativist/subjectivist recognizes and acknowledges the subjectivity/relative nature of moralism, and the absolutist/objectivist denies it. As I have noted to Seer multiple times, we are ALL relativist/subjectivists. We just don't all realize that is the case.

[/CARPESPLAIN]

[seer]

Why should that matter for anyone who doesn't subscribe to your brand of Christianity?

You asked why it was immoral, I told you. And why should your opinion matter for anyone who doesn't share it?

[seer]

It doesn't tell us is A is "objectively" or "universally" good or right (morally), because subjective/relative morality does not offer/have objective/universal goods - obviously. But that just brings you back to Technique #1: keep pointing out that subjective morality is not objective, as if you are actually saying anything.

But by the majority you can not even declare that your values, or the values of the majority are true, worthy or good. So you agree that the opinion of the majority does not tell us what it good, true or worthy. If that is so, why do you keep appealing to the majority as a talking point, as if it has relevance?

So does this mean you are acknowledging it as a functional moral system? If so, you are the first absolute/universal moralist to acknowledge this - at least to me. Most will deny it until the cows come home, and then go back to Techniques 1-3...

No I never denied that relativism could work in principle, but it has not been tried. Most people do believe in universal or absolute moral truths, even as we discussed Moral Realism is gaining ground with atheists. If everybody tomorrow threw off the concept of God or gods, and all men denied universal moral truths who knows what that world would look like. It may not be a world you or I would want to be a part of.

They are never absolutely or objectively true or false, but this is a repetition of Technique #1 and doesn't say anything. They ARE subjectively/relatively true or false.

And that is the problem, no moral statement can be true or false. For instance: "Wife rape is wrong." That statement is neither true or false, or it is both true and false. So the moral statement "Wife rape is wrong" becomes completely trivial by definition. All moral statements become trivial. Including your claim about your most cherished values. And I suspect that the majority of humanity would be on my side in this, that there are true, non-trivial moral statements.

[seer]

But the shift is young and fragile. There is still a HUGE segment of our population that rejects these relationships, and wants our laws to revert to what they were before. So for those of us who have moved on, and left the prejudice and bigotry behind, we must remain vigilant - so that the situation does not revert and thus require even more years or decades for equality and acceptance to take hold.

Moved on? There you go smuggling in a universal standard! There is no place or goal to move on to. The only thing you can say is that you agree with the gay rights movement because it lines up with your relative moral opinion. Presently...

[JimL]

That God exists, that He created human sexuality to be shared between a man and a woman, a man and his wife in the covenant of marriage. What deviates from that, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc... are a violation of that created order and therefore immoral/sinful.

Okay, that god exists and that he created for a purpose is an opinion, not a fact, that you are entitled to hold to, and to obey. But, what makes you think that everyone else has to believe what you believe and live according to what you believe. But let me ask you this then, let's assume for the sake of argument that god doesn't exist, would you still see homosexuality as wrong from a naturalistic standpoint?

[carpedm9587]

But by the majority you can not even declare that your values, or the values of the majority are true, worthy or good.

Technique #1 - the tautology.

So you agree that the opinion of the majority does not tell us what it good, true or worthy.

Technique #1 - the tautology.

If that is so, why do you keep appealing to the majority as a talking point, as if it has relevance?

I am not "appealing to the majority" to make a case for morality, Seer. I am pointing out that I am fairly confident anyone who reads your Technique #2 will recognize it for what it is, because the vast majority of humanity values "life" above "pizza toppings." So when you equate the two, we will collectively scratch our heads and say, "perhaps you can stop trying to just ridicule the position and actually make a cogent argument against it?"

No I never denied that relativism could work in principle, but it has not been tried.

I think you are a bit blind, my friend. Moral relativism/subjectivism has been tried. Indeed, it's the only thing that has ever been tried. See below.

Most people do believe in universal or absolute moral truths, even as we discussed Moral Realism is gaining ground with atheists.

Yes, most do. Most of the world is still theistic. Most of the world once believe the earth was at the center of the universe too. As you have noted multiple times, what "most people believe" simply tells us "what most people believe." It is not a guarantee of truth.

If everybody tomorrow threw off the concept of God or gods, and all men denied universal moral truths who knows what that world would look like. It may not be a world you or I would want to be a part of.

You ARE a part of it, Seer. Indeed, what I have been saying all along is that we are ALL moral relativist/subjectivists. It's just that most people (yourself included) are blinded to it - and believe they are actually clinging to a moral absolute/objective framework. They aren't - they just think they are, for all of the reasons I previously cited. You perceive yourself as a moral objectivist/absolutist. But YOU subjectively value your god. YOU subjectively choose to align your moral framework to what you believe this god wants. However, YOU subjectively interpret what this moral framework means, and are clinging to the current version of that interpretation for your particular Christian sect. If/when your beliefs change, you will subjectively realign your moral code accordingly. You remain the moralizer who decides what your moral code will be. We are ALL subjective/relative moralizers.

And that is the problem, no moral statement can be true or false.

Technique #1 (again)

For instance: "Wife rape is wrong."

Technique #3 (which always includes Technique #1)

That statement is neither true or false, or it is both true and false.

Nothing can be both true and false in the same way at the same time (Law of Noncontradiction).

So the moral statement "Wife rape is wrong" becomes completely trivial by definition.

It becomes subjective, by definition. This is Technique #1 (again)

All moral statements become trivial. Including your claim about your most cherished values. And I suspect that the majority of humanity would be on my side in this, that there are true, non-trivial moral statements.

So now you appeal to populism?

Seer - I am describing a moral framework that has been in operation for all of known, recorded human history. That you attribute your "absolute/objective" framework to a god does not change its subjectivity. Men wrote those documents. Men derived that code. Men have interpreted it through the ages, and reinterpreted it through the ages. Each interpretation by each sect is considered "the" correct interpretation (until the next one comes along). The only difference between you and I is that I recognize my primacy in arriving at a moral framework, and you subjugate yours to a religious code. It is still YOU subjugating your moral framework.

[carpedm9587]

Moved on? There you go smuggling in a universal standard! There is no place or goal to move on to. The only thing you can say is that you agree with the gay rights movement because it lines up with your relative moral opinion. Presently...

Who said "to?" If I get in my car and drive away from a McDonalds, I am "moving on." That is to say, I am moving away from McDonalds. Likewise, when I see an action/attitude of mine as prejudicial and bigoted, leaving it behind is "moving on." As with evolution, there is no specific "goal" in mind. There is a general one: evolution describes the process by which life adapts itself to be the most survivable in a specific niche. Change the niche, and you change the evolutionary path. Likewise, morality generally evolves to "greater justice." When new awareness shows us that a particular attitude or action is less just than it could be, our valuing shifts and with it our moral framework. There is not a "specific goal" in mind, other than to continually identify and codify "right action."

So yes - society as a whole is rapidly moving to recognize that LGBTQ rights have been violated and need attention. Looking back at the scope of history, the process of recognizing how rights have been restricted/denied and correcting that seems to be fairly steady. We don't seem to restrict rights once they have been granted very often (if ever?). There is ONE place where I do think a right that has been "granted/recognized" was done so in error and should be reversed. Buut other than that one exception, the march of humanity tends to be towards recognizing and expanding rights.

[seer]

I am not "appealing to the majority" to make a case for morality, Seer. I am pointing out that I am fairly confident anyone who reads your Technique #2 will recognize it for what it is, because the vast majority of humanity values "life" above "pizza toppings." So when you equate the two, we will collectively scratch our heads and say, "perhaps you can stop trying to just ridicule the position and actually make a cogent argument against it?"

No, you appeal to the majority to decide what is trivial or not, but what the majority finds important or not does not actually tells us what is trivial or not. You keep using this same fallacy.

I think you are a bit blind, my friend. Moral relativism/subjectivism has been tried. Indeed, it's the only thing that has ever been tried. See below.

That is false Carp, most people don't believe moral relativism, for moral relativism to be tested you would have to have wide spread acceptance of the theory. You can't have the majority of people holding to moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism works. Never mind that fact moral disagreement does not prove moral relativism.

Yes, most do. Most of the world is still theistic. Most of the world once believe the earth was at the center of the universe too. As you have noted multiple times, what "most people believe" simply tells us "what most people believe." It is not a guarantee of truth.

You really are disingenuous Carp, when you just once again used the majority to support your claim about what is trivial or not.

You ARE a part of it, Seer. Indeed, what I have been saying all along is that we are ALL moral relativist/subjectivists. It's just that most people (yourself included) are blinded to it - and believe they are actually clinging to a moral absolute/objective framework. They aren't - they just think they are, for all of the reasons I previously cited. You perceive yourself as a moral objectivist/absolutist. But YOU subjectively value your god. YOU subjectively choose to align your moral framework to what you believe this god wants. However, YOU subjectively interpret what this moral framework means, and are clinging to the current version of that interpretation for your particular Christian sect. If/when your beliefs change, you will subjectively realign your moral code accordingly. You remain the moralizer who decides what your moral code will be. We are ALL subjective/relative moralizers.

None of this one: proves moral relativism, and two: disproves universal moral truths.

Nothing can be both true and false in the same way at the same time (Law of Noncontradiction).

In this world Carp is wife rape both moral and immoral.

It becomes subjective, by definition. This is Technique #1 (again)

No Carp, it it reduces all moral statements to triviality. There is no way around it.

So now you appeal to populism?

It doesn't change the fact that the values that you hold are by definition trivial. And when I use an appeal to the majority you dismiss it - yet you use it to define what is trivial or not. Another clear double standard.

Seer - I am describing a moral framework that has been in operation for all of known, recorded human history. That you attribute your "absolute/objective" framework to a god does not change its subjectivity. Men wrote those documents. Men derived that code. Men have interpreted it through the ages, and reinterpreted it through the ages. Each interpretation by each sect is considered "the" correct interpretation (until the next one comes along). The only difference between you and I is that I recognize my primacy in arriving at a moral framework, and you subjugate yours to a religious code. It is still YOU subjugating your moral framework.

Again Carp, you are confusing epistemology with ontology. Even if all creatures were born color blind the color red would still exist and be objective.

[seer]

Who said "to?" If I get in my car and drive away from a McDonalds, I am "moving on." That is to say, I am moving away from McDonalds. Likewise, when I see an action/attitude of mine as prejudicial and bigoted, leaving it behind is "moving on." As with evolution, there is no specific "goal" in mind. There is a general one: evolution describes the process by which life adapts itself to be the most survivable in a specific niche. Change the niche, and you change the evolutionary path. Likewise, morality generally evolves to "greater justice." When new awareness shows us that a particular attitude or action is less just than it could be, our valuing shifts and with it our moral framework. There is not a "specific goal" in mind, other than to continually identify and codify "right action."

When you drive away from McDonald's you are moving toward an objective goal. Home, work, shopping etc...Even if you are just joy ridding for a while you will end up choosing an objective goal to move towards. And the evolutionary process does not care about justice, never mind the fact that in your worldview there is no such thing as justice. What you consider just another man may consider unjust or immoral. And as we have seen when it comes to such questions there are NO right or wrong answers. Just opinions. Logically the state of affairs where gay are imprisoned or stoned is objectively no better or worse than where they are given full and equal rights. Except for them of course.

[seer]

Okay, that god exists and that he created for a purpose is an opinion, not a fact, that you are entitled to hold to, and to obey. But, what makes you think that everyone else has to believe what you believe and live according to what you believe. But let me ask you this then, let's assume for the sake of argument that god doesn't exist, would you still see homosexuality as wrong from a naturalistic standpoint?

Well when I was an unbeliever I didn't see adultery, promiscuity, prostitution or pornography as wrong. Never liked homosexuality - it is just not what a man does. Taking on the role of a woman. And why should anyone believe and live according to what you believe Jim?

[carpedm9587]

When you drive away from McDonald's you are moving toward an objective goal. Home, work, shopping etc... Even if you are just joy ridding for a while you will end up choosing an objective goal to move towards.

Yes - if I define my path in terms of the destination, which is what we do when we are driving. We usually drive "somewhere." That is why evolution is a better analogy for this than driving.

And the evolutionary process does not care about justice, never mind the fact that in your worldview there is no such thing as justice.

The evolutionary path will only care about "justice" if justice provides a survival benefit. As for your secondary observation, you're wrong. "Justice" implies "fairness," or equitable treatment. The social contract (e.g., the golden rule) applies in any moral framework - and is the very heart of relativistic/subjectivistic moralizing.

What you consider just another man may consider unjust or immoral.

You are confusing "justice" with "morality."

And as we have seen when it comes to such questions there are NO right or wrong answers. Just opinions.

Back to Technique #1 (yet again).

Logically the state of affairs where gay are imprisoned or stoned is objectively no better or worse than where they are given full and equal rights. Except for them of course.

Objectively - no. But we know that because subjective moralism is not objective. You're not saying anything, Seer - you're just (again) repeating a definition. You have no real alternative. The ONLY objection to subjective/relative moralism is "it's not objective." But that's not an objection - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying, "the problem with blue is it's not green." We already know blue is not green. What you haven't been able to explain why being "not green" is a bad thing. Likewise, you have never explained why "not being objective" is a bad thing. You just keep repeating, over and over, that subjective is not objective - and I have the impression you think you're actually saying something. But you aren't. As far as I can tell, you don't like it because it's "not the way you you do it." So you have two problems:

1) "It's not the way I do it" is not a valid argument against anything.
2) You actually do it the same way (i.e., you too are a subjective/relative moralist - you just don't acknowledge it), so your argument falls kinda flat.