Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[carpedm9587]

That is your opinion, and you are questioning my motives. That I'm only using these facts (facts if subjectivism is true) to clearly define moral relativism.

Yes, it is my opinion, based on my knowledge of the Socratic method and the structure of a valid and sound syllogism, that your "arguments" are not arguments at all. I have also shown this repeatedly. That you are not seeing it suggests that you may not be as familiar with the structure of a sound and valid argument as I thought. I do not understand how you can NOT see that your primary argument is a tautology, and a tautology is not a sound/valid argument. The statement "moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective" is a tautology. The definition of "moral relativism/subjectivism" includes the notion of "not absolute/objective." So continually repeating this is akin to continually repeating "the blue car is not green." You need to show why "not green" is bad. But you cannot. All you continue to do, over and over again, is point out that moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective.

We agreed on that several hundred posts ago.

[seer]

Yes, it is my opinion, based on my knowledge of the Socratic method and the structure of a valid and sound syllogism, that your "arguments" are not arguments at all. I have also shown this repeatedly. That you are not seeing it suggests that you may not be as familiar with the structure of a sound and valid argument as I thought. I do not understand how you can NOT see that your primary argument is a tautology, and a tautology is not a sound/valid argument. The statement "moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective" is a tautology. The definition of "moral relativism/subjectivism" includes the notion of "not absolute/objective." So continually repeating this is akin to continually repeating "the blue car is not green." You need to show why "not green" is bad. But you cannot. All you continue to do, over and over again, is point out that moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective.

We agreed on that several hundred posts ago.

Oh please Carp, we have seen the depths of your logical acumen in your discussion with Matt, so stop with the pretense. And you are again being dense, no where have I been attempting to prove subjectivism wrong, only to put it in the light that it deserves, with everything that follows. And nothing I said is false or untrue. And yes your moral choices are just as trivial as another person's food or fashion choices - because we are trivial, by nature, so is what we do. And to point out your double standard. You don't like when I conflate food choices with moral choices, that that is merely a tactic - yet by calling what I see as the clear consequences of subjectivism a tactic your attempting to minimize my points.

[carpedm9587]

Oh please Carp, we have seen the depths of your logical acumen in your discussion with Matt, so stop with the pretense.

I have made no pretense of the fact that Matt is discussing at a philosophical level I do not occupy, and have no interest in occupying. That does not mean I do not grasp the basic structure of a sound and valid syllogism, or the inadequacy of a tautology as an argument.

And you are again being dense, no where have I been attempting to prove subjectivism wrong, only to put it in the light that it deserves, with everything that follows.

But your objections remain tautologies - so they say nothing.

And nothing I said is false or untrue.

Since "false" and "untrue" mean the same thing, the "or" is odd in that statement. It helps clarify for me why you aren't getting it. A tautology is, by definition, never "false or untrue." It simply is vacuous. "The blue car is not green" is a perfectly true statement. It simply doesn't say anything, which is my point.

And yes your moral choices are just as trivial as another person's food or fashion choices - because we are trivial, by nature, so is what we do. And to point out your double standard. You don't like when I conflate food choices with moral choices, that that is merely a tactic - yet by calling what I see as the clear consequences of subjectivism a tactic your attempting to minimize my points.

Your "clear consequence" Seer, is something we've agreed upon from the outset. Moral relativism/subjectivism is "trivial" if your term means "without an absolute basis." But that is, again, a tautology. We already know moral relativism/subjectivism has no absolute basis. It is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist/subjectivist. Indeed, since the entire enterprise is to distinguish "right action" from "wrong action," it is highly "non-trivial." But, as with "merely" and "just," you need to toss in "trivial" as a debate tactic, to attempt to paint moral relativism/subjectivism in as poor a light as possible. You have not shown how it is "trivial" beyond claiming it is so, and complaining it is not "absolute/objective."

Seer, every post you make simply takes you back to your core argument: moral relativism/subjectivism is inadequate/trivial/insufficient/<enter disparagement here> because it is not absolute/objective. The entire position is a tautology.

[seer]

But your objections remain tautologies - so they say nothing.

Since "false" and "untrue" mean the same thing, the "or" is odd in that statement. It helps clarify for me why you aren't getting it. A tautology is, by definition, never "false or untrue." It simply is vacuous. "The blue car is not green" is a perfectly true statement. It simply doesn't say anything, which is my point.

This is because all this time you still do not understand what I'm doing. All I'm doing is highlighting the moral bankruptcy of your position. I asked you a question in the other discussion that you passed by. Given subjectivism is the The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children in the ovens. YES OR NO CARP.

Your "clear consequence" Seer, is something we've agreed upon from the outset. Moral relativism/subjectivism is "trivial" if your term means "without an absolute basis." But that is, again, a tautology. We already know moral relativism/subjectivism has no absolute basis. It is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist/subjectivist. Indeed, since the entire enterprise is to distinguish "right action" from "wrong action," it is highly "non-trivial." But, as with "merely" and "just," you need to toss in "trivial" as a debate tactic, to attempt to paint moral relativism/subjectivism in as poor a light as possible. You have not shown how it is "trivial" beyond claiming it is so, and complaining it is not "absolute/objective."

No, what I'm saying is that you can not demonstrate that your choices or your very being is anything but trivial. So you balk when I compare your moral beliefs with fashion or food choices? But why? Where is the logic? They all proceed from the same trivial human nature. And how can you say with a straight face say that it is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist? Do you know all moral relativists? The Stalinists? The Maoists? The Nazi? Appealing to the majority again?

[carpedm9587]

This is because all this time you still do not understand what I'm doing. All I'm doing is highlighting the moral bankruptcy of your position.

As measured against an absolute/objective position, with little basis for asserting that it actually exists, and no actual argument other than tautologies.

I asked you a question in the other discussion that you passed by. Given subjectivism is the The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children in the ovens. YES OR NO CARP.

And we are back to Technique #3, Nazis and Jewish children. So the answer, from a subjective worldview, is "they see themselves as 'within their rights' from their moral framework" (assuming they actually have that moral framework). They are not within their rights from the perspective of my moral framework, nor that of most human beings, which is why we went to war with Germany.

No, what I'm saying is that you can not demonstrate that your choices or your very being is anything but trivial.

I can. However, I can only do so from within the constructs of a subjective moral framework, which you have arbitrarily labeled "trivial" on the basis that it is not objective (Technique #1) and your assertion that it is "trivial" (Technique #2).

So you balk when I compare your moral beliefs with fashion or food choices? But why?

I don't "balk." I point out that you do not have an argument. Just a debate tactic.

Where is the logic?

I have actually outlined the logic several times. It is essentially rooted in the valuing of life, which is common to most humans because it is the root of all valuing, ergo somewhat self-contradictory to NOT value life. The exception would be the person for whom life no longer holds any reasonable possibility (e.g., the Stage 4 cancer patient, etc.).

They all proceed from the same trivial human nature.

I'm sorry you see your human nature as trivial. Seer. That is not how I see mine.

And how can you say with a straight face say that it is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist?

Because, as a self-aware human being, I can reflect upon myself and value my own existence. If I could not, then I would not see value because I could not actually value. It requires sentience to value. Without sentience, there is no value.

Do you know all moral relativists? The Stalinists? The Maoists? The Nazi? Appealing to the majority again?

No - I do not know all moral relativists. I know humanity, so I know that morality is relative/subjective - even yours. As for "appealing to the majority," I have responded to that multiple times now. But for the new readers, there is a difference between, "the reality is that most people believe X," and "X is true because most people believe it." I have said the former, not the latter. If you believe otherwise, please link to the post.

[seer]

As measured against an absolute/objective position, with little basis for asserting that it actually exists, and no actual argument other than tautologies.

Carp, you are posing a meta-ethical theory that can not arbitrate between moral disagreements. So it completely fails as a moral system.

And we are back to Technique #3, Nazis and Jewish children. So the answer, from a subjective worldview, is "they see themselves as 'within their rights' from their moral framework" (assuming they actually have that moral framework). They are not within their rights from the perspective of my moral framework, nor that of most human beings, which is why we went to war with Germany.

Good, so you agree that the The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children in the ovens.

I can. However, I can only do so from within the constructs of a subjective moral framework, which you have arbitrarily labeled "trivial" on the basis that it is not objective (Technique #1) and your assertion that it is "trivial" (Technique #2).

I don't "balk." I point out that you do not have an argument. Just a debate tactic.

I have actually outlined the logic several times. It is essentially rooted in the valuing of life, which is common to most humans because it is the root of all valuing, ergo somewhat self-contradictory to NOT value life. The exception would be the person for whom life no longer holds any reasonable possibility (e.g., the Stage 4 cancer patient, etc.).

But all this isn't a logical argument, these are merely your opinions. And a man can value his life (like any animal would) but not yours, or the Jewish child. And there is no LOGICAL way to arbitrate between the opinion that sees value in the life of the child and the opinion that doesn't.

I'm sorry you see your human nature as trivial. Seer. That is not how I see mine.

I have been saying, given subjectivism.

Because, as a self-aware human being, I can reflect upon myself and value my own existence. If I could not, then I would not see value because I could not actually value. It requires sentience to value. Without sentience, there is no value.

Nice opinion, and?

No - I do not know all moral relativists. I know humanity, so I know that morality is relative/subjective - even yours. As for "appealing to the majority," I have responded to that multiple times now. But for the new readers, there is a difference between, "the reality is that most people believe X," and "X is true because most people believe it." I have said the former, not the latter. If you believe otherwise, please link to the post.

But you were speaking for moral relativists, you said: It is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist/subjectivist. So have you done a poll? Spoke to Nazis, Maoists? Stalinists? You were appealing to the majority of moral relativists.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are posing a meta-ethical theory that can not arbitrate between moral disagreements. So it completely fails as a moral system.

Ahh.. the glimmer of an argument. Except I have outlined exactly how moral disagreements are resolved. It begins by addressing what is valued, then continues to argumentation, isolation/separation, and open conflict. Which is, if you think about it, exactly what the Christian worldview outlines.

Good, so you agree that the The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children in the ovens.

Of course I do. Anyone will perceive their actions as "moral" if they align with their own moral code. That does not make them moral on an "absolute" scale since there is no absolute reference to appeal to. It merely means that that person (or persons) have adopted that moral precept. To refute/argue against it requires uncovering the underlying valuation, and going from there.

But all this isn't a logical argument, these are merely your opinions. And a man can value his life (like any animal would) but not yours, or the Jewish child. And there is no LOGICAL way to arbitrate between the opinion that sees value in the life of the child and the opinion that doesn't.

A person can value their own life, and reject valuing others if they do not live in a social context. If they do, then there is an implicit contradiction in valuing life but limiting it to one's own life. A society that adopts that approach is a society that will not value life in general, putting one's own life at risk. However, if someone were to take that path, then the apporach to resolving that issue is the same approach: discussion/disputation, isolation/separation, open contention.

I have been saying, given subjectivism.

Given subjectivism, there is no requirement for any individual to see their own life, or moral framework, as "trivial."

Nice opinion, and?

It's your opinion that this is an opinion.

Seriously, Seer, it's pretty self-evident that "valuing" requires a "valuer." Without a "valuer," there is no "value."

But you were speaking for moral relativists, you said: It is not "trivial" to any given moral relativist/subjectivist. So have you done a poll? Spoke to Nazis, Maoists? Stalinists? You were appealing to the majority of moral relativists.

It is a function of the human, self-aware mind to "value." If you dispute that, then I do not know how to help you. Every human mind assesses what is to it's benefit and what is to it's detriment. That is simply part of sentience. If you can look into yourself and say, "I do not experience the process of valuing," then I don't know what to tell you. You are denying a fundamental part of what it means to be human - specifically - to be sentient.

[Tassman]

I'm sorry Tass, your opinion on these matters have no importance. I suppose that thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, rapists, drug dealers, gang bangers etc...have higher suicides because society is not accepting of those behaviors.

This is outrageous false equivalence, utterly dishonest and regrettably typical.

And it is not just my personal religious belief, it is what the majority of this country believe within my lifetime.

It IS just your personal religious belief. The majority of the population support LGBT rights and a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy, but it would be the right thing to do even if this was not the majority view.

[seer]

Ahh.. the glimmer of an argument. Except I have outlined exactly how moral disagreements are resolved. It begins by addressing what is valued, then continues to argumentation, isolation/separation, and open conflict. Which is, if you think about it, exactly what the Christian worldview outlines.

Carp, the problem is what is valued is also subjective, so even in principle you can not arbitrate between moral disagreements. So as a moral theory it fails completely. It can not be otherwise. In principle the moral realist or theist look for objective moral truths that are not dependent on subjective views.

A person can value their own life, and reject valuing others if they do not live in a social context. If they do, then there is an implicit contradiction in valuing life but limiting it to one's own life. A society that adopts that approach is a society that will not value life in general, putting one's own life at risk. However, if someone were to take that path, then the apporach to resolving that issue is the same approach: discussion/disputation, isolation/separation, open contention.

Tell that to the Maoist or Stalinist or Hutu who killed millions of their fellow country men.

Given subjectivism, there is no requirement for any individual to see their own life, or moral framework, as "trivial."

Right, but with that opinion and a buck fifty they can buy a cup of coffee. If a street punk kills you for the twenty bucks in your pocket, you could see your life as having value, he doesn't. And there is no way to arbitrate between the two opinions. There is no objectively right answer, and there never could be.

It is a function of the human, self-aware mind to "value." If you dispute that, then I do not know how to help you. Every human mind assesses what is to it's benefit and what is to it's detriment. That is simply part of sentience. If you can look into yourself and say, "I do not experience the process of valuing," then I don't know what to tell you. You are denying a fundamental part of what it means to be human - specifically - to be sentient.

First I was speaking of your appeal to the majority moral relativists. And it is not that we value, but what we value. A man can not value his own life and blow his brains out, which a friend of mine did a few years ago. The Stalinist and Maoist can devalue political enemies and kill them by the truck load - that also what it means to be human.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, the problem is what is valued is also subjective, so even in principle you can not arbitrate between moral disagreements.

Of course I can. We just need to see why the person does or does not value X and engage in a discussion about the impact of valuing X on the person. We may or may not convince, but we can certainly have the discussion, and it can be on perfectly reasonable/logical grounds. You seem to continually confuse reason/logic with subjective/objective.

So as a moral theory it fails completely. It can not be otherwise. In principle the moral realist or theist look for objective moral truths that are not dependent on subjective views.

Apparently not, since all of humanity has been practicing moral relativism/subjectivism as far back as we have records.

Tell that to the Maoist or Stalinist or Hutu who killed millions of their fellow country men.

As you have noted before, Seer, not everyone follows their own moral code, and some people are sociopaths/psychopaths, who lack the capacity to form one. For those people, we usually end up in contention.

Right, but with that opinion and a buck fifty they can buy a cup of coffee. If a street punk kills you for the twenty bucks in your pocket, you could see your life as having value, he doesn't. And there is no way to arbitrate between the two opinions. There is no objectively right answer, and there never could be.

I have no problem arbitrating between the two positions And your last sentence is back to Technique #1, which has already been shown to be vacuous. "Moral subjectivism is not objective," is a true statement - and a tautology. It has no content relative to this discussion.

First I was speaking of your appeal to the majority moral relativists. And it is not that we value, but what we value. A man can not value his own life and blow his brains out, which a friend of mine did a few years ago. The Stalinist and Maoist can devalue political enemies and kill them by the truck load - that also what it means to be human.

It is possible for some people to stop valuing life. That may well happen as a result of depression. It may happen if the quality of that life proves to be increasingly painful with no hope of relief. When that happens, suicide becomes, for the individual, a viable option. It's sad, but it is the reality of it. Unless we can show that person why they should continue to value their own life, which may or may not be possible, then suicide is a likely outcome. I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. I too lost a friend; his problem was clinical depression, which he did little to address before taking his life. It's a painful thing.

The world is filled with all sorts of different types of people, Seer. Some of the worst can gain significant power. When they do, they often attract others of their ilk and can do significant harm. Human nature is capable of a wide range of actions - from the most deplorable to the most exalted. It has always been so.

[EvoUK]

How are people with objective morals meant to resolve them? You're hardly the only one who believes they exist, yet you clearly aren't all walking in lockstep either...

[seer]

How are people with objective morals meant to resolve them? You're hardly the only one who believes they exist, yet you clearly aren't all walking in lockstep either...

Like I said, in principle there are objective moral truths, there is a logical possibility of resolution. There is no possibility with subjectivism because there are no objectively correct moral answers, and never could be. With moral realism or theism there can be light at the end of the tunnel, with subjectivism, never.

[seer]

Of course I can. We just need to see why the person does or does not value X and engage in a discussion about the impact of valuing X on the person. We may or may not convince, but we can certainly have the discussion, and it can be on perfectly reasonable/logical grounds. You seem to continually confuse reason/logic with subjective/objective.

I have no idea what you mean.

As you have noted before, Seer, not everyone follows their own moral code, and some people are sociopaths/psychopaths, who lack the capacity to form one. For those people, we usually end up in contention.

But the Nazis, Maoists and Stalinist were following their own moral code and they were not all psychopaths because millions of them were involved. And you have nothing to say to them, your logic is not their logic.

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea what you mean.

First - kudos to you for a straightforward response without the somewhat usual snide comments many others are prone to. If you have no idea what I mean, then I probably did a poor job of expressing myself.

You have often noted that subjective morality is "illogical." The implication seems to be that logical reasoning can only be applied to objectively true premises. I have shown several times that this is not true. For an argument to be sound it must be structured properly. For it to be valid it must be based on true premises. Nothing in that requires the premises to be objectively true - merely "true." We can logically reason on subjectively true premises as well.

But the Nazis, Maoists and Stalinist were following their own moral code and they were not all psychopaths because millions of them were involved. And you have nothing to say to them, your logic is not their logic.

First, the number of them does not mean they were not sociopaths/psychopaths. Second, logic is logic. It is either sound/valid or it is not sound/valid. It's not "my logic" or "their logic." So setting aside that you are back to Technique #3 with a hint of Technique #1, if we value the same things, it should be possible to reason to the same moral code. If we do not value the same things, then it is possible to provide reasons for valuing X. After all - I value X, which I would not do without reasons. If I can convey those reasons and convince, then I may be able to influence another person's moralizing. If not, then we are back to isolation/separation and contention.

[seer]

You have often noted that subjective morality is "illogical." The implication seems to be that logical reasoning can only be applied to objectively true premises. I have shown several times that this is not true. For an argument to be sound it must be structured properly. For it to be valid it must be based on true premises. Nothing in that requires the premises to be objectively true - merely "true." We can logically reason on subjectively true premises as well.

First, the number of them does not mean they were not sociopaths/psychopaths. Second, logic is logic. It is either sound/valid or it is not sound/valid. It's not "my logic" or "their logic." So setting aside that you are back to Technique #3 with a hint of Technique #1, if we value the same things, it should be possible to reason to the same moral code. If we do not value the same things, then it is possible to provide reasons for valuing X. After all - I value X, which I would not do without reasons. If I can convey those reasons and convince, then I may be able to influence another person's moralizing. If not, then we are back to isolation/separation and contention.

And what, exactly, was illogical about the Stalinist or Maoists murdering or imprisoning millions of dissident for social cohesion and political power?