Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

First, we are not moral relativists in practice or theory. Even if we don't always grasp universal moral truths or get some wrong. These truths don't depend on our subjective understanding.

We all recognize that you believe this. Unfortunately, you simply have no mechanism for showing it to be true. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence is that moral "realists" (as you like to call yourselves) are "realists" in theory only, with no means for substantiating the content (or even existence) their "real" and "objective" moral code.

Second, it is deeper than this. If there are no universal moral truths then there is no objective good or evil, nor can there be.

Well - sort of. Every person's subjective moral code is objective to everyone else. And then there are the moral codes that have been documented in various places, which also have an objective reality. What you mean (I think) is there is no "absolute" moral code. We've already agree that this is true. I'm not sure what repeating it gets you.

Of course most people do believe that are objective moral categories. That somethings are universally right and wrong. God help us, literally, if the majority of humans embraced relativism - it would be hell on earth. It would be unlivable.

Since that has never actually happened - and most humans still think they are moral realists - you are speculating without substance. This is an argument based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), not fact.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I assume God, I am a Christian. But would you agree that since I am I should acquiescence to Biblical teachings?

Of course not. I think the entire notion of "being a Christian" as it is understood by most in modern times, is a mistake. I have no problem with someone admiring and even following many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, so long as they find true value in them. Anyone who follows a teaching, however, because of the teacher that uttered it (or recorders that claim he did), is (as I have noted before), forfeiting their autonomy. They are not different than the moonies, or the followers of any other cult group who follow that group because of the charisma of the leader, instead of the value of the teachings.

That I should give up some autonomy to the One I believe is all knowing?

No. And the reason is simple: when you give up autonomy to the "all knowing," you lock yourself out of any possibility of error in your beliefs, and lock yourself into this hypothetical being. If they actually do not exist (as I believe) you have no path to recovering your autonomy. It is a self-perpetuating delusion.

Wouldn't that be that rational thing to do from my worldview?

See above.

Well I'm not sure what trends you are looking at. Just the West? In China for instance, religion is on the rise. The same in Russia. Never mind Asian countries where Islam is on the Rise. BTW - your common activities like raising children, politics, social-justice, etc... cause as much division as anything else. And of course religion offers something that no secular system can, hope... A concept that may in fact be necessary for our psychological well being.

I am looking at things from an aggregate perspective. While there is indeed growth in parts of Asia (which is almost inevitable in Russia and China, given the long history of suppressing religions), Africa, Southern Asia, Canada, parts of Europe, and South America are roughly at a dead heat, and "Nones" (no religious affiliation) are on the ascent in the U.S., Australia, and most of Europe. And given the number of things the west does that get picked up by the rest of the world, I suspect this too will follow that path.

And hope is not unique to religions, Seer. I am an atheist and I have hope for and in many things. I do not hope for "eternal life" because (obviously) I find that a waste of time and energy and, frankly, I think the entire concept is oversold. I have no desire to exist for all eternity. The very idea is revolting to me. I frankly don't think the religiously inclined have thought it through. They posit an infinity of rhapsodic bliss in the presence of the divine. The entire thing strikes me as singularly unattractive.

My hope lies in the things I can touch and feel and do. These things have a tangible reality. Life is enough for me...by a lot.

[seer]

We all recognize that you believe this. Unfortunately, you simply have no mechanism for showing it to be true. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence is that moral "realists" (as you like to call yourselves) are "realists" in theory only, with no means for substantiating the content (or even existence) their "real" and "objective" moral code.

Oh please Carp, there are a lot of things we believe intuitively that can not be demonstrated empirically. And I mean fundamental things. You have agreed with this proposition in the past. Then of course it fits my Christian worldview, based on Biblical revelation.

Well - sort of. Every person's subjective moral code is objective to everyone else. And then there are the moral codes that have been documented in various places, which also have an objective reality. What you mean (I think) is there is no "absolute" moral code. We've already agree that this is true. I'm not sure what repeating it gets you.

No there are no objective moral codes, whether they have been documented or not - they are still completely subjective - just written down. It may be an objective fact that you have moral code A, but moral code A is still subjective. And yes, what I mean that there is no good and evil - period. You believe that A is good, Joe believes that A is evil. There can be no independent of determining which opinion is correct.

Since that has never actually happened - and most humans still think they are moral realists - you are speculating without substance. This is an argument based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), not fact.

Right, well I just look to the histories of where moral relativism has been widely accepted. Soviet Union, Cambodia, the cultural revolution in China. But since I believe that men are inherently religious, probably genetically so, I doubt we will experience that particular horror of relativism. Humans generally have better sense.

[seer]

Of course not. I think the entire notion of "being a Christian" as it is understood by most in modern times, is a mistake. I have no problem with someone admiring and even following many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, so long as they find true value in them. Anyone who follows a teaching, however, because of the teacher that uttered it (or recorders that claim he did), is (as I have noted before), forfeiting their autonomy. They are not different than the moonies, or the followers of any other cult group who follow that group because of the charisma of the leader, instead of the value of the teachings.

No. And the reason is simple: when you give up autonomy to the "all knowing," you lock yourself out of any possibility of error in your beliefs, and lock yourself into this hypothetical being. If they actually do not exist (as I believe) you have no path to recovering your autonomy. It is a self-perpetuating delusion.

You have not answer the question Carp, I don't need you to pontificate on why you don't believe, your unbelief has nothing to do with my point. Now answer the question directly: Why shouldn't I acquiescence to Biblical teachings if I believe really they are the oracles of an all knowing God? On what logical basis could I dispute an omniscient Being?

And hope is not unique to religions, Seer. I am an atheist and I have hope for and in many things. I do not hope for "eternal life" because (obviously) I find that a waste of time and energy and, frankly, I think the entire concept is oversold. I have no desire to exist for all eternity. The very idea is revolting to me. I frankly don't think the religiously inclined have thought it through. They posit an infinity of rhapsodic bliss in the presence of the divine. The entire thing strikes me as singularly unattractive.

Right I forgot, you agree with Existential nihilism - don't see any hope there. Everything you love, all your dreams, all your acts, your very life, are, in the end, dust. Atheism is a cult of death...

[carpedm9587]

Oh please Carp, there are a lot of things we believe intuitively that can not be demonstrated empirically. And I mean fundamental things. You have agreed with this proposition in the past. Then of course it fits my Christian worldview, based on Biblical revelation.

Oh please, Seer, the fact that a lot of things we believe intuitively that cannot be demonstrated empirically does not make them true. And I mean even the fundamental things. I've expressed this position in the past. And the fact that it fits your Christian worldview, based on Biblical revelation doesn't say much of anything.

(pst...adding "oh please" in front of an argument, doesn't really do much to bolster it. Don't you think? )

No there are no objective moral codes, whether they have been documented or not - they are still completely subjective - just written down. It may be an objective fact that you have moral code A, but moral code A is still subjective. And yes, what I mean that there is no good and evil - period. You believe that A is good, Joe believes that A is evil. There can be no independent of determining which opinion is correct.

So I think a thing that is objective has a reality that is independent of my opinions, ideas, or thoughts. So when you tell me your subjective moral code, and write it down for me - that moral code is objective to me. It may be subjective to you - but a thing is not "absolutely objective" or "absolutely subjective." Unless, of course, you are prone to binary thinking...

Right, well I just look to the histories of where moral relativism has been widely accepted. Soviet Union, Cambodia, the cultural revolution in China. But since I believe that men are inherently religious, probably genetically so, I doubt we will experience that particular horror of relativism. Humans generally have better sense.

I see no evidence that "moral relativism" was widely accepted in any off those arenas. True moral relativists are still very rare. Even most atheists will argue that there are "moral absolutes." They just don't root them in a god.

So I look forward to the day when, as with physics, humanity embraces the reality of moral relativism, and stops looking to non-existent, god-centered, moral norms. When that happens, instead of uncritically sucking down every moral concept (including the really bad ones), they will think critically and jettison the bad and keep the good.

And yes, I know "bad" and "good" have no meaning outside of moral absolutism. The reality is, they have no objective/absolute meaning (by definition). That does not deprive them of meaning. It just means their meaning is relative/subjective.

[seer]

Oh please, Seer, the fact that a lot of things we believe intuitively that cannot be demonstrated empirically does not make them true. And I mean even the fundamental things. I've expressed this position in the past. And the fact that it fits your Christian worldview, based on Biblical revelation doesn't say much of anything.

(pst...adding "oh please" in front of an argument, doesn't really do much to bolster it. Don't you think? )

Right and just because you believe that what goes on in your head correspond to reality doesn't make it true.

So I think a thing that is objective has a reality that is independent of my opinions, ideas, or thoughts. So when you tell me your subjective moral code, and write it down for me - that moral code is objective to me. It may be subjective to you - but a thing is not "absolutely objective" or "absolutely subjective." Unless, of course, you are prone to binary thinking..

.

So if something isn't absolutely subjective it is relatively subjective? Relatively objective? What does that even mean? The fact is all moral ideals are subjective in your world, even if you do write them down. That does change their subjective nature. But here you are again, an atheist, trying to squeeze some semblance of objectivity out of your morally bankrupt subjective world.

So I look forward to the day when, as with physics, humanity embraces the reality of moral relativism, and stops looking to non-existent, god-centered, moral norms. When that happens, instead of uncritically sucking down every moral concept (including the really bad ones), they will think critically and jettison the bad and keep the good

And yes, I know "bad" and "good" have no meaning outside of moral absolutism. The reality is, they have no objective/absolute meaning (by definition). That does not deprive them of meaning. It just means their meaning is relative/subjective.

So you want to jettison the bad and keep the good then admit that they have no objective meaning... Brilliant!

[carpedm9587]

Right and just because you believe that what goes on in your head correspond to reality doesn't make it true.

That is true for all of us, Seer. You're not saying anything that doesn't equally apply to you.

So if something isn't absolutely subjective it is relatively subjective?

I think you're confusing two concepts. Subjective/objective is a separate concept from absolute/relative.

My use of "absolutely objective" versus "absolutely subjective" means a thing is not always either subjective or objective. Sometimes, it is both depending on context.

Relatively objective? What does that even mean? The fact is all moral ideals are subjective in your world, even if you do write them down.

All moral ideals are subjective to the one holding the ideal. They are objective to everyone else, by definition.

That does change their subjective nature. But here you are again, an atheist, trying to squeeze some semblance of objectivity out of your morally bankrupt subjective world.

I have no response to this as it is basically another version of Technique #1.

So you want to jettison the bad and keep the good then admit that they have no objective meaning... Brilliant!

You're sort of starting to get it. But you do have this (unsubstantiated) hang-up that only objective things have meaning...and then you hug your wife and tell her you love her, all of which is subjective, and accept that it has meaning. And you subjectively value your friendships, and see them as meaningful. Very consistent of you.

Well... I'm assuming you love people and have friends...

[Starlight]

But you do have this (unsubstantiated) hang-up that only objective things have meaning...and then you hug your wife and tell her you love her, all of which is subjective, and accept that it has meaning. And you subjectively value your friendships, and see them as meaningful.

It confuses me why so many Christians in forums like these seem to struggle to understand that "meaning" is something that exists in the minds of people and is assigned by them to things. That's just what meaning is.

Yet Christians keep trying to talk about "objective meaning" (an utter absurdity) as if meaning was something that existed 'out there' somewhere that we could search for and find in a box labelled 'meaning'. They don't seem to understand the basics, i.e. that meaning exists in our minds and we find things meaningful (or not). All meaning is subjective because that's what meaning is.

If they wanted to claim "I have personally found my religious beliefs very meaningful and they've given me a sense of purpose in my life" that would be a perfectly sane thing to say. But when they start talking about "objecting meaning" they are just talking utterly meaningless nonsense.

[Tassman]

I like to think that our social structure is a bit better than a "mob". But our society's moral codes do fit in with moral relativism. Take gay marriage, for example, since it's the thread topic. It's now legal across the land in the US. It's also supported by the majority of Americans. A lot of people oppose it on religious grounds, but more people don't. As a consensus, society approved a moral stand of allowing homosexual marriages.

From my point of view, you're not following absolute morals at all, due to a lack of actual absolute morals. You're just as much of a relativist in practice as anyone else. You just think there are absolute morals, based on a specific Biblical interpretation that most other Christians don't completely match. (Because pick any two Christians from different places and try to get them to agree on all the specifics, it's not going to work out.) Like everybody else, you select your preferred moral standards and try to work with society to get as much as you can approved by concensus.

Yes. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and denominations hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive

Yep.

Ditto!

[carpedm9587]

It confuses me why so many Christians in forums like these seem to struggle to understand that "meaning" is something that exists in the minds of people and is assigned by them to things. That's just what meaning is.

Yet Christians keep trying to talk about "objective meaning" (an utter absurdity) as if meaning was something that existed 'out there' somewhere that we could search for and find in a box labelled 'meaning'. They don't seem to understand the basics, i.e. that meaning exists in our minds and we find things meaningful (or not). All meaning is subjective because that's what meaning is.

If they wanted to claim "I have personally found my religious beliefs very meaningful and they've given me a sense of purpose in my life" that would be a perfectly sane thing to say. But when they start talking about "objecting meaning" they are just talking utterly meaningless nonsense.

Well, if you take it from the perspective of belief in a god - they believe that REAL meaning is what is in the mind of god, and any meaning in our minds is just...well...meaningless. Only god's meaning counts. Apparently because god is the creator and eternal. But then again, apparently, we're eternal too (though we're not creators of ourselves, obviously). A similar thing happens with "purpose." Usually, the only "purpose" that counts is in the mind of the creator. But then they will purposefully use their screwdriver to pry off the lid of a paint can.

Frankly, the whole thing just doesn't hang together. One of the many, many reasons I am atheist...

[Starlight]

Well, if you take it from the perspective of belief in a god - they believe that REAL meaning is what is in the mind of god, and any meaning in our minds is just...well...meaningless. Only god's meaning counts.

That's where they completely lose me. If God exists, then things can have meaning to him, just like things can have meaning to me or to you. But God is then just one entity among many thinking beings who finds meaning or not in various different things.

To me there's an unbridgeable gap between "God exists" and "the only things that are really meaningful are things God finds meaningful". The first of those can be reasonably debated and people can believe it or not depending on if they are religious. The second though is just moronic, and nobody should believe it, not even religious people. Someone who thinks "I place a lot of value in my doing God's will" or "I find a lot of meaning in my life through doing God's will" is one thing, but thinking that there is no meaning other than the meaning God happens to find in things, is lunatic stuff.

But then again, apparently, we're eternal too (though we're not creators of ourselves, obviously).

And made in God's image and likeness as well, according to them.

A similar thing happens with "purpose." Usually, the only "purpose" that counts is in the mind of the creator. But then they will purposefully use their screwdriver to pry off the lid of a paint can.

Frankly, the whole thing just doesn't hang together. One of the many, many reasons I am atheist...

I don't consider it a reason to be an atheist, only a reason to think Seer needs medication. Normal people can believe in God perfectly fine without buying into the crazy that the only purposes or meanings that count in the universe are the ones God happens to have. A normal theist can recognize and acknowledge that any intelligent entity performs acts with purposes and finds meaning in many different things.

[seer]

Well, if you take it from the perspective of belief in a god - they believe that REAL meaning is what is in the mind of god, and any meaning in our minds is just...well...meaningless. Only god's meaning counts. Apparently because god is the creator and eternal. But then again, apparently, we're eternal too (though we're not creators of ourselves, obviously). A similar thing happens with "purpose." Usually, the only "purpose" that counts is in the mind of the creator. But then they will purposefully use their screwdriver to pry off the lid of a paint can.

Frankly, the whole thing just doesn't hang together. One of the many, many reasons I am atheist...

Carp, I never said you couldn't invent your own meaning or make believe that you are significant. Just that in the big picture atheism preaches death, like I said it is a cult of death, everlasting death. Say what you want about religion at least it speaks to, and for, a fundamental human aspiration - survival, life. Atheism, at bottom, is nihilistic, a more hopeless, psychologically bankrupt philosophy has never been known to man.

[MaxVel]

No. That bolded sentence is merely the definition of "morality." Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." This is a universal human phenomenon and part of the human brain's ability to categorize things. It is an inevitable consequence of self-awareness and the ability to make choices around actions.

Also, no. Yes, it is true that, once a subjective moral framework is known (e.g., spoken, written, published, etc.) it gains an objective reality. So if I write down my moral framework, anyone can objectively use it to assess any action and say, "according to Michel's framework, Action X is immoral." That doesn't make my moral framework any less subjectively derived or relatively applied.

"I should always do what I think is morally right to do." That looks pretty objective to me.


One could always argue (fairly reasonably, I think) something like this:

1: I make mistakes or am ill-informed about all sorts of factual matters.
2: I sometimes make incorrect judgments based on those facts.

3: Therefore, I should exercise caution in acting on my moral values, since (from 1 and 2) I may well be wrong about those values.

IOW, one is not always obliged to follow what one thinks is morally right


I can't see how a moral relativist can consistently with MR argue that people are morally obligated to follow their moral values; or to base their moral values on the best of their reason and knowledge; or to act consistently or rationally.

Yes- we are all answerable to ourselves for adherence to our moral framework. That's what we call conscience: that nagging sense when our action does not align with our own moral framework. We are also live in communities and societies, and those groups will express a moral framework (which is generally the collective moral framework of its members). So when our personal moral framework is out of sync with the broader moral framework, there will be social consequences to that as well.


Correct. If you do not find my moral argument compelling, you will follow your own internal moral code. It has always been that way, and we see that in operation all the time. When "convincing" doesn't work, we fall back to agree-to-disagree (for minor moral issues), isolate/separate (for stronger moral issues where your choices do not affect me/us if you are "shunned" in some fashion), or contend (for moral actions where your choices are having an impact on me or the larger community).


Moral authority is always held by the individual. However, an individual or group with greater power can give their moral framework the force of law or social/communal acceptance. Again, we see this in operation all the time.

Here's the problem with moral relativisism:

There is no teleology in your morality (there is no ultimate moral good that moral relativists are endeavouring to approach in their values and actions). What they find morally good now may be something that they previously found morally bad.
Gay marriage is an example of this. Not so many years ago most people (Obama and Hillary Clinton included, IIRC) were against gay marriage (it was morally bad). Now many of those people are in favour of it (It's morally good). In both cases they were morally correct in their values.

So now those in favour of gay marriage are enlisting the power of the state to impose their moral values on everyone, including those who are convinced it is morally wrong. Using state power they are attempting to coerce people into doing what they think is morally wrong (e.g. bake a cake celebrating gay marriage (And on moral relativism, it is morally wrong for them)), or to change their moral values under duress.

But the moral relativist has no objective moral goal to point to as a justification of that coercion. And the moral relativist can't even say that objectively his moral values are better or more correct than the ones of the people being coerced. They're just different. The moral relativist can't even necessarily say (in all cases) that their moral values are more rationally justified than those of the people they want to coerce.


Surely the moral relativist should adopt a more libertarian approach to public morality, rather than the coercive one you are advocating.


Take climate change as an example: Those who are convinced by the scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a real and serious problem can point to an objective reality as a justification for state coercion of those who disagree. It may be that they are later found to be factually wrong (if, by some incredible circumstance, it was found that the current scientific understanding and theories are incorrect) but to the best of their knowledge they are responding to a real and objectively true problem, and even those who are coerced into altering behaviours to reduce their impact on the global climate will ultimately benefit from the objective good (less climate change) that results.

Compare with the gay marriage issue (as an example) - under MR, there is no objective external moral reality that people should comply with. Yet people are being coerced into changing behaviours and values, including pressure to go against what they believe is morally right. We don't know what effects promoting gay marriage may have on our societies, good or ill.


tl;dr As a moral relativist, you have no reasonable justification for supporting the coercion, pressurisation, or compulsion of people who disagree with your morals into following them. Your moral worldview reduces to: Do as I want, because I have the power to make you. Absent an objective moral reality that you are aiming toward I have no particular reason to have confidence in your moral sincerity, judgment or rationality. Your conscience and moral apparatus is not aiming at any goal or target - why should I trust its judgments? You're not necessarily more knowledgeable, or more rational, or better informed that I, you just are more willing to force others to compromise their consciences to follow yours.

[Yttrium]

Carp, I never said you couldn't invent your own meaning or make believe that you are significant. Just that in the big picture atheism preaches death, like I said it is a cult of death, everlasting death. Say what you want about religion at least it speaks to, and for, a fundamental human aspiration - survival, life. Atheism, at bottom, is nihilistic, a more hopeless, psychologically bankrupt philosophy has never been known to man.

Well, that's an amazingly dark way of looking at it. I haven't heard that approach before. Preaches death? I don't think so. You make it sound like they want everybody to commit suicide or kill each other off. From my experience, atheists typically want to appreciate life more, because it's so temporary.

Nihilism isn't a natural conclusion for atheism. I don't think I've ever encountered a nihilistic atheist in real life. Those who want to appreciate life aren't likely to think that their actions in life are irrelevant. Once could just as easily argue that Christianity is nihilistic: it doesn't matter what one does in life, just have faith, and things will be better in the afterlife. I wouldn't argue that myself, because I know too many Christians who don't think that way.

[seer]

Well, that's an amazingly dark way of looking at it. I haven't heard that approach before. Preaches death? I don't think so. You make it sound like they want everybody to commit suicide or kill each other off. From my experience, atheists typically want to appreciate life more, because it's so temporary.

Nihilism isn't a natural conclusion for atheism. I don't think I've ever encountered a nihilistic atheist in real life. Those who want to appreciate life aren't likely to think that their actions in life are irrelevant. Once could just as easily argue that Christianity is nihilistic: it doesn't matter what one does in life, just have faith, and things will be better in the afterlife. I wouldn't argue that myself, because I know too many Christians who don't think that way.

Nonsense, one belief system leads to life the other to death. And when speaking of nihilism it was in the context of what Carp and I were discussing, "Existential nihilism" which logically follows atheism:

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.[1] The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism