Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Tassman]

You know, I'm not sure that is exactly right. There were a number of moral positions in Scripture that I did not agree with - and would have it otherwise, even today. But I accept them because I believe they are God given and that He knows better than I.

Biblical morality depends upon how you interpret scripture. Scripture in the past has been used to justify slavery, racial discrimination and the subjugation of women. It is no longer because social values have changed and biblical interpretation has adjusted to reflect the current social values. Today scripture is used by some to oppose LGBT's, but this too is changing to reflect current social values. Morality evolves, it always has.

[seer]

No - they are not. That is the incorrect assumption you continually make. Essentially - Technique #1

What do you mean they are not? Of course by definition relative ethics are ephemeral.

[seer]

There is an element of truth to this. Progress in morality is similar to progress in evolution: it does not have an objective "goal." It is measured against context and, generally, in terms of its effect on individuals.

What does effect on individuals mean? I mean evolution does not care what effect it has on individual, it doesn't care if we survive as a species or not.

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean they are not? Of course by definition relative ethics are ephemeral.

No - they are not. Technique #1

Ephemeral: lasting for a very short time.

[carpedm9587]

What does effect on individuals mean?

Historically, we have a sense of "progress" when we have seen the lives, freedoms, and happiness of individuals expanded and respected. When we uncover moral attitudes that restrict those and alter those moral codes accordingly, have a sense of "progress." I suspect that is because "life" and "liberty" and "happiness" are three elements the vast majority (dare I say all?) of humanity values.

I mean evolution does not care what effect it has on individual, it doesn't care if we survive as a species or not.

No, "evolution" doesn't "care" any more than the manual that describes how the engine in your car works "cares." Evolution is a process, not a person. It is nothing more than the description of how life unfolds and progresses.

[seer]

No - they are not. Technique #1

Ephemeral: lasting for a very short time.

It also means transient, temporary. As compared to permanent. And of course they would all be short-lived as compared to universal moral truths.

[carpedm9587]

It also means transient, temporary. As compared to permanent. And of course they would all be short-lived as compared to universal moral truths.

Yes...if your definition of "ephemeral" is "anything less than permanent," then relative morality is "ephemeral." Another example of your binary thinking. I think you and I both know the word's connotation AND denotation is "fleeting," and "whimsical." So this is simply another example of your Technique #2.

And you still have not made an actual argument...

[seer]

Historically, we have a sense of "progress" when we have seen the lives, freedoms, and happiness of individuals expanded and respected. When we uncover moral attitudes that restrict those and alter those moral codes accordingly, have a sense of "progress." I suspect that is because "life" and "liberty" and "happiness" are three elements the vast majority (dare I say all?) of humanity values.

Yes those are subjective considerations that some hold. So I have no idea what this means: It is measured against context and, generally, in terms of its effect on individuals.

No, "evolution" doesn't "care" any more than the manual that describes how the engine in your car works "cares." Evolution is a process, not a person. It is nothing more than the description of how life unfolds and progresses.

Then why did you use evolution as an example, since evolution is not aimed at the survival of the individual or the species in general.

[seer]

Yes...if your definition of "ephemeral" is "anything less than permanent," then relative morality is "ephemeral." Another example of your binary thinking. I think you and I both know the word's connotation AND denotation is "fleeting," and "whimsical." So this is simply another example of your Technique #2.

And you still have not made an actual argument...

Of course I have made an argument, relative ethics are ephemeral. And why you fight so hard for these transient moral beliefs is still a mystery to me... I mean really Carp, you keep accusing religionists like me of bigotry when that really has no objective meaning or weight. You might as well accuse me of bigotry for preferring the color green to red.

[carpedm9587]

Yes those are subjective considerations that some hold.

Some? So you think the number of people who value their lives, liberty, and happiness is a modicum of the human population?

So I have no idea what this means: It is measured against context and, generally, in terms of its effect on individuals.

The following post explained it in terms of liberty, life, and happiness.

Then why did you use evolution as an example, since evolution is not aimed at the survival of the individual or the species in general.

Because the question was about there being "progress" in a relative system. Evolution and morality are both relative systems. Evolutionary "progress" is measured against adaptation to environment. Moral "progress" is typically expressed in terms of expansions of life, liberty, and happiness (to name the primary ones). Obviously there are other ways in which the two differ (e.g., emphasis on the individual vs the species is one of those).

[carpedm9587]

Of course I have made an argument, relative ethics are ephemeral. And why you fight so hard for these transient moral beliefs is still a mystery to me... I mean really Carp, you keep accusing religionists like me of bigotry when that really has no objective meaning or weight. You might as well accuse me of bigotry for preferring the color green to red.

So this response is a combination of Technique #1 (subjective/relative things are not objective/absolute - which we all know already) and Technique #2 (use diminishing words wherever and whenever possible, equate moral statements with color preferences, and then claim you are not...)

And still no actual argument...

I think, Seer, that you are so deeply embedded in your thinking that you still do not see that you are actually not saying anything. I understand. I was there once, when I was Christian. It took me a while to realize that my moral arguments were actually vacuous, and to move to a more thoughtful approach. Of course, from your perspective, it probably looks like I moved from "meaningful" to "meaningless." If you actually look at the arguments being made...you might find that is not actually true.

[seer]

Some? So you think the number of people who value their lives, liberty, and happiness is a modicum of the human population?

No Carp, but as our sad history shows men often support their well being at the expense of their fellow man.

Because the question was about there being "progress" in a relative system. Evolution and morality are both relative systems. Evolutionary "progress" is measured against adaptation to environment. Moral "progress" is typically expressed in terms of expansions of life, liberty, and happiness (to name the primary ones). Obviously there are other ways in which the two differ (e.g., emphasis on the individual vs the species is one of those).

No, what you consider moral progress is subjective. With evolution you either die or you don't, that is an objective reality. The expansions of life, liberty, and happiness is what YOU consider moral progress, which let's say, the Communist or Muslim would not agree with. One is objective one is subjective.

[seer]

So this response is a combination of Technique #1 (subjective/relative things are not objective/absolute - which we all know already) and Technique #2 (use diminishing words wherever and whenever possible, equate moral statements with color preferences, and then claim you are not...)

And still no actual argument...

Then tell me Carp, how is a preference for a color objectively less important than a preference for your gay rights? I'm saying logically you can not make the case since subjectively I may find my color preference more important than gay rights, you may hold the opposite.

[carpedm9587]

Then tell me Carp, how is a preference for a color objectively less important than a preference for your gay rights?

Ahh... you want me to provide an objective answer from a subjective worldview... Technique #1 yet again....

I'm saying logically you can not make the case since subjectively I may find my color preference more important than gay rights, you may hold the opposite.

And this is a marvelous example of Technique #2

At least you're consistent....

[seer]

Ahh... you want me to provide an objective answer from a subjective worldview... Technique #1 yet again....
And this is a marvelous example of Technique #2

At least you're consistent....

No Carp, you can not make a logical (deductive) argument for why a man who puts more importance on something trivial rather than gay rights for instance is wrong. You accuse me of using these techniques (trying to minimize my points) yet you can not assail the logic.