So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Sparko]

The social standards I value are those that have been inculcated by our society and with which we have been acculturated by our culture. They can and do change over time and mean a great deal, they are the basis of our laws. And our laws have demonstrably changed over time.

A Nazi and a Slaver could make the same argument and they would be just as correct as you are if your moral system is correct. So again, your values have no bearing on other societies values, so you arguing that they are immoral means nothing.

The fact that the values and laws of today are quite different to the social values and laws of say, the Bronze Age means no more than we have developed and socially evolved since the tribal morality of that distant era.

You are assuming that we have evolved to some sort of objectively "better" standard like JimL does. But if your relative morality is correct, then our morals would not be better or worse than Bronze Age man, just different. Their morals were just as "good" as yours are.

[JimL]

A Nazi and a Slaver could make the same argument and they would be just as correct as you are if your moral system is correct. So again, your values have no bearing on other societies values, so you arguing that they are immoral means nothing.

You are assuming that we have evolved to some sort of objectively "better" standard like JimL does. But if your relative morality is correct, then our morals would not be better or worse than Bronze Age man, just different. Their morals were just as "good" as yours are.

So, you think that morals, being relative to human society, means that the moral against murder, rape, or theft are no "better" for society than having no such moral?

[Sparko]

So, you think that morals, being relative to human society, means that the moral against murder, rape, or theft are no "better" for society than having no such moral?

If morals are relative then there is no such animal as "better" other than personal preference. Or societal preference. The Nazi's thought that murdering millions of Jews was "better" because they blamed all of their ills on the Jews who controlled a lot of the wealth in Germany. Hitler thought that purifying the Aryan race was "better" because other races were flawed and inferior. Who are you to say they were wrong? If morals are relative, they were just as right as you are in claiming murder is bad.

[JimL]

If morals are relative then there is no such animal as "better" other than personal preference. Or societal preference. The Nazi's thought that murdering millions of Jews was "better" because they blamed all of their ills on the Jews who controlled a lot of the wealth in Germany. Hitler thought that purifying the Aryan race was "better" because other races were flawed and inferior. Who are you to say they were wrong? If morals are relative, they were just as right as you are in claiming murder is bad.

So it would be just as "good" for the Nazi's if they all murdered each other as well, correct?

[Sparko]

So it would be just as "good" for the Nazi's if they all murdered each other as well, correct?

If that is what they decided "good" was, then yes. Doesn't that show you how idiotic your (and Tassman's) theory of morality is?

There are idiots out there that think making the Human Race extinct would be a "good thing" because then Mother Earth could recover from our destruction of her.

[JimL]

If that is what they decided "good" was, then yes. Doesn't that show you how idiotic your (and Tassman's) theory of morality is?

There are idiots out there that think making the Human Race extinct would be a "good thing" because then Mother Earth could recover from our destruction of her.

We are not talking about a crazy person, we're talking about the society and what would be "good" for that society. You it seems will go to any extreme not to admit you are wrong.

[Sparko]

We are not talking about a crazy person, we're talking about the society and what would be "good" for that society. You it seems will go to any extreme not to admit you are wrong.

And you can't seem to understand the difference between subjective and objective. That is why I was discussing it with Tassman and not you. You are a waste of time.

[JimL]

And you can't seem to understand the difference between subjective and objective. That is why I was discussing it with Tassman and not you. You are a waste of time.

Moral laws put into effect by society are not objective in and of themselves, but they are objective in the sense that what you as an individual think about them is irrelevant. And, whether or not those moral laws are in the best interests of human beings living together in community, or in other words, whether or not they are "good or bad," are also objective facts whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not. The moral against rape for instance, is either in the best interests of human societies or it is not, regardless of what any one of us might subjectively believe. In other words it would be objectively true even if it is not absolute and divine law. The point being, in contradiction to your understanding, morals need have nothing to do with absolute divine law in order that they be objectively true.

[Tassman]

A Nazi and a Slaver could make the same argument and they would be just as correct as you are if your moral system is correct. So again, your values have no bearing on other societies values, so you arguing that they are immoral means nothing.

These erroneously claimed an objective moral basis for their beliefs. The Nazi’s, based their racial attitudes upon what they claimed to be the objective science of eugenics. And the “Slavers” in the US often quoted the supposed objective morality of carefully selected biblical texts to justify slave ownership, e.g. Titus 2. 9-10.

You are assuming that we have evolved to some sort of objectively "better" standard like JimL does.

Not at all. You keep supposing this is what we are doing but you are wrong. My argument is that absolute, unchanging objective moral standards have never existed. The above two examples of supposed objective morality being a case in point.

But if your relative morality is correct, then our morals would not be better or worse than Bronze Age man, just different.

YES. In absolute, objective terms this is true. What else do you think I’ve been saying?

Their morals were just as "good" as yours are.

Good for them, not for us, this is the point.

[Sparko]

Moral laws put into effect by society are not objective in and of themselves, but they are objective in the sense that what you as an individual think about them is irrelevant. And, whether or not those moral laws are in the best interests of human beings living together in community, or in other words, whether or not they are "good or bad," are also objective facts whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not. The moral against rape for instance, is either in the best interests of human societies or it is not, regardless of what any one of us might subjectively believe. In other words it would be objectively true even if it is not absolute and divine law. The point being, in contradiction to your understanding, morals need have nothing to do with absolute divine law in order that they be objectively true.

If something is objectively true then it doesn't matter what your excuse is, it means it is absolutely true for everyone, everywhere at all times. Like the world being round. That is objectively true. Even when everyone believed it was flat. Even before there were people. And it will be true even if everyone were to die.

[Sparko]

These erroneously claimed an objective moral basis for their beliefs. The Nazi’s, based their racial attitudes upon what they claimed to be the objective science of eugenics. And the “Slavers” in the US often quoted the supposed objective morality of carefully selected biblical texts to justify slave ownership, e.g. Titus 2. 9-10.

No Tassman. Under YOUR view of "relative societal morals" they can use the same argument you used above to excuse their actions as moral. Which means your idea of morality is useless and nonsense.

Not at all. You keep supposing this is what we are doing but you are wrong. My argument is that absolute, unchanging objective moral standards have never existed. The above two examples of supposed objective morality being a case in point.

The fact that you are mistaking my example above as "objective morals" shows you like JimL have no clue what you are arguing about.

YES. In absolute, objective terms this is true. What else do you think I’ve been saying?

Great, then you can't claim that the SBC was wrong for supporting slavery. Under your values of morality, that they are just relative subjective values that are true for each society, there was nothing wrong with having slaves. You just don't like it now because of your relative values, but that doesn't make what the SBC did wrong, because there is no right and wrong.

Good for them, not for us, this is the point.

So why should I care what you think? It is no more important to me than what your favorite band is.

[Charles]

If something is objectively true then it doesn't matter what your excuse is, it means it is absolutely true for everyone, everywhere at all times. Like the world being round. That is objectively true. Even when everyone believed it was flat. Even before there were people. And it will be true even if everyone were to die.

True.

Which is why a wall won't help you if your obligation is to take care of those in need. They will still be there even if you don't see them. Your obligation will still be there. And it will still be there whether Obama did the right thing or not. You see? There is a tendency to go for the objective in theoretical discussions on tweb and going for relativism for practical matters. Not very convincing.

[Sparko]

True.

Which is why a wall won't help you if your obligation is to take care of those in need. They will still be there even if you don't see them. Your obligation will still be there. And it will still be there whether Obama did the right thing or not. You see? There is a tendency to go for the objective in theoretical discussions on tweb and going for relativism for practical matters. Not very convincing.

Wrong thread Chuck. Get back in the car.

[Charles]

Wrong thread Chuck. Get back in the car.

Right thread, my friend. You see, I am making you aware that what you say in a theoretical discussion applies in real life. That is the whole point.

[Mountain Man]

The moral against rape for instance, is either in the best interests of human societies or it is not, regardless of what any one of us might subjectively believe.

It depends on who determines "best interest". For instance, a policy of rape can be an excellent means of subduing a conquered people and replenishing the conqueror's population. That is certainly in the best interest of the victor.