Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Corrosion of Conservatism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The "analysis" (assuming you are referring to the first part of my response), was simply noting the consequences of the answer you noted you "could" have given. The rest wasn't analysis. I asked two questions. And I didn't presume "wrong" or "right." I'm curious about how you approach this. But if you don't want to talk about it..
    Yeah, I knew you wouldn't likr my response.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Yeah, I knew you wouldn't likr my response.
      I neither liked nor disliked. I asked, you apparently don't want to answer, so...

      You guys have a habit of trying to read minds. You're not very good at it.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
        Yeah, no. The point being that if a conservative Christian critiques Trump's morality, you hand wave it away.
        Citations needed.


        Originally posted by guacamole
        Then that moral opportunism makes you a moral subjectivist whose objection to critique by another moral subjectivist is nonsensical. The idea of supporting a sinful and flawed person is not the idea in question; rather, it's the idea of supporting one as corrupt as Trump.
        So God is a moral subjectivist too. How amusing.

        Let's see how you find that line where a politician goes from 'flawed, but Ok' to 'so flawed I couldn't possibly support him'. And be sure to include the reasoning showing how that applies to all Christians too.



        Originally posted by guacamole
        Do you?



        " I think you're naive and idealistic when it comes to politics."

        Evasive non-answer.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          Let's see how you find that line where a politician goes from 'flawed, but Ok' to 'so flawed I couldn't possibly support him'. And be sure to include the reasoning showing how that applies to all Christians too.
          That's where we seem to be. In the case of Trump, some people don't like him personally, which is fine, but then they go out of their way to justify their dislike by looking for moral faults, which isn't fine.

          Trump is no choir boy, that's for sure. He's rude and braggadocios, but I am not aware of any moral lapses that are so egregious that would disqualify him from being president.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Let's try and clear out some of the clutter:


            Arnold holds to Moral value 'Y'.

            Raymundo holds to Moral value 'not Y'.


            Arnold believes that his moral value is correct ('for him')

            Raymundo believes that his moral value is correct ('for him')


            Question:
            1. Do you agree with Arnold and Raymundo that each has a correct moral value ('for them')?





            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So you seem to be confusing moral absolutism/objectivism with what I would call "universalism."
            I define Absolutism as the view that there are moral truths that apply to everyone. I don't hold that view.

            Moral objectivism is the view that there are moral truths that are true regardless of whether any person accepts them as true or not. So (as an example) it would always be wrong for people to steal, even if a situation arose where no-one alive thought it was wrong to steal.

            I view moral subjectivism/relativism as the opposite of moral objectivism, i.e. the view that people's moral values are true (or 'correct') for them, whatever they happen to be.


            Out of time for now, I will address the rest of your interesting reply later.
            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              So you seem to be confusing moral absolutism/objectivism with what I would call "universalism." The former says "there is a moral principle out there that all should subscribe to and they are wrong if they don't." I have never said anything like that (though I may be guilty of sloppy language - I'm a child of my culture and a lot of language is absolute when it need not be). The latter says, "the world would be a better place if everyone followed this moral principal." Moral relativism/subjectivism has no problem/conflict with moral universalism. Indeed, it is a natural outcome. I hold my moral position because I find it to be the best moral position there is. This is true by definition.
              IOW, it's a tautology, and the statement 'My moral iis the best one', is empty of real content. 'Best' is a superlative adjective, which means a ranking of things against a standard. But your position means there is no shared standard, except if others choose to adopt your personal one. It's at best (ha ha) an unusual use of language. We don't usually say that our opinion on subjective things is 'the best' without the understanding that it is just that - a subjective personal opinion, and carries only the weight that personal experience and expertise may bring to it.

              So Karl Lagerfeld may say something like 'deep red is the best colour for woman's trousers this season', and have his opinion regarded seriously by those who care about fashion, and think Karl Lagerfeld has superior fashion sense.+


              Your problem is that you're doing the same kind of thing, but omitting the usual context of 'this is just my opinion', AND you lack the expertise, experience and shared background beliefs to make your moral pronouncements meaningful to those you address them to.



              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              In moral relativism/subjectivism, if I encounter a moral position I find superior to the one I currently hold, I will immediately adopt it. Ergo, the one I current hold I always view as "the best moral position." Obviously, I would see the world as "a better place" if everyone agreed with my moral position. That doesn't mean I think my moral position is an external, objective position everyone has to align to. It means I would like to see my moral position universalized because then we would all be operating according to a moral position I view as best.

              Because someone else has a different moral position that they see as "best for them" does not require me to agree or even respect it. If it does not align with mine, I will perceive it as a possible threat - and as inferior.
              But you can only ultimately appeal to force - accept my position because it's going to be dangerous for you not to. Which is a logical fallacy, IOW a very bad reason for someone to accept an argument for something. This is because you have no shared objective standard to appeal to. You can argue (say) that your moral position is better than theirs because it promotes an increase in people's happiness (or health, or wellbeing or whatever), and therefore they should change to your position. But if they don't share your interest in promoting people's health (or whatever) then your argument is baseless.

              And here's the real kicker: They are not wrong to do so. Only wrong 'to you'.

              You can't even appeal to a moral obligation to choose rationally, ('You should make your decisions on rational grounds') since t hey may reject that value too, and they are not wrong to do so. Your moral subjectivism will inevitably spread to subjectivism about all kinds of truth.

              So all you actually have is an appeal to force - 'agree with me or face the consequences'. That's why your moral opinions are worthless to me. Any values that we happen to share (and we do share many, thankfully) are ones that you have cribbed from my worldview, and chosen to adopt because you happen to like them. You can at any time, and for any reason (or no reason) abandon them or embrace their polar opposites, and (in your worldview) you wouldn't be wrong to do so.




              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              There is another dynamic at work here too, Max. It is the interpersonal moral framework. Most of the moral positions I hold I hold in common with most of the humans on the planet. That is no big surprise. Since moral frameworks arise (ideally) from the basis of what we value, and how we reason from what we value to how we should therefore act, and since the basic laws of reasoning are universal and we all possess brains capable of reasoning, if we share common values, and we reason without error, we will arrive at common moral conclusions. The vast majority of moral principles are commonly held - a form of social contract. So often we refer to that social contract when making moral statements. That does not make the social contract "absolute." It simply means it is "widely agreed upon."



              No - for the reasons cited above, I will always be incented to find ways to have the people around me agree with and align to my moral framework. The more of us that align to the same view, the more protected that view becomes. There is no conflict here.
              There's that appeal to force again. You want people to share your view because it's convenient or comfortable for you. You are asking them to change from a view that is right for them to a view that is right for you.

              If you make an valid and good argument about an objective fact - the existence of a planet in our Solar system, say - then there is a ethical and rational obligation on others to accept your argument. If you make an argument for a moral position you think is best, there is no similar obligation on others unless they choose to accept one - and if they don't they are not morally or rationally wrong.

              There's the problem - you argue as if they are wrong if they don't accept your position



              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              That is entirely possible. Sometimes, discussion and argument make no difference and there is no way to reconcile differing moral views. Those disconnects are then resolved by means other than reasoning. It has always been thus.

              Possibly. It depends on how interested you are in investigating moral ideas. Some are - some aren't. If you live so far from me, it is entirely possible that we'll have an interesting debate/chat, and then never think about it again. After all - one of the primary ways of handling disconnects is isolation/separation, and the distance introduces that naturally.


              I very much doubt he does. And there is no "should" involved here, at least not that I have introduced. I hope I will get the attention of someone that disagrees with my moral view, and can influence them to "see things my way." If they don't, then other approaches come to play. In the case of Trump - I'll simply do everything I can to get him out of office and out of power, so his "moral view" has minimal impact on my life.



              Actually - I am. In a subjective/relative moral framework - I am the foremost authority on my own moral framework. And since I explore these concepts a lot, and share a significant part of my moral framework with those around me, I can speak in a fairly informed way on the moral framework of a significant part of my society/culture/country.



              These are all true. My likelihood of having any impact on the moral framework of a man I cannot talk to directly, who is in his 70s and probably set in his ways (which are probably the same kind of absolutist thinking many people resort to), and who runs in a completely different social/business circle is minimal. Out of curiosity - do you think your absolute/objective framework gives you any more of a chance of influencing Trump?



              I'm not seeing a problem.
              evidently not. I hope you seeing why others have no reason to care at all about your moral opinions, except insofar as you can impose them by force. This is not the same as my worldview, since that allows for moral truths, which I can make rational and ethical appeals to others to accept.


              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              Yes- they are acting consistently when they do these things. The problem THEY face is an inability to show that these moral absolutes actually exist, and are not just the thinking of "the herd," where "the herd" can be the writings of long dead men, a god that cannot be shown to exist, or the teaching of a particular religion/church (which is just another form of herd). There is no actual moral reasoning going on.
              In some cases, sure. But not in all, In particular in this context - TWeb, there are plenty of posters who don't share your moral but do think deeply and carefully about their moral values, and what grounds them.



              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              All that is going on is trying to uncover "what the herd thinks" so it can be followed. So the only response to a moral question is ultimately, "because god says so," or "because it's in the bible," or "because that is what my faith/church/religion teaches." The problem is, if god does not actually exist (as I believe), then each of those is just a variation on "what the herd thinks."
              This is pretty much a poor attempt at mindreading. I live in a society where ab out 1% share my particular moral worldview, so I am definitely not following the herd. It would be easier for me in many practical ways to abandon my moral vlaues and adopt theirs, but I don't and I won't.


              Originally posted by carpedm9587
              You are not showing an inconsistency, Max. You are showing a misunderstanding of what relative/subjective morality means (at least as I practice it). That may be partially my fault. I am slowly realizing that relative/subjective is used in many ways by many people, so when I use the terms the person I am talking to goes to their particular definition of the terms, and does not actuall listen to what I am saying. Maybe I need some new words. Maybe I should call it "personal" morality or something.
              Hmmm.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Let's try and clear out some of the clutter:

                Arnold holds to Moral value 'Y'.

                Raymundo holds to Moral value 'not Y'.

                Arnold believes that his moral value is correct ('for him')

                Raymundo believes that his moral value is correct ('for him')

                Question:
                1. Do you agree with Arnold and Raymundo that each has a correct moral value ('for them')?
                Possibly. The moral chain of reasoning is value -> reason -> moral conclusion. I value life, so I reason to positions that see actions that nurture/sustain/support life as "moral" and actions that diminish/destroy/harm life as "immoral." So if my reasoning is correct, then the moral position will be correct for what I value.

                So if both people in your scenario are reasoning correctly, but they value differently, they can come to opposing moral positions and each of them will see/experience that position as "right for them." We see this all the time.

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                I define Absolutism as the view that there are moral truths that apply to everyone. I don't hold that view.
                I agree with your definition - I also do not hold that view - and I am surprised that you do not.

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Moral objectivism is the view that there are moral truths that are true regardless of whether any person accepts them as true or not. So (as an example) it would always be wrong for people to steal, even if a situation arose where no-one alive thought it was wrong to steal.
                I am not seeing a difference between this definition and your definition of moral absolutism. Can you explain?

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                I view moral subjectivism/relativism as the opposite of moral objectivism, i.e. the view that people's moral values are true (or 'correct') for them, whatever they happen to be.
                Agreed. However, here is where I think most people who disagree with moral subjectivism/relativism "jump the rails." From this definition/explanation, they then conclude that I must respect/accept what the other person thinks is moral as "right for them." In other words, when I am assessing moral behavior beyond myself, I must use the moral framework of the person acting. So to use your explanation above:

                Arnold holds to Moral value 'Y'.
                Raymundo holds to Moral value 'not Y'.

                Arnold believes that "Y" is correct ('for him')
                Raymundo believes that "Not Y" is correct ('for him')

                When Arnold assess the actions of Arnold, he uses "Arnold's" moral framework.
                When Arnold assesses the actions of Raymundo, he must use Raymundo's moral framework.

                It is the latter that I disagree with. If I have a moral framework, it is because I perceive the things I value as "supreme," and the moral framework that surrounds them as "supreme." If I thought Raymundo's framework was better, I would instantly adopt it. Ergo, I assess ALL actions from the perspective of my moral framework - not from the perspective of everyone else's moral framework. For me, the world would be an ideal place if my framework were universalized. For Raymundo, the world would be a better place if his framework were universalized.*

                So, if Raymundo and I are in constant contact, I will work to convince him to adopt my framework - just as he will work to convince me to adopt his. I have two avenues for doing thing.
                • If we value the same way, then a difference in our moral framework suggests an error in reasoning on one of our parts. I can uncover that error in reasoning.
                • If we value differently, I can try to convince Raymundo of the benefits of how/what I value. If I can convince him to change what he values to align, we should be on a path to aligning moral frameworks.


                There is no guarantee that either approach will work. My discussion with Seer is an excellent case in point. We do not value the same way, and aligning values is unlikely (at least right now). Seer values his god above all - and so has chosen to align his moral framework with what he thinks this god wants, as interpreted by him (and other) in the pages of the bible. I believe this god does not exist, so would not dream of trying to align my moral framework to that of the bible. From my perspective, since I believe this god does not exist, I perceive Seer as aligning his moral framework to the moral frameworks of the authors of the bible - which is simply a "follow the herd" morality. To me, it is no different than if I pick up a copy of "Ethics for Life" (Judith Boss) and decided to align my moral framework to that book (and hence to Judith's framework).

                This difference is not going to be resolved. Ergo - we are left with what to do when moral frameworks are out of sync. Usually, there are a small number of options:

                1) Ignore the difference - if the moral distinction is minor and does not really impact us day-to-day, many people just ignore the distinction. If Arnold thinks it's moral for the parent of a starving family to steal to feed their family, and Raymundo disagrees, but neither is starving or knows anyone starving, the discussion is largely academic and they'll mostly ignore the distinction.

                2) Isolate/Separate - if the moral distinction is significant enough, we will cease being friends, avoid one another, etc. If Arnold believes homosexuality is sinful and Raymundo disagrees, and Raymundo has a homosexual friend or family member, Raymundo may see continued friendship with Arnold as too problematic and move into different social circles. Likewise, a person may choose their church based on their willingness to accept homosexuals without judgment.

                3) Dominate and Control - is the moral distinction is serious and life affecting, then an attempt will usually be made to dominate and control. So if Arnold believes it is oral to take whatever he needs whenever he needs it, Raymundo will seek to stop him - to prevent him from taking his things. It is for this latter reason that people with like moral frameworks tend to band together - and tend to encode their frameworks in social norms and laws. Arnold can then be arrested and jailed for his theft. Note that will not change what Arnold thinks is moral - it will simply limit his ability to act on it. Some people confuse this with "might makes right."

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Out of time for now, I will address the rest of your interesting reply later.
                Fair enough.




                * BTW: It is this dynamic that I believe leads you to think I am acting "inconsistently" with my moral framework. I do not believe there are "objective" moral truths (in the sense that you define it). Indeed, since moralizing is a cognitive function to sort actions based on valuing - if there were no sentient beings - morality would cease to exist (unlike the laws of reason and mathematics).


                (CP is so going to love the verbosity... )
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-08-2019, 07:50 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Yeah - but you're starting from a share "moral objectivist/realist" starting point - at least giving you THAT for common ground. I'm the heathen rejecting both the idea of god AND the idea of moral objectivity. I'm dead in the water before the conversation even starts.

                  But am I to understand that you do not subscribe to "divine command theory?" You believe morality is rooted in something other than "god says so?" Or were you simply noting that others believe morality can be objective/absolute and rooted in something other than "god says so?"
                  The problem with a divine command theory approach to ethics is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a "God-of-the-gaps" argument. I agree with divine command theory as a point of doctrine, but as an approach to ethics, unless one is trying to use some kind of presuppositional argument, I don't think it holds much water.
                  "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                  Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                  Save me, save me"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    IOW, it's a tautology, and the statement 'My moral iis the best one', is empty of real content. 'Best' is a superlative adjective, which means a ranking of things against a standard. But your position means there is no shared standard, except if others choose to adopt your personal one. It's at best (ha ha) an unusual use of language. We don't usually say that our opinion on subjective things is 'the best' without the understanding that it is just that - a subjective personal opinion, and carries only the weight that personal experience and expertise may bring to it.
                    "That restaurant is the best!"

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    So Karl Lagerfeld may say something like 'deep red is the best colour for woman's trousers this season', and have his opinion regarded seriously by those who care about fashion, and think Karl Lagerfeld has superior fashion sense.+
                    Exactly

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Your problem is that you're doing the same kind of thing, but omitting the usual context of 'this is just my opinion', AND you lack the expertise, experience and shared background beliefs to make your moral pronouncements meaningful to those you address them to.
                    The comparison is apt, but misapplied. Karl is indeed making a fashion statement - and note that your sentence itself says "by those who care about fashion, and think Karl Lagerfeld has superior fashion sense." And then there is everyone else - who will look at Karl's pronouncement as the ravings of a tasteless prig. And then all of those who don't share Karl's fashion sense because their tastes run to denim and leather.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    But you can only ultimately appeal to force - accept my position because it's going to be dangerous for you not to.
                    No - see my previous post for this.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Which is a logical fallacy, IOW a very bad reason for someone to accept an argument for something. This is because you have no shared objective standard to appeal to. You can argue (say) that your moral position is better than theirs because it promotes an increase in people's happiness (or health, or wellbeing or whatever), and therefore they should change to your position. But if they don't share your interest in promoting people's health (or whatever) then your argument is baseless.
                    Exactly.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    And here's the real kicker: They are not wrong to do so. Only wrong 'to you'.
                    Exactly.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    You can't even appeal to a moral obligation to choose rationally, ('You should make your decisions on rational grounds') since t hey may reject that value too, and they are not wrong to do so. Your moral subjectivism will inevitably spread to subjectivism about all kinds of truth.
                    This reduces to the "slippery slope" argument. I've never found that very compelling. A thing is what it is. If morality is subjective/relative (as I believe it is), then it's subjective/relative. Recognizing that this type of truth is subjective/relative does not change the type of other truths. Relative/subjective truths will remain relative/subjective - and absolute/objective truths will remain absolute/objective.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    So all you actually have is an appeal to force - 'agree with me or face the consequences'. That's why your moral opinions are worthless to me. Any values that we happen to share (and we do share many, thankfully) are ones that you have cribbed from my worldview, and chosen to adopt because you happen to like them. You can at any time, and for any reason (or no reason) abandon them or embrace their polar opposites, and (in your worldview) you wouldn't be wrong to do so.

                    There's that appeal to force again. You want people to share your view because it's convenient or comfortable for you. You are asking them to change from a view that is right for them to a view that is right for you.
                    No - there is no appeal to force here (except as a last resort for the most egregious disconnects - and even that does not alter what someone thinks is right - only their freedom to act on it). The observation was not that I need to force you - but rather that it is in my interests to convince you, just as it is in your interests to convince me. If we cannot come to agreement, which is always possible... there are several avenues open for dealing with the issue.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    If you make an valid and good argument about an objective fact - the existence of a planet in our Solar system, say - then there is a ethical and rational obligation on others to accept your argument. If you make an argument for a moral position you think is best, there is no similar obligation on others unless they choose to accept one - and if they don't they are not morally or rationally wrong.

                    There's the problem - you argue as if they are wrong if they don't accept your position.
                    I do plead guilty to generally assuming that we value the same basic things (after all, we're all human and share a lot of common characteristics), and that a breakdown in reasoning is at play. When it becomes clear that the basis is about what we fundamentally value - I want to explore that. Eventually, as I have come to see with Seer, the distinctions are too vast to be reconciled. So - we start with either "ignoring" or "isolation/separation." What Seer finds moral/immoral doesn't impact me day to day, or anyone I know, so I don't need to "block his posts," and I continue to hold out hope of convincing him. If we were in the same town, I am not sure whether or not we could be friends - our moral positions are pretty far apart. On the greater scale of social norms, we are at odds and, yes, the stronger (more widely accepted view) will predominate in the culture. We are seeing that play out today in the LGBTQ issues.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    evidently not. I hope you seeing why others have no reason to care at all about your moral opinions, except insofar as you can impose them by force. This is not the same as my worldview, since that allows for moral truths, which I can make rational and ethical appeals to others to accept.
                    As I have said to Seer multiple times - your objection here is "it's not absolute/objective." That's not an argument. And, frankly, the same problem occurs in the absolute/objective approach - for different reasons.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    In some cases, sure. But not in all, In particular in this context - TWeb, there are plenty of posters who don't share your moral but do think deeply and carefully about their moral values, and what grounds them.
                    Max, if someone's core moral philosophy is based on "because God says so," then the reasoning that is going on is "how do we determine what god wants." It's not about "what is fundamentally right/wrong about this action?

                    When I am in discussions with people here about homosexuality, the resort is almost always "because it says so in the bible." Only a small handful of people have made an attempt to "reason" to the moral conclusions they draw, but I have to say that I am usually suspicious. The reasoning they bring to the table is so unbelievably convoluted, I have to wonder if they don't start with "because god says so" and then try to find ways to rationalize it with biological/evolutionary "facts."

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    This is pretty much a poor attempt at mindreading. I live in a society where ab out 1% share my particular moral worldview, so I am definitely not following the herd. It would be easier for me in many practical ways to abandon my moral vlaues and adopt theirs, but I don't and I won't.
                    No. If someone gives me an evolutionary/biological argument for why they think homosexuality is wrong, and I assume they did so only because they actually think "god said so," (a suspicion I voiced above), then I am guilty of "mind reading." But if someone says "because the bible said so," then their morality is at the level of "following the herd." You cannot escape it. Even "because god says so" is a "following the herd" morality - but the "herd" is "the supreme being." It's not exploring the actual moral underpinnings of an action - it's an attempt to discern, "what does he/she/it/they think?"

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Hmmm.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                      The problem with a divine command theory approach to ethics is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a "God-of-the-gaps" argument. I agree with divine command theory as a point of doctrine, but as an approach to ethics, unless one is trying to use some kind of presuppositional argument, I don't think it holds much water.
                      Interesting...

                      I would give good money to listen in on an ethics discussion between you and Seer.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                        Citations needed.



                        So God is a moral subjectivist too. How amusing.
                        Ah, we are striking the "How amusing" tone. I see.

                        No. God is no moral subjectivist. I cannot fathom the contortions of logic that would lead you to write that from what I said.

                        Let's see how you find that line where a politician goes from 'flawed, but Ok' to 'so flawed I couldn't possibly support him'. And be sure to include the reasoning showing how that applies to all Christians too.
                        I drew my line already:

                        I will not put my stamp of approval on a candidate who has proven, repeat, serious moral failures -- like repeated infidelities, like repeated use of wealth, power, and privilege beneath the law to abuse others-- because people like Trump do not suddenly draw tight boundaries around their "personal lives" and say, "Well, now I'm being entrusted with vast responsibilities so I better clean up my act." On the contrary, their corruption permeates every aspect of their lives. Faithless in personal things and faithless in professional things.


                        How I find that line is scripture--the behaviors that draw consistent condemnation from God as corrupting the nation and leading inevitably to judgement. Even though we do not operate under the terms of the same covenant as the Israelites, we see God's character revealed in these confrontations with Israelite and Judaean kings and people of power. So what I mean when I find that line in scripture is that if God condemned a ruler or group of people for specific crimes and sins, I will not vote for a person guilty of those same crimes and sins, not because I'm worried about drawing judgment, but because I am trying to align my character with God's character (I have no doubt most Christians here are--it is not a question of whether or not one is trying to align with God, but how.). Salt and light and all of that.

                        I've given my answer, so now I'll ask you the exact same question I gave Mountain Man the opportunity to answer. For whatever reason, despite already acknowledging that he votes on platform and not morality, meaning, logically that he has agreed to accept some immoral behavior from his leaders, MM was clutching his pearls over my wording.

                        Where do you arbitrarily draw your line with respect to accepting scurrilous and sinful behavior from your leaders?


                        So is there a bridge too far for you? And if so, how do you draw the line?

                        Evasive non-answer.
                        I was quoting someone. Perhaps you recognize the source?
                        "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                        Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                        Save me, save me"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Possibly. The moral chain of reasoning is value -> reason -> moral conclusion. I value life, so I reason to positions that see actions that nurture/sustain/support life as "moral" and actions that diminish/destroy/harm life as "immoral." So if my reasoning is correct, then the moral position will be correct for what I value.

                          So if both people in your scenario are reasoning correctly, but they value differently, they can come to opposing moral positions and each of them will see/experience that position as "right for them." We see this all the time.

                          I think it goes deeper than that - they both ARE correct (in your worldview). And that's the nub of the problem.





                          Originally posted by carpedm9587
                          I agree with your definition - I also do not hold that view - and I am surprised that you do not.



                          I am not seeing a difference between this definition and your definition of moral absolutism. Can you explain?
                          Absolute morals = moral rules apply to everyone / have authority over everyone. So if it is 'wrong to take a human life' that would be wrong for God as well as humans. I think this is clearly nonsensical.

                          Objective morals = there are moral facts that are independent of (human) agreement.


                          Originally posted by carpedm9587
                          Agreed. However, here is where I think most people who disagree with moral subjectivism/relativism "jump the rails." From this definition/explanation, they then conclude that I must respect/accept what the other person thinks is moral as "right for them." In other words, when I am assessing moral behavior beyond myself, I must use the moral framework of the person acting. So to use your explanation above:

                          Arnold holds to Moral value 'Y'.
                          Raymundo holds to Moral value 'not Y'.

                          Arnold believes that "Y" is correct ('for him')
                          Raymundo believes that "Not Y" is correct ('for him')

                          When Arnold assess the actions of Arnold, he uses "Arnold's" moral framework.
                          When Arnold assesses the actions of Raymundo, he must use Raymundo's moral framework.

                          It is the latter that I disagree with. If I have a moral framework, it is because I perceive the things I value as "supreme," and the moral framework that surrounds them as "supreme." If I thought Raymundo's framework was better, I would instantly adopt it. Ergo, I assess ALL actions from the perspective of my moral framework - not from the perspective of everyone else's moral framework. For me, the world would be an ideal place if my framework were universalized. For Raymundo, the world would be a better place if his framework were universalized.*
                          That's a very clear explanation. I agree that people often do try to apply the wrong moral frameworks when assessing the morality of an action (according to your view). The problem is that you have brought in a non-subjective value, by using terms like "supreme" and "better". Those are superlative terms, implying 'the closest in this group to X', where X is some standard. But there is no standard in your worldview, except that which one chooses to have. And as you have pointed out above, whatever standard one has is what is right.

                          So better et al simply means something like 'closer to that which I happen to prefer'.


                          Originally posted by carpedm9587
                          So, if Raymundo and I are in constant contact, I will work to convince him to adopt my framework - just as he will work to convince me to adopt his. I have two avenues for doing thing.
                          • If we value the same way, then a difference in our moral framework suggests an error in reasoning on one of our parts. I can uncover that error in reasoning.
                          • If we value differently, I can try to convince Raymundo of the benefits of how/what I value. If I can convince him to change what he values to align, we should be on a path to aligning moral frameworks.
                          But (1) there is no sense in your worldview in which making an error in reasoning, or just not bothering to reason at all, is an objective fault. Raymundo may choose not to care why he holds the values he does, or not care to change them for any reason, and he is right to do so. And (2) You are assuming that adopting a moral framework which brings benefits (whatever they might be) is an objective value, and you deny that as part of your worldview.


                          Originally posted by carpedm9587
                          There is no guarantee that either approach will work. My discussion with Seer is an excellent case in point. We do not value the same way, and aligning values is unlikely (at least right now). Seer values his god above all - and so has chosen to align his moral framework with what he thinks this god wants, as interpreted by him (and other) in the pages of the bible. I believe this god does not exist, so would not dream of trying to align my moral framework to that of the bible. From my perspective, since I believe this god does not exist, I perceive Seer as aligning his moral framework to the moral frameworks of the authors of the bible - which is simply a "follow the herd" morality. To me, it is no different than if I pick up a copy of "Ethics for Life" (Judith Boss) and decided to align my moral framework to that book (and hence to Judith's framework).

                          This difference is not going to be resolved. Ergo - we are left with what to do when moral frameworks are out of sync. Usually, there are a small number of options:

                          1) Ignore the difference - if the moral distinction is minor and does not really impact us day-to-day, many people just ignore the distinction. If Arnold thinks it's moral for the parent of a starving family to steal to feed their family, and Raymundo disagrees, but neither is starving or knows anyone starving, the discussion is largely academic and they'll mostly ignore the distinction.

                          2) Isolate/Separate - if the moral distinction is significant enough, we will cease being friends, avoid one another, etc. If Arnold believes homosexuality is sinful and Raymundo disagrees, and Raymundo has a homosexual friend or family member, Raymundo may see continued friendship with Arnold as too problematic and move into different social circles. Likewise, a person may choose their church based on their willingness to accept homosexuals without judgment.

                          3) Dominate and Control - is the moral distinction is serious and life affecting, then an attempt will usually be made to dominate and control. So if Arnold believes it is oral to take whatever he needs whenever he needs it, Raymundo will seek to stop him - to prevent him from taking his things. It is for this latter reason that people with like moral frameworks tend to band together - and tend to encode their frameworks in social norms and laws. Arnold can then be arrested and jailed for his theft. Note that will not change what Arnold thinks is moral - it will simply limit his ability to act on it. Some people confuse this with "might makes right."

                          It not only doesn't change what he thinks, it doesn't change what is true, either. It is morally wrong for you to stop him stealing, just as it is morally wrong for him to steal. The difference is simply one of perspective.



                          Originally posted by carpedm9587
                          Fair enough.


                          * BTW: It is this dynamic that I believe leads you to think I am acting "inconsistently" with my moral framework. I do not believe there are "objective" moral truths (in the sense that you define it). Indeed, since moralizing is a cognitive function to sort actions based on valuing - if there were no sentient beings - morality would cease to exist (unlike the laws of reason and mathematics).


                          (CP is so going to love the verbosity... )

                          I found you clear and easy to understand. Sorry CP
                          Last edited by MaxVel; 02-13-2019, 08:35 AM.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            "That restaurant is the best!"



                            Exactly



                            The comparison is apt, but misapplied. Karl is indeed making a fashion statement - and note that your sentence itself says "by those who care about fashion, and think Karl Lagerfeld has superior fashion sense." And then there is everyone else - who will look at Karl's pronouncement as the ravings of a tasteless prig. And then all of those who don't share Karl's fashion sense because their tastes run to denim and leather.



                            No - see my previous post for this.

                            Note that I said "ultimately". Because reason, group or personal interest, 'benefits' and so on have no objective weight in your worldview. So there is no independent arbiter to settle a disagreement, no objective thing out there that we can compare differing beliefs to, to determine which is closest to reality. Opposing moral values are equally true and justified, and thus there ultimately is only the application of force to resolve conflicts where one party won't or cannot ignore the others' position. Force here may be as simple as exclusion from a social group, or threats to do that, or may involve applying the power of the state to compel compliance, against the conscience of the individual.

                            I hope you can see how ugly and evil the last can be. I think forcing someone to violate their moral conscience is one of the worst things you can do to someone.




                            Originally posted by carpedm9587


                            Exactly.



                            Exactly.



                            This reduces to the "slippery slope" argument. I've never found that very compelling. A thing is what it is. If morality is subjective/relative (as I believe it is), then it's subjective/relative. Recognizing that this type of truth is subjective/relative does not change the type of other truths. Relative/subjective truths will remain relative/subjective - and absolute/objective truths will remain absolute/objective.

                            Since many truths can be expressed as moral values - 'You should always proportion your beliefs to the evidence for them'; 'You should have good reasons for what you do' and so on, your worldview undermines the basis for them, and thus for rational thought. It is not wrong to hold a moral value for any reason, or for no reason at all, in your worldview - thus rationality and reason become irrelevant as bases for our moral behaviour. It all boils down to the exercise of power in one's personal interests.



                            Originally posted by carpedm9587
                            No - there is no appeal to force here (except as a last resort for the most egregious disconnects - and even that does not alter what someone thinks is right - only their freedom to act on it). The observation was not that I need to force you - but rather that it is in my interests to convince you, just as it is in your interests to convince me. If we cannot come to agreement, which is always possible... there are several avenues open for dealing with the issue.



                            I do plead guilty to generally assuming that we value the same basic things (after all, we're all human and share a lot of common characteristics), and that a breakdown in reasoning is at play. When it becomes clear that the basis is about what we fundamentally value - I want to explore that. Eventually, as I have come to see with Seer, the distinctions are too vast to be reconciled. So - we start with either "ignoring" or "isolation/separation." What Seer finds moral/immoral doesn't impact me day to day, or anyone I know, so I don't need to "block his posts," and I continue to hold out hope of convincing him. If we were in the same town, I am not sure whether or not we could be friends - our moral positions are pretty far apart. On the greater scale of social norms, we are at odds and, yes, the stronger (more widely accepted view) will predominate in the culture. We are seeing that play out today in the LGBTQ issues.



                            As I have said to Seer multiple times - your objection here is "it's not absolute/objective." That's not an argument. And, frankly, the same problem occurs in the absolute/objective approach - for different reasons.

                            No, my objection is that because it's not objective, my moral view is at least as true as yours, and so there are no reasonable grounds for you to attempt to convince me that I am wrong (I'm not) and that I should change my view to align with yours. It's merely self-interest on your part.

                            You are privileging a particular set of your subjective opinions, and granting them the authority to justify you attempting to change my beliefs, by force if need be, in 'extreme' cases. Note that what constitutes a case where force is justified on your part is completely subjective - since that is a moral decision - and I can have no recourse to an appeal to a moral value (since you freely, and 'correctly' accept or reject it on any grounds) to defend myself.

                            If someone were to do that with their beliefs on fashion (say) - decide that others who have different beliefs should be forced into changing them - we would call them insane. But that is what your worldview allows for, and they would not be insane.



                            Originally posted by carpedm9587
                            Max, if someone's core moral philosophy is based on "because God says so," then the reasoning that is going on is "how do we determine what god wants." It's not about "what is fundamentally right/wrong about this action?

                            When I am in discussions with people here about homosexuality, the resort is almost always "because it says so in the bible." Only a small handful of people have made an attempt to "reason" to the moral conclusions they draw, but I have to say that I am usually suspicious. The reasoning they bring to the table is so unbelievably convoluted, I have to wonder if they don't start with "because god says so" and then try to find ways to rationalize it with biological/evolutionary "facts."



                            No. If someone gives me an evolutionary/biological argument for why they think homosexuality is wrong, and I assume they did so only because they actually think "god said so," (a suspicion I voiced above), then I am guilty of "mind reading." But if someone says "because the bible said so," then their morality is at the level of "following the herd." You cannot escape it. Even "because god says so" is a "following the herd" morality - but the "herd" is "the supreme being." It's not exploring the actual moral underpinnings of an action - it's an attempt to discern, "what does he/she/it/they think?"

                            I'd be very surprised if anyone much here says that their moral foundation is 'because God says so', and that alone. It seems like a simplistic caricature to me. Let's ask Mountain Man, OBP, Sparko, Bill the Cat, Apologia Phoenix, oxmixmudd, Seer, LPOT and Cow Poke if that's the sole grounding for their moral worldview.
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              I think it goes deeper than that - they both ARE correct (in your worldview). And that's the nub of the problem.
                              They are correct - relative to what that person values and assuming correct reasoning.

                              So they will be correct for X - not correct for Y if they are rooted in different value frameworks. There is no problem here.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              Absolute morals = moral rules apply to everyone / have authority over everyone. So if it is 'wrong to take a human life' that would be wrong for God as well as humans. I think this is clearly nonsensical.

                              Objective morals = there are moral facts that are independent of (human) agreement.
                              That's a clear explanation. We agree on the first. We disagree on the second.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              That's a very clear explanation. I agree that people often do try to apply the wrong moral frameworks when assessing the morality of an action (according to your view). The problem is that you have brought in a non-subjective value, by using terms like "supreme" and "better". Those are superlative terms, implying 'the closest in this group to X', where X is some standard. But there is no standard in your worldview, except that which one chooses to have. And as you have pointed out above, whatever standard one has is what is right.

                              So better et al simply means something like 'closer to that which I happen to prefer'.
                              First, "supreme" and "best" are superlatives. "Better" is not. And you are incorrect that there is no "standard" in my worldview. The "standard" is the set of things I value, the protection of which is the purpose of my moral framework. So if Moral Position A better protects those valued things than moral Position B, then I will adopt A and eschew B.

                              What you are actually trying to say is that there is no absolute/objective standard. I don't disagree with you. But then I never claimed there was. We are, after all, in a relative/subjective framework. We know relative/subjective frameworks will not provide an absolute/objective outcome/metric/standard. As with Seer, your argument here reduces to "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective." I am hoping you will see this better than Seer did. That statement is not an argument. It's like saying "blue is not green." We all know that and agree with that. What you are TRYING to say is "blue is better than green." But repeating "blue is not green" does not show that. Likewise, "subjective is not objective" (in the context of morals) is not making your case.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              But (1) there is no sense in your worldview in which making an error in reasoning, or just not bothering to reason at all, is an objective fault.
                              You are going to have a very hard time making this case. But let's see...

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              Raymundo may choose not to care why he holds the values he does, or not care to change them for any reason, and he is right to do so. And (2) You are assuming that adopting a moral framework which brings benefits (whatever they might be) is an objective value, and you deny that as part of your worldview.
                              There is no doubt that some people can arrive at moral conclusions with no reason/rationality applied whatsoever. That means we have a person articulating a conclusion they cannot in any way shape or form defend. They may be absolutely convinced "they are right." They ill be unable to show me why "they are right" and I am not going to bother having a discussion with them: a conclusion arrived at irrationally cannot be argued with rationally. At that point, we have no recourse but ignore, isolate/separate, or control.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              It not only doesn't change what he thinks, it doesn't change what is true, either.
                              It doesn't change what is "objectively" true - but then I never claimed there was an objective truth here.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              It is morally wrong for you to stop him stealing, just as it is morally wrong for him to steal. The difference is simply one of perspective.
                              It is morally wrong (to him) if I stop him from stealing. It is morally wrong (for me) that he steals. He will view himself as correct. I will view myself as correct. We have differing moral conclusions. Again - no problem.

                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              I found you clear and easy to understand. Sorry CP
                              Thanks Max.

                              To my friend CP:
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              82 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              277 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              109 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              195 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              353 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X