So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[carpedm9587]

I encourage people to read it too.

The only thing I have to add is that I find the discussions with Carpe on these topics rather interesting and strange at the same time. I completely disagree with him with regard to his idea that subjectivity is a solution.

The problem may be the emphasized part. It's an odd construct. If we were discussing the color of a given car, you would have said, "I completely disagree with him with regard to his idea that green is a solution. I'm not describing a solution. I'm describing the color of the car. Likewise, I am not proposing relativism/subjectivism as a solution - I am describing the nature of morality and moralizing. Morality IS relative/subjective. Those who claim it must be absolute/objective to be meaningful don't have an argument. They cannot show the existence of an absolute/objective framework, nor can they mount any argument to show morality is NOT relative/subjective except to continually complain, in one form or another, that it's not absolute/objective.

And then reading the ideas he usually promotes on this forum with regard to how we should treat other people I find him to be much closer to the idea that we should act according to the golden rule than some of the people promoting God given objective standards. Ironic in many ways.

Wow. Thanks!

[Mountain Man]

My worldview related to morality is based on what actually happens and how we arrive at moral conclusions.

Also known as the is-ought fallacy.

[Charles]

The problem may be the emphasized part. It's an odd construct. If we were discussing the color of a given car, you would have said, "I completely disagree with him with regard to his idea that green is a solution. I'm not describing a solution. I'm describing the color of the car. Likewise, I am not proposing relativism/subjectivism as a solution - I am describing the nature of morality and moralizing. Morality IS relative/subjective. Those who claim it must be absolute/objective to be meaningful don't have an argument. They cannot show the existence of an absolute/objective framework, nor can they mount any argument to show morality is NOT relative/subjective except to continually complain, in one form or another, that it's not absolute/objective.

Well, on this we have to disagree though I will allow that I could have put better words on my opinion. Let me just make it very simple. If what you point to is reality I have no reason at all to listen to your points.

In your claims on what moral reality is you make quite many statements that I don't see you support. And I readily admit that it is very difficult to provide the entire line of reasoning based on which we can avoid subjectivity. Perhaps time would be better spent doing so than having all of us repeating the exact same points over and over and over again? I have a feeling though that sometimes this topic is discussed in order not to have to discuss the topic itself. But I could be wrong.

Wow. Thanks!

That is very well deserved. You have taken a lot of criticism on a theoretical level but I find that you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings.

[carpedm9587]

Well, on this we have to disagree though I will allow that I could have put better words on my opinion. Let me just make it very simple. If what you point to is reality I have no reason at all to listen to your points.

"No reason at all" is a bit of a stretch. But you are right that you are under no obligation to align to me. You may wish to if I make an argument that convinces you that a moral position I hold is actually superior to yours. If you begin to think that is the case, you will immediately forego your existing moral position in favor of the new one. If I cannot make that case, and you cannot convince me that your moral position is superior, then we will remain at moral odds on that issue. That is when we resort to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

In your claims on what moral reality is you make quite many statements that I don't see you support.

Such as...?

And I readily admit that it is very difficult to provide the entire line of reasoning based on which we can avoid subjectivity.

Why would I try to avoid subjectivity? Morality IS subjective and relative. Trying to escape subjectivity is like trying to escape being a bipedal, mammalian life form. Not only do I NOT try to avoid it, I embrace it because I try not to ignore what is real.

Perhaps time would be better spent doing so than having all of us repeating the exact same points over and over and over again?

I'm not sure what "doing so" refers to.

I have a feeling though that sometimes this topic is discussed in order not to have to discuss the topic itself. But I could be wrong.

I also am not sure what this statement means.

That is very well deserved. You have taken a lot of criticism on a theoretical level but I find that you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings.

In general, our morality tends to align pretty well. After all - we're all human, we all occupy the same planet, we're all mortal, we mostly live in societies that have the concept of "personal possession," and so on. Our similarities are greater than our differences - so it is not surprise to me that our moral conclusions are also pretty well aligned. We tend to classify the same things as "good" and the same things as "evil."

[carpedm9587]

Also known as the is-ought fallacy.

Umm... no. I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X. Morality is subjective/relative. What it "should be" is irrelevant - it is what it is.

[Cow Poke]

That is very well deserved. You have taken a lot of criticism on a theoretical level but I find that you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings.

This should warm the cockles of your heart, Carpe --- Charles finds you acceptable and has pronounced you righteous!!!

[Mountain Man]

Umm... no. I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X. Morality is subjective/relative. What it "should be" is irrelevant - it is what it is.

And yet you didn't push back against Chuck when he heaped praise you, saying that "you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings." If what you say is true, then there nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics.

[seer]

And yet you didn't push back against Chuck when he heaped praise you, saying that "you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings." If what you say is true, then there nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics.

that...

[carpedm9587]

This should warm the cockles of your heart, Carpe --- Charles finds you acceptable and has pronounced you righteous!!!

Well - I think I'll pass on the "righteous."

Laying claim to that would make me "self-righteous" - I think.... :hmm:


...isn't there an emoji with someone rubbing their chin thinking/considering...?


There should be

[carpedm9587]

And yet you didn't push back against Chuck when he heaped praise you, saying that "you are fighting for the right things with regard to how we should actually treat actual human beings." If what you say is true, then there nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics.

Umm...I don't think you have a clue about pretty much anything I've been saying about morality. If you did - then you would know this statement is devoid of content and/or a complete mismatch to what I've been saying.

[Bill the Cat]

Well - I think I'll pass on the "righteous."

Laying claim to that would make me "self-righteous" - I think.... :hmm:


...isn't there an emoji with someone rubbing their chin thinking/considering...?


There should be

: demure:

[carpedm9587]

: demure:

Oh I don't think I could EVER bring myself to use THAT emoji....

[Mountain Man]

Umm...I don't think you have a clue about pretty much anything I've been saying about morality. If you did - then you would know this statement is devoid of content and/or a complete mismatch to what I've been saying.

Oh, right, it's you. When you get nailed to the wall, you squirm away and insist that you've been misunderstood.

When I pointed out that you were committing the is-ought fallacy, you objected saying, "I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X." When I pointed out the necessary implications of this assertion, that "If what you say is true, then there [is] nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics," you claimed the above, that it was a complete mismatch of what you've been saying.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe there is an ought, and then you're stuck with the thorny issue of trying to account for it in the absence of an ultimate moral lawgiver (good luck), or you believe there is no ought, and morality becomes meaningless. Which is it?

[carpedm9587]

When I pointed out that you were committing the is-ought fallacy, you objected saying, "I have made no assertion that things SHOULD be way X, only that they ARE way X." When I pointed out the necessary implications of this assertion, that "If what you say is true, then there [is] nothing virtuous or praiseworthy about treating others one way as opposed to another. It's like applauding someone for obeying the laws of physics," you claimed the above, that it was a complete mismatch of what you've been saying.

Yeah - basically. You're not making a lot of sense. Nothing in my response to Charles suggested anything "should" be any given way. He complimented me (as far as I can tell) on my posting style and way of treating others. I presume he was referring to the norms most of us aspire to when engaging with others and thanked him. I have no idea how you got to "should" out of any of that.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe there is an ought, and then you're stuck with the thorny issue of trying to account for it in the absence of an ultimate moral lawgiver (good luck), or you believe there is no ought, and morality becomes meaningless. Which is it?

I don't have a problem with an internally driven "ought" or an "ought" driven by the realities of society, and frankly don't see how that is even marginally related to Charles compliment. I don't need a "law giver" because I don't subscribe the the authoritarian model of morality. So you frame a false dichotomy and expect me to just pony up and say, "oh my, you are SO right!?" Sorry. Not likely to happen.

[Tassman]

I have no idea where you are getting this idea of equal rights. From our monkey ancestors?

I take it you would prefer to remain in a patriarchal society such as found among our “monkey ancestors” rather than participating in a growing and developing society?

The fact is the West thrived and created the greatest civilization in world history with the greatest scientific advancement while being largely male dominated. Remember your argument was about social cohesion - and we had that.

It is the higher intelligence of the human “monkey” which brought about scientific advancement, not the patriarchal society in and of itself, i.e. the very same “scientific advancement” that many Evangelicals deny regarding Evolution and Climate Change.

And it could be argued that the feminist movement undermined social cohesion,

OTOH it could be better argued that the “feminist movement” has greatly enhanced social cohesion by promoting equality within society and utilizing the undoubted capabilities of men and women to the benefit of all.

and the single most important institution in society, the two parent family with biological children.

All children that I know were the biological product of two parents.

The most important role of families is to provide a loving, secure environment so as to promote the rounded development of the children in its care.