Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Yes I do still do choose to other things, like trying to show you the error of your godless ways...

I know the feeling. I keep trying to show you the error of your godless ways too...

Probably not, but there is still hope for you...

You took the words right out of my mouth...

The point wasn't about giving up choices, but the fact that these moral teachings seem to have overcome, or transcended, personal biases or cultural prejudices. Which you mentioned to try and minimize them. I guess that is one of your techniques...

I don't recall trying to minimize any of the moral positions I align with...

Well if Religion helps you live longer and be happier then for your life that has a definite survival value. And what is wrong with that?

First, it is not clear to me the claim is true. I've not seen data about it. But short-term survival value is not long-term survival value. Second, in evolution, there are derivative characteristics that are not necessarily linked to survival value. For example, it may be that a sentient species will always go through a period of "god" beliefs because it initially lacks any ability to assess and learn about its surroundings, and it takes time for those beliefs to then work their way back out of the species. Finally, assuming the long/happier claim is actually true, you have correlation but not causation. For example, it may be that atheists are so reviled/rejected in a primarily theistic society, the stress shortens their life and makes living somewhat less pleasant. If that were true, we would expect, as a culture secularizes, that the effect would be reversed: as atheists become dominant, it will be theists that have shorter, less pleasant lives. Of course - that is pure speculation as well - since we do not have a causal relationship.

[seer]

I don't recall trying to minimize any of the moral positions I align with...

No, the idea that these ethics are so ladened with personal biases and cultural prejudices that they are pretty useless or not relevant today. Obviously you don't really believe that, since you think that 90% of them are still on the mark.

First, it is not clear to me the claim is true. I've not seen data about it. But short-term survival value is not long-term survival value. Second, in evolution, there are derivative characteristics that are not necessarily linked to survival value. For example, it may be that a sentient species will always go through a period of "god" beliefs because it initially lacks any ability to assess and learn about its surroundings, and it takes time for those beliefs to then work their way back out of the species. Finally, assuming the long/happier claim is actually true, you have correlation but not causation. For example, it may be that atheists are so reviled/rejected in a primarily theistic society, the stress shortens their life and makes living somewhat less pleasant. If that were true, we would expect, as a culture secularizes, that the effect would be reversed: as atheists become dominant, it will be theists that have shorter, less pleasant lives. Of course - that is pure speculation as well - since we do not have a causal relationship.

Sheesh Carp, if I follow your logic we could never know anything, too many variables to make sense of anything. But if you want a couple of studies I will link them. But yes, if religion helps you live longer that has had long term survival value for YOU. So why is that bad?

[carpedm9587]

No, the idea that these ethics are so ladened with personal biases and cultural prejudices that they are pretty useless or not relevant today. Obviously you don't really believe that, since you think that 90% of them are still on the mark.

You're missing a word, Seer. The word is "some." Some of these ideas/ethics are laden with personal/cultural biases/prejudices. That is why I am not at 100%. The fact that I am not handing over my decision-making process makes it possible for me to assess the ideas individually, and discard those I find to be inappropriate. You, on the other hand, have to accept them all lock-stock-and-barrel because you have submitted your decision-making to "the book" and no longer find yourself free to accept some and reject the rest.

Sheesh Carp, if I follow your logic we could never know anything, too many variables to make sense of anything. But if you want a couple of studies I will link them. But yes, if religion helps you live longer that has had long term survival value for YOU. So why is that bad?

Well - someday we'll have to discuss epistomology. In fact, I hold all beliefs "loosely" (to one degree or another). I lean towards the concept of "degrees of certainty" and recognize that knowledge is on a continuum of certainty. You are welcome to link the studies and I will look at them.

Because I place "truth" above "survival." I would prefer to know what is real than to live my life in the shadow of an illusion. I realize attaining that reality is essentially impossible. I will go to my grave with some number of incorrect beliefs. But that does not make it less valuable to me to find and weed out any incorrect beliefs. I will also never win the Tour de France. That doesn't make my daily biking any less valuable to me. Sometimes, it's the effort that counts.

[seer]

You're missing a word, Seer. The word is "some." Some of these ideas/ethics are laden with personal/cultural biases/prejudices. That is why I am not at 100%. The fact that I am not handing over my decision-making process makes it possible for me to assess the ideas individually, and discard those I find to be inappropriate. You, on the other hand, have to accept them all lock-stock-and-barrel because you have submitted your decision-making to "the book" and no longer find yourself free to accept some and reject the rest.

Let me ask you Carp, given your questioning of the studies I was referencing and the idea that we really can not know, how do you know that the widespread acceptance of homosexuality (for instance) won't have a generally negative effect on society going forward?

Well - someday we'll have to discuss epistomology. In fact, I hold all beliefs "loosely" (to one degree or another). I lean towards the concept of "degrees of certainty" and recognize that knowledge is on a continuum of certainty. You are welcome to link the studies and I will look at them.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/does-be...-longer-424764

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.65a531bb8657

Because I place "truth" above "survival." I would prefer to know what is real than to live my life in the shadow of an illusion. I realize attaining that reality is essentially impossible. I will go to my grave with some number of incorrect beliefs. But that does not make it less valuable to me to find and weed out any incorrect beliefs. I will also never win the Tour de France. That doesn't make my daily biking any less valuable to me. Sometimes, it's the effort that counts.

Again, I put the highest value on truth too, that is why I am a Christian - it is just that belief will help me live longer.

[carpedm9587]

Let me ask you Carp, given your questioning of the studies I was referencing and the idea that we really can not know, how do you know that the widespread acceptance of homosexuality (for instance) won't have a generally negative effect on society going forward?

I see no reason to think it might, but I cannot KNOW it won't (for the same reason I cannot "know" anything else with 100% certainty). But I am also not clear why the question is relevant. An argument can be made that people with genetic deformities, or an IQ below 70, have a negative effect on society going forward. If I use that principle to determine the morality of my actions, I go down the road of eugenics.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/does-be...-longer-424764

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.65a531bb8657

Thanks for the links. I'll read. It should be interesting.

Edited to Add: So two things from the Washington article. First, the study uses obituaries and assumes that people who do not claim a specific religious affiliation are "atheist" or "non-religious." That's a little loose. Second, did you actually read the article? I found this paragraph in the article sounded a familiar theme:

When the researchers broke down data by city, they observed another interesting trend. In highly religious cities where it was important for everyone to conform to values and norms, religious people lived longer than their counterparts. But in cities that were not too concerned about making everyone conform, non-religious people lived as long as religious people did.

That strongly suggests the correlation is not so much about the affiliation or lack of affiliation, so much as the cultural pressure to conform, as I noted in my previous post.

The second article had an additional observation:

One often-asked question is, why are religious people happier? Sanderson thinks it’s less about what you believe than the fact that you have a community, a church, a synagogue, a Bible study group. It’s the social support network that is fulfilling. You could well be working in a soup kitchen, joining a book club or belonging to a neighborhood watch. It’s the sense that we are looking after one another that matters.

There is no doubt that religions create strong social communities. Such communities can arise around a number of things - not just religions. As the world becomes more secularized, I'm sure we will find other ways to flesh out this communal need we tend to have.

Again, I put the highest value on truth too, that is why I am a Christian - it is just that belief will help me live longer.

And we mutually believe the other person's beliefs are actually "untrue." As I said before, we're not going to resolve that. If your "quest for truth" comes with the advantage of longer life, then I am happy for you. I assume your quest is an honest one, and the benefit is a happy side effect. I cannot adopt a belief I do not find to be true. Frankly, it wouldn't work. I would know I was mouthing things I did not actually believe, and I doubt I would realize any such health benefits if I did.

[seer]

I see no reason to think it might, but I cannot KNOW it won't (for the same reason I cannot "know" anything else with 100% certainty). But I am also not clear why the question is relevant. An argument can be made that people with genetic deformities, or an IQ below 70, have a negative effect on society going forward. If I use that principle to determine the morality of my actions, I go down the road of eugenics.

So your your support for gay marriage is largely based on ignorance of future consequences. My point is that as a Christian we believe God would have perfect knowledge of all future consequences and would include that knowledge in His reasons for His prohibitions of this behavior. So when you say I'm giving up autonomy I'm giving it up to a being who is omniscient. Now if I really believe that (which I do) I would be foolish not to acquiescence.

Edited to Add: So two things from the Washington article. First, the study uses obituaries and assumes that people who do not claim a specific religious affiliation are "atheist" or "non-religious." That's a little loose. Second, did you actually read the article? I found this paragraph in the article sounded a familiar theme:

When the researchers broke down data by city, they observed another interesting trend. In highly religious cities where it was important for everyone to conform to values and norms, religious people lived longer than their counterparts. But in cities that were not too concerned about making everyone conform, non-religious people lived as long as religious people did.

That strongly suggests the correlation is not so much about the affiliation or lack of affiliation, so much as the cultural pressure to conform, as I noted in my previous post.

The second article had an additional observation:

One often-asked question is, why are religious people happier? Sanderson thinks it’s less about what you believe than the fact that you have a community, a church, a synagogue, a Bible study group. It’s the social support network that is fulfilling. You could well be working in a soup kitchen, joining a book club or belonging to a neighborhood watch. It’s the sense that we are looking after one another that matters.

There is no doubt that religions create strong social communities. Such communities can arise around a number of things - not just religions. As the world becomes more secularized, I'm sure we will find other ways to flesh out this communal need we tend to have.

Well yes, a real part of religion is conformity, social structure, and community. These increase a sense of well being, purpose, and hope. And I have no idea what you will replace it with, even here in the US secular clubs like the Lions are on the wane. And you are assuming that the world will keep becoming more secular.

And we mutually believe the other person's beliefs are actually "untrue." As I said before, we're not going to resolve that. If your "quest for truth" comes with the advantage of longer life, then I am happy for you. I assume your quest is an honest one, and the benefit is a happy side effect. I cannot adopt a belief I do not find to be true. Frankly, it wouldn't work. I would know I was mouthing things I did not actually believe, and I doubt I would realize any such health benefits if I did.

Thank you...

[MaxVel]

He is morally obligated to follow his own moral framework. What either of his communities tell him is "moral" or "immoral" is just information to him. He must look at what he values, and how reason thereby informs his moral framework. Looking at the moral arguments of the two communities can inform him, and he may find one or the other more compelling. Hopefully, there there are two differing points of view will cause him to dig deeply into why there is this disconnect between the two groups, and what the disconnect springs from. He will find one of two things: either the two groups have a differing underlying value (e.g., one values god, the other does not), or (if they value similar things), one or both groups have some rational or interpretational flaws between "I value this" and "X is moral/immoral."

Adopting a moral position because "group X says so" is little more than following the herd. It doesn't make one a particularly strong moral agent. It just makes one obedient to the group. By that path, many people have followed some very bad leaders/groups.

Just to be clear - I answered the question from a moral perspective because that's what you asked. I noticed that Tass answered it from the legal perspective. Those two answers are not always the same. Sometimes, our moral framework requires us to defy the legal one. I believe the moral framework takes precedence.

You appear to be advocating objective moral standards (the bolded above). Perhaps you're not -but that's at least one of the issues with moral relativism, IMHO. Eventually something has to be objective - true whether we accept it or not - and thus the moral relativist is really a moral objectivist with fewer objective values than others.

Ultimately the moral relativist is answerable only to himself - you are only morally obligated to whatever values you choose to be obligated to. A moral relativist is not obligated to be honest, or rational, or fair, or anything else unless he chooses to be. That's what I meant by my comment about 'moral nihilism' (probably the wrong term for it).

Further, moral relativism means that society's moral codes and practices are simply a set of values imposed by force and the shout of the mob. There is no reason why I should find your moral values ones that I should adopt - you can't point to them as an objective reality - and even if I were to acknowledge you as an 'expert' on some particular area of morality, I am not morally obligated to accept your 'expert' opinion unless I choose to be. Moral authority is held by whoever can and will enforce compliance with their moral values.

[Yttrium]

Further, moral relativism means that society's moral codes and practices are simply a set of values imposed by force and the shout of the mob.

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.

There is no reason why I should find your moral values ones that I should adopt - you can't point to them as an objective reality - and even if I were to acknowledge you as an 'expert' on some particular area of morality, I am not morally obligated to accept your 'expert' opinion unless I choose to be. Moral authority is held by whoever can and will enforce compliance with their moral values.

Yep.

[seer]

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.

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. 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. 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.

[MaxVel]

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.

Sure. But what importance does that consensus have under MR? None unless one chooses to value the current majority view. Perhaps the recent change in moral practice arose for rational reasons. Perhaps it arose due to coercion of a group by a few loud bullies. Either is equally valid and equally moral.

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.




Yep.

Objective morals. Absolute morals are something else.

None of your above observations are arguments against objective morals, or for moral relativism.

The difference between moral objectivists and moral relativists is that objectivists are pointing to something they believe to be objectively true - moral standards that are true regardless of who believes them and follows them or not.

[Yttrium]

None of your above observations are arguments against objective morals, or for moral relativism.

Correct. I lack a belief that there are no objective morals (just as I lack a belief that there are any objective morals). I'm simply pointing out that for all intents and purposes, our society works under moral relativism, as shown by the homosexual marriage situation. If there are objective morals, then they still have to compete with the relative morals.

[carpedm9587]

So your your support for gay marriage is largely based on ignorance of future consequences.

Yes.

My point is that as a Christian we believe God would have perfect knowledge of all future consequences and would include that knowledge in His reasons for His prohibitions of this behavior. So when you say I'm giving up autonomy I'm giving it up to a being who is omniscient. Now if I really believe that (which I do) I would be foolish not to acquiescence.

Again - you are making an argument from the assumption of a god - which I believe does not exist. So while you're argument may have weight for you, to me you might as well say, "I am bending my will to the might and foreknowledge of Zeus." Arguing from the knowledge of a non-existent being just doesn't get you there when talking to an atheist.

Well yes, a real part of religion is conformity, social structure, and community. These increase a sense of well being, purpose, and hope. And I have no idea what you will replace it with, even here in the US secular clubs like the Lions are on the wane. And you are assuming that the world will keep becoming more secular.

Yes, I am. We may swing back and forth a bit, but the trend towards secularization is pretty well established, and has been steadily growing since the mid 20th century. Indeed, even those who claim a religious affiliation are increasingly "non-practicing" and do not attend any church, or only do so on special holidays/events. As for what humanity will replace the communal thing with, it may well be that "artificial" social groups like the Lions and the Elks will indeed mostly disappear along with religious social clubs (which is essentially what churches are) and socialization will center around points of common activity (e.g., raising children, politics, social-justice, charities, etc.).

Thank you...

NP

[Yttrium]

First, we are not moral relativists in practice or theory.

I was expressing my own point of view. I understand your point of view.

[carpedm9587]

You appear to be advocating objective moral standards (the bolded above).

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.

Perhaps you're not -but that's at least one of the issues with moral relativism, IMHO. Eventually something has to be objective - true whether we accept it or not - and thus the moral relativist is really a moral objectivist with fewer objective values than others.

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.

Ultimately the moral relativist is answerable only to himself - you are only morally obligated to whatever values you choose to be obligated to. A moral relativist is not obligated to be honest, or rational, or fair, or anything else unless he chooses to be. That's what I meant by my comment about 'moral nihilism' (probably the wrong term for it).

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.

Further, moral relativism means that society's moral codes and practices are simply a set of values imposed by force and the shout of the mob. There is no reason why I should find your moral values ones that I should adopt - you can't point to them as an objective reality - and even if I were to acknowledge you as an 'expert' on some particular area of morality, I am not morally obligated to accept your 'expert' opinion unless I choose to be.

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 held by whoever can and will enforce compliance with their moral values.

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.

[seer]

Again - you are making an argument from the assumption of a god - which I believe does not exist. So while you're argument may have weight for you, to me you might as well say, "I am bending my will to the might and foreknowledge of Zeus." Arguing from the knowledge of a non-existent being just doesn't get you there when talking to an atheist.

Of course I assume God, I am a Christian. But would you agree that since I am I should acquiescence to Biblical teachings? That I should give up some autonomy to the One I believe is all knowing? Wouldn't that be that rational thing to do from my worldview?

Yes, I am. We may swing back and forth a bit, but the trend towards secularization is pretty well established, and has been steadily growing since the mid 20th century. Indeed, even those who claim a religious affiliation are increasingly "non-practicing" and do not attend any church, or only do so on special holidays/events. As for what humanity will replace the communal thing with, it may well be that "artificial" social groups like the Lions and the Elks will indeed mostly disappear along with religious social clubs (which is essentially what churches are) and socialization will center around points of common activity (e.g., raising children, politics, social-justice, charities, etc.).

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.