Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, you trying to compare an objective, physical measurement with a subjective belief.

You really aren't getting this seer. There is no objective physical measurement until a relative framework is defined. Even then, the measurement is relative to the framework. There is no way to say anything about the absolute speed of anything.

And even though there may be relative considerations in both they are decidedly not the same. Objective measurements are not the same as subjective beliefs.

The problem is you still seem to think speed has an absolute reality. You should reread the theory of relativity. It doesn't.

No, because you have not answered the question directly, you have only attempted to answer by analogy. The reason you don't is that you know that your reasoning will end up in a circle. But I will try again: why is your moral opinion superior beside the fact that it is your opinion that it is superior?

Your question has no answer without a stated frame of reference. The very question itself is meaningless. It doesn't have an answer.

Seer, you are like the person repeatedly asking "what color is three" and complaining that you are not getting a straight answer when the person responds , "you are not asking a meaningful question."

You are not asking a meaningful question - so I cannot answer it unless we have an agreed upon reference frame.

[carpedm9587]

The only way that his moral opinion could be superior outside of his own opinion would be if an unbiased observer considered it to be superior, and there are no unbiased observers. If anyone did believe his moral opinion was superior, then that person would share the same moral opinion. Consequently, lacking an objective morale perspective, the question is meaningless.

Wow... I bow to the master of brevity...

In a nutshell....and FAR clearer than anything I have attempted.

[carpedm9587]

That's the clearest most concise answer so far given...I disagree Carp explained it well, as I have followed the conversation from the start, and I got lost in the explanations. I suspect Seer did as well.

Of course then the obvious follow up question is since there is no way to judge which moral opinion(s) is any more superior than any other, including those that want things that we ALL find objectionable, how then can one be accused of discrimination of any kind?

That can only happen from the perspective of a particular moral framework. An individual can appeal to their own - but the appeal is usually stronger if it is shared by a larger group.

Hence the accusation that "relative moral frameworks are an appeal to the masses."

[carpedm9587]

No, his moral opinion is formed by his personal values. Any opinion that conflicts with his values would of course be inferior for his own personal use.


I'm gonna expand on this just because.

My values:
I dislike cigarette smoke. Ick.
Plus, there are studies that indicate that cigarette smoke can be dangerous. I'm worried about the health risks.

My moral opinion:
Cigarette smoking should be banned.

Me: Let's ban cigarette smoking.
Smoker: No way! That infringes on my personal rights!
Consensus: Let's compromise, and just ban smoking in public areas.
Me: I can work with that.
Smoker: No way! That's too inconvenient.
Consensus: And let's increase the taxes on cigarettes.
Smoker: Aaaagh!

I have succeeded in finding enough of the right people to gain a moral consensus that is mostly on my side, and the smoker has failed. And so I smugly smirk at the smoker, and bask in the light of my superior (for my purposes) moral opinion.

OK - that made me chuckle....

[seer]

You really aren't getting this seer. There is no objective physical measurement until a relative framework is defined. Even then, the measurement is relative to the framework. There is no way to say anything about the absolute speed of anything.



The problem is you still seem to think speed has an absolute reality. You should reread the theory of relativity. It doesn't.



Your question has no answer without a stated frame of reference. The very question itself is meaningless. It doesn't have an answer.

Seer, you are like the person repeatedly asking "what color is three" and complaining that you are not getting a straight answer when the person responds , "you are not asking a meaningful question."

You are not asking a meaningful question - so I cannot answer it unless we have an agreed upon reference frame.

So the bottom line is that your claim of a superiority is based on your say so.

[Cerebrum123]

No, his moral opinion is formed by his personal values. Any opinion that conflicts with his values would of course be inferior for his own personal use.


I'm gonna expand on this just because.

My values:
I dislike cigarette smoke. Ick.
Plus, there are studies that indicate that cigarette smoke can be dangerous. I'm worried about the health risks.

My moral opinion:
Cigarette smoking should be banned.

Me: Let's ban cigarette smoking.
Smoker: No way! That infringes on my personal rights!
Consensus: Let's compromise, and just ban smoking in public areas.
Me: I can work with that.
Smoker: No way! That's too inconvenient.
Consensus: And let's increase the taxes on cigarettes.
Smoker: Aaaagh!

I have succeeded in finding enough of the right people to gain a moral consensus that is mostly on my side, and the smoker has failed. And so I smugly smirk at the smoker, and bask in the light of my superior (for my purposes) moral opinion.

That turns morality into a might makes right, or a majority rules situation.

[carpedm9587]

So the bottom line is that your claim of a superiority is based on your say so.

Sure, Seer. That's the bottom line. And your moral claim to superiority is based on your say so. And CP's is based on his say so. And Sparko's is based on his say so. And MM's is based on his say so. Each of us evaluates the actions of ourselves and others from the perspective of our own moral framework. The moral system is, after all, relative and subjective.

[carpedm9587]

That turns morality into a might makes right, or a majority rules situation.

Might makes enforcement - it does not make "right." The only way to shift someone else's moral stance is to convince them that they are either not valuing something they really should consider valuing, or to show them how their moral reasoning from what they do value to moral statements is flawed. If neither of those things can be done, then nothing will convince the other person to shift their moral stance, and the only thing remaining is to either ignore them (if it's not a major moral issue or has no impact on the individual), isolate or separate from them (if the moral position is onerous enough), or contend with them to prevent them from acting on their moral stance (if the moral stance substantively threatens something deeply valued). None of those actions will convince the other person to change their moral stance - they will still see as "moral" or "immoral" the thing they originally saw as "moral" or "immoral." It will simply contain the divergent view.

We see this happening in the U.S. today with the issue of gay rights. Go back 60 years and those who believed homosexual intimacy is immoral dominated the society, which meant they controlled the legal apparatus and were able to successfully contend against those of us who see no problem with homosexual intimacy. That did not mean they defined what was "right" for those of us who disagreed with them. It just meant their status as the majority gave them more ability to successfully fight for laws that aligned with their moral position.

Now the tide has reversed, and the laws are being changed accordingly. That means some of those who previously thought homosexuality was immoral have apparently been successfully convinced, and we have also seen a generation shift (older people with older views dying, younger people with more open views becoming part of society). But I doubt all of those arguing here that homosexuality is immoral are being "convinced" by the shift in the legal system. They still see the majority as "wrong" and "misguided." They simply (increasingly) lack the political weight to make their point of view the law of the land anymore.

[Sparko]

Sure, Seer. That's the bottom line. And your moral claim to superiority is based on your say so. And CP's is based on his say so. And Sparko's is based on his say so. And MM's is based on his say so. Each of us evaluates the actions of ourselves and others from the perspective of our own moral framework. The moral system is, after all, relative and subjective.

if that is true then as we have been saying, morals mean nothing. They ARE trivial preferences. Your morals are no better than the pedophile's.

[Sparko]

Might makes enforcement - it does not make "right." The only way to shift someone else's moral stance is to convince them that they are either not valuing something they really should consider valuing, or to show them how their moral reasoning from what they do value to moral statements is flawed. If neither of those things can be done, then nothing will convince the other person to shift their moral stance, and the only thing remaining is to either ignore them (if it's not a major moral issue or has no impact on the individual), isolate or separate from them (if the moral position is onerous enough), or contend with them to prevent them from acting on their moral stance (if the moral stance substantively threatens something deeply valued). None of those actions will convince the other person to change their moral stance - they will still see as "moral" or "immoral" the thing they originally saw as "moral" or "immoral." It will simply contain the divergent view.

We see this happening in the U.S. today with the issue of gay rights. Go back 60 years and those who believed homosexual intimacy is immoral dominated the society, which meant they controlled the legal apparatus and were able to successfully contend against those of us who see no problem with homosexual intimacy. That did not mean they defined what was "right" for those of us who disagreed with them. It just meant their status as the majority gave them more ability to successfully fight for laws that aligned with their moral position.

Now the tide has reversed, and the laws are being changed accordingly. That means some of those who previously thought homosexuality was immoral have apparently been successfully convinced, and we have also seen a generation shift (older people with older views dying, younger people with more open views becoming part of society). But I doubt all of those arguing here that homosexuality is immoral are being "convinced" by the shift in the legal system. They still see the majority as "wrong" and "misguided." They simply (increasingly) lack the political weight to make their point of view the law of the land anymore.

And since majority doesn't make "right" then today's morals that homosexuality is OK has no actual right or wrong value. It just is something this society tolerates or does - like using facebook and watching TV, so all of your arguments why it is wrong to discriminate against gays means nothing in the universe. Our allowing gay marriage is no worse or better than the Taliban tossing gays off of rooftops. 'Worse' and 'better' have no meaning to anyone other than the people's relative view of them.

[Littlejoe]

No, his moral opinion is formed by his personal values. Any opinion that conflicts with his values would of course be inferior for his own personal use.


I'm gonna expand on this just because.

My values:
I dislike cigarette smoke. Ick.
Plus, there are studies that indicate that cigarette smoke can be dangerous. I'm worried about the health risks.

My moral opinion:
Cigarette smoking should be banned.

Me: Let's ban cigarette smoking.
Smoker: No way! That infringes on my personal rights!
Consensus: Let's compromise, and just ban smoking in public areas.
Me: I can work with that.
Smoker: No way! That's too inconvenient.
Consensus: And let's increase the taxes on cigarettes.
Smoker: Aaaagh!

I have succeeded in finding enough of the right people to gain a moral consensus that is mostly on my side, and the smoker has failed. And so I smugly smirk at the smoker, and bask in the light of my superior (for my purposes) moral opinion.

That simply breaks down to "Might makes right". Do you really want a country like that? Two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner?

ETA: I see Cerebrum already made this point...

[Yttrium]

if that is true then as we have been saying, morals mean nothing. They ARE trivial preferences. Your morals are no better than the pedophile's.

No. It's relative. It depends on the observer. Each observer will judge the morals based on their own moral standards. One observer may find my morals better, and another may find the pedophile's better.

[Yttrium]

That turns morality into a might makes right, or a majority rules situation.

Well, I'll just rephrase what I said before:

We each have our own morale values, based on our own opinions. We form a consensus as a society on what constitutes good and bad moral behavior. That consensus often isn't formed easily, and there are often many who disagree with the consensus. The consensus might be formed by a majority, or imposed by a minority. It can get messy.

Look around. That's how it's been working around the world.

[carpedm9587]

if that is true then as we have been saying, morals mean nothing. They ARE trivial preferences. Your morals are no better than the pedophile's.

Morals have meaning - it's just relative meaning.
Speed has meaning - it's just relative meaning.

Your post assumes only absolute/objective things as "meaningful," but you have not made that case, and I am pretty sure you don't act that way in your everyday life.

[carpedm9587]

And since majority doesn't make "right" then today's morals that homosexuality is OK has no actual right or wrong value. It just is something this society tolerates or does - like using facebook and watching TV, so all of your arguments why it is wrong to discriminate against gays means nothing in the universe. Our allowing gay marriage is no worse or better than the Taliban tossing gays off of rooftops. 'Worse' and 'better' have no meaning to anyone other than the people's relative view of them.

It has no objective/absolute right/wrong value. But we know that, because it's relative subjective - so this is just Technique again: relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. We all agree that is true.

The claim that only absolute/objective things are meaningful or valuable is not accurate.