Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you say that I can not ask about genetics? That was an arbitrary condition.

What? Where did I say "you cannot ask about genetics?" I frankly don't understand why you would ask - since it doesn't factor into your moral decision making. But you can ask anything you want.

And get off your high house, you are not that bright.

Actually - by several measures (IQ, standardized testing, etc.), I'm fairly bright. But my wife will tell you that there are other metrics by which I come up seriously short (i.e., finding things, reading the mood of others, etc.).

It is not inconsistent if MY criterion is gender alone. Why should I accept your criterion? Why can't my criterion be gender alone? What law of logic have I violated?

It is inconsistent to accept genetics as a basis for moral decisions in Situation A, and reject it as "bigoted" in Situation B - which was the basis for the argument. But it's irrelevant. Genetics has nothing to do with your moral decision making. The only consistency you have expressed caring about is "consistency with the bible." So any other argument about consistency is going to fail with you - as you are amply demonstrating.

That is not an answers Carp. You said I abandoned reason in the moral sphere, yet you admit that your moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not (apart from it tells us about what you prefer).

So, again, you just went for "green is not blue." Moral reasoning tells us what is moral and not moral - but it does so subjectively/relatively, not absolute/objectively. So your entire argument here, reduces to "moral relativism/subjectivism is bad because it's not absolute/objective." Again - that's not an argument. It's a repetition of the definition of the terms coupled with an unsubstantiated value judgement.

I'll leave you to it. You still have not made an argument against morality being relative/subjective or needing to be absolute/objective.

There is rational reason to believe that moral reasoning leads to answering moral questions any better than what the herd or book comes up with.

I suspect you meant "not a rational reason." Yet again you are responding to something I did not say, and apparently again defending "using irrationality/non-rationality to arrive at conclusions is potentially as good or better than using rationality." I think it is obvious that using reason is more likely to arrive at moral conclusions that align with our valuing, just as using reason will likely get us a house or car or spouse that aligns with our needs and priorities. If you think otherwise, then I recommend you try it for a while - just flip a coin for the upcoming subjective decisions you need to make - since it apparently does not matter to you and cannot be shown to produce better outcomes.

I think we both know you won't be making your next important, subjective, decisions that way.

[seer]

Actually - by several measures (IQ, standardized testing, etc.), I'm fairly bright. But my wife will tell you that there are other metrics by which I come up seriously short (i.e., finding things, reading the mood of others, etc.).

Well I ran a pretty consistent 135-140 over my younger years. Though I haven't tested in 20 years.

What? Where did I say "you cannot ask about genetics?"

Here:

Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

It is inconsistent to accept genetics as a basis for moral decisions in Situation A, and reject it as "bigoted" in Situation B - which was the basis for the argument. But it's irrelevant. Genetics has nothing to do with your moral decision making. The only consistency you have expressed caring about is "consistency with the bible." So any other argument about consistency is going to fail with you - as you are amply demonstrating.

No it is not. Human genetics it too broad, focusing on gender, a sub category, is perfectly rational. And if I do so I have not violated any law of logic. At least you can't point to one.

So, again, you just went for "green is not blue." Moral reasoning tells us what is moral and not moral - but it does so subjectively/relatively, not absolute/objectively. So your entire argument here, reduces to "moral relativism/subjectivism is bad because it's not absolute/objective." Again - that's not an argument. It's a repetition of the definition of the terms coupled with an unsubstantiated value judgement.

I suspect you meant "not a rational reason." Yet again you are responding to something I did not say, and apparently again defending "using irrationality/non-rationality to arrive at conclusions is potentially as good or better than using rationality." I think it is obvious that using reason is more likely to arrive at moral conclusions that align with our valuing, just as using reason will likely get us a house or car or spouse that aligns with our needs and priorities. If you think otherwise, then I recommend you try it for a while - just flip a coin for the upcoming subjective decisions you need to make - since it apparently does not matter to you and cannot be shown to produce better outcomes.

Right, and all your reasoning is only used to confirm what you value. What I have been saying all along. It is not about better or more valid or even about moral progress. It is the world according to Carp, and easily dismissed.

[carpedm9587]

Well I ran a pretty consistent 135-140 over my younger years. Though I haven't tested in 20 years.

No need to assure me, Seer. I have not questioned your brightness. I questioned your understanding of a specific topic. Not knowing and not being able to know are not the same thing.

Here:

Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

Ahh... I see. Yes - the thought experiment was to make it clear to you that your moral position about homosexuality is based entirely on the genetic make-up of the two people engaging in the act. You and Sparko were insisting that your moral position was NOT based purely on genetics. To show you that it IS actually based on genetics, I suggested that experiment. You see, if your statement, "it is not based purely on genetics" was true, then you should be able to determine the morality of the act WITHOUT knowing their genetic identity. If the only way you can answer the question is to know their genetic identity, then it logically follows that your moral prohibition is based on genetics. I knew you could not do so. I still know you cannot do so. The bible prohibition against homosexuality is entirely rooted in the genetic make-up of the two people involved in the act. But that is not a problem for you because, if the bible says it, then it is moral/immoral accordingly. Your follow-the-herd/book cannot examine the basis for the moral precepts and evaluate them. You can only blindly follow them.

No it is not. Human genetics it too broad, focusing on gender, a sub category, is perfectly rational. And if I do so I have not violated any law of logic. At least you can't point to one.

Your opinion is duly noted - and the point is irrelevant. You do not measure moral consistency on the basis of rational alignment between conclusions, you measure consistency by asking, "does it align with what is in the book?" If the book contains logical inconsistencies, you will see them as acceptable because "the book says so." That is why I find "following the book" and "following the herd" an inferior process. It provides no mechanism for assessing the conclusions themselves as rationally defensible.

Right, and all your reasoning is only used to confirm what you value.

It doesn't confirm what I value - it aligns what I decide (in terms of action) with what I value.

What I have been saying all along. It is not about better or more valid or even about moral progress. It is the world according to Carp, and easily dismissed.

More "green is not blue" so I'll let my previous responses stand.

[seer]

Your opinion is duly noted - and the point is irrelevant. You do not measure moral consistency on the basis of rational alignment between conclusions - "does it align with what is in the book." If the book contains logical inconsistencies, you will see them as acceptable because "the book says so." That is why I find "following the book" and "following the herd" an inferior process.

The point is, I would have every rational right to focus on gender. Doing so violates no law of logic. And you did say that we could not ask about genetics: Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

It doesn't confirm what I value - it aligns what I decide (in terms of action) with what I value.

Semantics...

More "green is not blue" so I'll let my previous responses stand.

As my point stands, moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Just ask the Maoist.

[carpedm9587]

The point is, I would have every rational right to focus on gender. Doing so violates no law of logic. And you did say that we could not ask about genetics: Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

I missed that part of your post, and went back and added it. To summarize - I made the case that your moral proscription against homosexuality was entirely based in genetics. You and Sparko insisted it was not. If you and Sparko were correct in that insistence, then it should be possible to evaluate the morality of a given act WITHOUT knowing the genetic makeup of the two people involved. If you HAVE to know that piece of information, and no other information can get you to a moral conclusion, then the rules of logic say that your proscription IS based on genetics, despite your insistence that it is not. Hence the proposed thought experiment.

The problem is - the entire discussion was pointless. Your basis for moral decision making does not include evaluating moral positions against one another and asking "are these consistent?" You basis is "what does the book/herd say?" If the book/herd contain inconsistent moral positions, you will adopt them complete with their logical inconsistency because you evaluation does not include that rational process - it merely looks for "alignment with the book/herd." It demands your blind allegiance to whatever is "in the book."

Semantics...

If you truly think so - then you have not understood much (if anything) of what I have been saying.

I guess that explains why you keep going in circles.

As my point stands, moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Just ask the Maoist.

More "green is not blue." You don't HAVE a point, Seer. You just don't seem to understand that. All you have is "moral relativism is not absolute/objective." I know. I agree. I have never disagreed. Yes - the Maoist (who presumably has properly reasoned to his conclusion on the basis of what he values) and I will come to opposing moral conclusions. There is no way to say "this is the absolute/objective moral conclusion everyone should align to." We know this - because morality is relative/subjective. So the Maoist and I will end up ignoring one another, isolating/separating, or (more likely) contending. That's what happens. Again, I ask, "so what?"

And you will remind me "moral relativism is not absolute/objective." At the end of the day - it's the only thing you can say. It's not a "point." Seer. You're just reminding us of definitions. I agree - green is not blue. You still have not answered the question, "why does that make green bad or not exist?"

That's your challenge, Seer. Can you actually answer the question, "why does relative/subjective morality NOT being absolute/objective make relative/subjective morality bad or non-existent?"

I predict you cannot answer the question - you can only repeat the mantra in its many forms. That's not an argument, Seer. It's indoctrination.

[seer]

Ahh... I see. Yes - the point was to make it clear to you that your moral position was based entirely on the genetic make-up of the two people engaging in the act. You and Sparko were insisting that your moral position was NOT based purely on genetics. To show you that it IS actually based on genetics, I suggested that experiment. You see, if your statement, "it is not based purely on genetics" is true, then you should be able to determine the morality of the act WITHOUT resorting to their genetic identity. I knew you could not do so. I still know you cannot do so. The bible prohibition against homosexuality is entirely rooted in the genetic make-up of the two people involved in the act. But that is not a problem for you because, if the bible says it, it is moral. Your follow-the-herd/book cannot examine the basis for the moral precepts and evaluate them. You can only blindly follow them.

Our point was that we were basing it on behavior between genders. Behavior/Gender. Not behavior/Race. Gender is different than race, and gender is a specific subset of genetics in general. There is nothing irrational about that or inconsistent. It violates no law of logic. And who says we must determine the morality of the act without resorting to their genetic identity? That is merely your subjective standard. So again you formed the argument to get the result you wanted.

Your opinion is duly noted - and the point is irrelevant. You do not measure moral consistency on the basis of rational alignment between conclusions, you measure consistency by asking, "does it align with what is in the book?" If the book contains logical inconsistencies, you will see them as acceptable because "the book says so." That is why I find "following the book" and "following the herd" an inferior process. It provides no mechanism for assessing the conclusions themselves as rationally defensible.

So you admit that you can not show a logical inconsistency with using gender as the criterion. And how do you defend a position that begins with subjective premises? I guess we have to just take your word for it. No thanks, I'll take the Book...

That's your challenge, Seer. Can you actually answer the question, "why does relative/subjective morality NOT being absolute/objective make relative/subjective morality bad or non-existent?"

I predict you cannot answer the question - you can only repeat the mantra in its many forms. That's not an argument, Seer. It's indoctrination.

My whole point Carp is that your moral reasoning tells us nothing about morality. It is useless for that function.

[Sparko]

Yes.



Take all of the people involved in all of the atrocities in history - divide by the total number of people who have lived. The resulting number will be a small fraction. Most people spend their lives doing basic good things - helping their neighbors - passing on their values to their children - and so forth. Your argument ignores that reality.

Those people could not have done what they did without millions of followers who enabled them to do it. You are forgetting about that. Do you suppose Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin all worked alone? Or that there were only a handful of slavers in the USA? And the billions of people who are rapists and murderers and criminals throughout history?

And every assertion that this is what I did is irrelevant. I didn't. My morality is not based on "what the herd thinks" and is not justified by "what the herd thinks." It never has been. It never will be, despite any misrepresentation on your part.

Yep you did.

I realize you are under that illusion. What we can show is that the bible was written by a small group of men, most of whom we don't know. What we can show is that no original copies exist, so what we have is the output of unknown copyists in multiple fragments. What we can show is that the original writings were in ancient Aramiac and ancient Hebrew, so the versions we have have also been through the hands of multiple translators - and the outputs of these translators are not 100% aligned (which is normal for translations) and subject to the subjective selection of particular words or phrases when two languages do not 100% align (which they never do). This is what we can show. Feel free to refute any of this. If history repeats itself, you will simply cut this part out of your response, ignore it, and/or misrepresent it.

Your delusion (not illusion) that God doesn't exist is noted and dismissed. And I won't get into textual criticism but I am sure you can find articles if you are interested that show your claims about the bible's lack of accuracy to be false.

Your claim is about your belief - which you cannot rationally defend - as I have shown multiple times.

Your claims are about your beliefs. Good thing morality is subjective huh carp?

I have said nothing about whether they are right or wrong. I have said that I do not find it a rational process to accept something as "right" or "wrong" for no other reason than "X said it."

Billions of people have thought that Jesus was a wise moral teacher. His teachings have been the basis of morality for 2000 years in western civilization. Your morals are based on Christian morals. I am happy to "follow the herd" instead of just making up "reasons" why you believe what you believe post-hoc.

I think anyone who is following the teachings of Ghandi for no other reason than "Ghandi said it" is using a poor decision process and cannot rationally defend their views.

Great. That is your prerogative. Why should I care what you think?

As with most people, my moral principles were originally aligned with my elders - as a child - when I could not reason effectively or at all.
My parents taught me what they thought was right versus wrong.

As I matured, I did indeed "figure them out." Not "all on my own" mind you. But I did examine (and am still examining) moral precepts I was taught to see if they make sense. My dad was like you concerning homosexuality. As a matured and began to reason, I realized his position made no rational sense and was inconsistent with other views I held, so I rejected it. I did NOT find his moral stance on "random killing" to be irrational - so I still have it. My moral framework continues to evolve as I discuss/debate moral positions with others who reason to their moral conclusions.

So you just admitted that most of your morals were taught to you by someone else. And that you only created reasons to follow them later, after the fact. So you were just "following the herd"

You do have a tendency of telling other people what they like and don't like - want and don't want.

You are the one telling me and Seer that we shouldn't use God as the basis of our subjective morals. Look in the mirror much?

You are wrong more often than you are right. As with all moralists, including yourself, I see the world through the lens of my moral framework. I believe the world would be a better place is everyone followed those moral precepts, and I seek to influence them to do so. You do the same thing - and have made similar arguments. The only difference is you have enslaved your moral conclusions to your interpretation of the output of those authors/copyists/translators and want everyone else to do the same thing. You have the illusion that this framework is "absolute/objective" and everyone HAS to adhere to it. Other than illusion on your part (which you cannot show to be true), we function identically, AFAICT. You have even outright stated that the world would be better if everyone followed the so-called "Christian precepts" (as if there was only one of those!).

There you go again telling me what I like and don't like! You do just want to be the world's moral compass. While at the same time preaching that morals are subjective. Subject to YOU I suppose. LOL.

So far, Sparko - the only inconsistencies you have articulated are based on your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of my posts. You are free to continue to do that, and to assert that I am "all over the place" and "inconsistent." It doesn't make it true. When/if you actually show an inconsistency, I'll be happy to address it and, if I cannot, adjust my views accordingly. But I'm not going to adjust my views because you can't keep them straight or reflect them accurately, and manufacture all sorts of "inconsistencies" as a consequence.

More green is not blue.

[Sparko]

That is not an answers Carp. You said I abandoned reason in the moral sphere, yet you admit that your moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not (apart from it tells us about what you prefer).

So, again, you just went for "green is not blue." Moral reasoning tells us what is moral and not moral - but it does so subjectively/relatively, not absolute/objectively. So your entire argument here, reduces to "moral relativism/subjectivism is bad because it's not absolute/objective." Again - that's not an argument. It's a repetition of the definition of the terms coupled with an unsubstantiated value judgement.

OK this seems to be your standard knee-jerk reaction.

He was not saying "green is not blue"

He was pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments to him versus your previous admission that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not.

Since you admitted that your reasoning for your moral values does not tell us anything except what you prefer, HOW THEN CAN YOU CLAIM HE HAS ABANDONED REASON IN THE MORAL SPHERE?

[seer]

HOW THEN CAN YOU CLAIM HE HAS ABANDONED REASON IN THE MORAL SPHERE?

Obviously Carp is over compensating, he needs to feel superior to his fellow man.

[Sparko]

Obviously Carp is over compensating, he needs to feel superior to his fellow man.

It's like he is looking for certain keywords and if you use them, his entire reasoning process gets shorted out and he blathers about "Green is not Blue" and ignores the rest of the argument. He is not even reading what we write at this point, just looking for keywords to respond to. Or maybe it is a self-defense mechanism so he can save face when he can't deal with the argument.

[carpedm9587]

Those people could not have done what they did without millions of followers who enabled them to do it. You are forgetting about that. Do you suppose Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin all worked alone? Or that there were only a handful of slavers in the USA?

Correct. Now, let's use a little math. Suppose I grant that all of the people who have committed all of the atrocities over time are not just "millions" but total a billion people over the years. Since the total number of people killed by all recorded atrocities is estimated to be less than a billion, that seems a pretty safe number. Science estimates that the current population of the earth represents approximately 7% of the total population of homo sapiens who have ever lived. Since we have a population of 7.7B today, this means an estimated 110B people have ever lived. So these terrible people represent less than 1% of the human population.

Again - I repeat - most people have fairly common, base valuing.

And the billions of people who are rapists and murderers and criminals throughout history?

Sparko - the incidence of rape in the U.S. is between 5 in 1000 and 2.1 in 1000. Similar numbers are found for other countries, some higher and some lower. Again, even assuming the highest number, and that every rape was committed by a different man, you cannot get above 1% of the human population. And then you would have to show that there is no overlap between rapists and people who do other crimes. I repeat, a fraction of the human family has an underlying valuing model that is significantly convergent.

Yep you did.

I'm going to leave it to you. If you can show where I made that claim or assertion, by all means show it. Otherwise - you're just trolling.

Your delusion (not illusion) that God doesn't exist is noted and dismissed. And I won't get into textual criticism but I am sure you can find articles if you are interested that show your claims about the bible's lack of accuracy to be false.

You are welcome to your position, Sparko. And I don't believe I said anything about "biblical inaccuracy." Again - you have misrepresented what I have actually said. I have no idea if you do this intentionally. But if you disagree - by all means point to the post where I said "the bible is not accurate."

Your claims are about your beliefs.

My moral claims are my moral conclusions are about my moral process. The claims about the meta-ethical issues are about objective reality.

Good thing morality is subjective huh carp?

It's neither "good" nor "bad" - it merely is. Wanting it to be different is irrelevant. Morality is what it is.

Billions of people have thought that Jesus was a wise moral teacher.

Yes - they have. I am one of them - for the most part. But I think highly of Jesus because of his moral positions - I don't think highly of Jesus' moral positions because Jesus reputedly said them.

His teachings have been the basis of morality for 2000 years in western civilization.

Yes - they have. Out of curiosity, can you point, exactly, to where Jesus is documented as saying "reject the homosexual - for they are sinful and their actions immoral?"

Your morals are based on Christian morals.

No. My morals were originally taught in a Christian context, that is true. My morals are influenced by the Christian context, that is true. But my morals are not "based" on Christian morals - and I have explicitly rejected "Christian morals" that I have found to be immoral.

I am happy to "follow the herd" instead of just making up "reasons" why you believe what you believe post-hoc.

Then by all means follow the herd, Sparko. I have not said "don't follow the herd." I have said "engaging in a rational discussion about moral conclusions with a 'follow-the-herd' moralist is a pointless exercise - rationality is not their basis for moral conclusions. 'What the herd thinks' is."

Great. That is your prerogative. Why should I care what you think?

I don't believe I have ever said "Sparko should care about what Michel thinks, so I have no response.

So you just admitted that most of your morals were taught to you by someone else.

No. I said that my first moral codes were accepted on the basis of authority. That is what a child does. Then, as we learn to reason, some of us change. Some people simply keep transferring their moral framework to other authorities - which is basically what you and Seer apparently do. Some of us begin examining our moral conclusions critically, retaining those that make sense and rejecting those that do not.

Here's the deal, Sparko. A small boy may be made to memorize the multiplication tables. They simply memorize it because they are told to. Then, as they gain skill in mathematics, they learn the theory that underlies the table, and begin to be able to expand on that fundamental to more complicated math. But initially, it was just rote memorization because "the teacher said so." Their understanding of math grows and becomes their own. They go beyond rote - and begin to think for themselves.

You and Seer are kind of stuck in "rote." You cannot determine if X or Y is moral without looking it up in the book. You cannot discuss the merits - or the consequences - or the rational alignment of this moral conclusion with that one. All you can do is check to see "what does the book say?"

I'm not sure why you are resistant to this. On one hand you seem to be proud of it. On the other you seem to be fighting that this is the case. You value the book. Embrace it. Own it. If it's what you truly value, then so be it. The only thing it does (for me) is inform me about what kind of discussion is and is not possible. For example, my discussion about genome was a complete waste of time. I should have known better. It was an argument based on consistency between moral positions, and examining the roots of the moral proscription. None of that matters to you, at least as far as I can tell. The ONLY thing that matters is "what does the book say."

Right? A thing is moral if the bible says it is moral - and immoral if the bible says it is immoral. Is that not your position?

And that you only created reasons to follow them later, after the fact. So you were just "following the herd"

Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.

You are the one telling me and Seer that we shouldn't use God as the basis of our subjective morals.

Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.

You are the one telling me and Seer that we shouldn't use God as the basis of our subjective morals.

Please cite the exact place where I said "you shouldn't use god as the basis for your subjective morals."

There you go again telling me what I like and don't like!

Please show exactly which part of that paragraph told you what you like and don't like.

You do just want to be the world's moral compass.

Meanwhile, I can show you exactly in this post where you are telling me what I want and don't want. It's the emphasized part. You do this on a regular basis.

While at the same time preaching that morals are subjective.

Preaching? Sparko - if I tell you "cows are mammals," does that constitute preaching? Morality is subjective/relative. That is its nature. It is for me. It is for you. It is for everyone. Claijing it is otherwise without actually being able to defend that position just seems silly to me.

[carpedm9587]

OK this seems to be your standard knee-jerk reaction.

I respond to what people write

He was not saying "green is not blue"

He was pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments to him versus your previous admission that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not.

So first - you have yet to show an inconsistency, so we'll set that undefended assertion aside as not worth responding to until you actually do more than assert it.

So that leaves the emphasized part. So let's look at that. I have never said that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Moral reasoning DOES tell us about what is moral or not, and I have never said otherwise. So why would you post this sentence when it is not what I have said, and claim I admitted it? Well, the obvious reason (to me) is that what you are actually referring to is that I have admitted that moral reasoning does not tell us what is absolutely/objectively moral or not. I actually HAVE admitted to that - because morality is subjective/relative.

So my position is:

Moral reasoning tells is what is subjectively/relatively moral.
Moral reasoning cannot tell us what is absolutely/objectively moral.

Your focus on the latter, because, presumably, to you the former is "just opinion" and the latter is "real" or "actual."

So your argument is thus "moral relativism/subjectivism is useless/bad/false because it is just opinion - it is not real/actual morality." Why? because "real/actual morality" is absolute/objective morality." So, by substitution, "moral relativism/subjectism is useless/bad/false because it is not absolute/objective."

That is the equivalent of saying "green is useless/bad/false because it's not blue." Green is not blue is absolutely true. Green is bad/false/useless because it is not blue has not been shown.

Likewise, you have not shown that moral relativism is useless/bad/false by pointing out (yet again) that it's not absolute/objective. You just have reminded is that X is not Y - green is not blue - moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective.

Now point to the exact place in that chain of reasoning where there is a logical error.

Since you admitted that your reasoning for your moral values does not tell us anything except what you prefer, HOW THEN CAN YOU CLAIM HE HAS ABANDONED REASON IN THE MORAL SPHERE?

Your statement and the following question have nothing to do with one another. The fact that you apparently cannot see that suggests any response will be pointless.

My moral conclusions tell you what I prefer morally.
Seer (and you) has abandoned reasoning in arriving at moral conclusions.

Those two statements do nt in any way depend on one another - and the truth of one has nothing to do with the truth of the other.

[carpedm9587]

Obviously Carp is over compensating, he needs to feel superior to his fellow man.

Does this actually make you feel better, Seer - or in any way contribute to the arguments you are trying to make?

In my experience - when people have "hit the wall" in a discussion or debate, they often resort to personal attacks instead of keeping the focus on the arguments. "He needs to be superior." "You're not that bright." "You're opinionated and close-minded." And so forth.

I think we should stay focused on the arguments. It's more productive - or at least it CAN be.

[seer]

So that leaves the emphasized part. So let's look at that. I have never said that moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Moral reasoning DOES tell us about what is moral or not, and I have never said otherwise. So why would you post this sentence when it is not what I have said, and claim I admitted it? Well, the obvious reason (to me) is that what you are actually referring to is that I have admitted that moral reasoning does not tell us what is absolutely/objectively moral or not. I actually HAVE admitted to that - because morality is subjective/relative.

So my position is:

Moral reasoning tells is what is subjectively/relatively moral.
Moral reasoning cannot tell us what is absolutely/objectively moral.

Right, moral reasoning tells you what is moral for you, as it does for the Maoist. Which means it practically tells us nothing about what is moral since contradictory moral position can both be true. When we start arguing about "your truth" or "my truth" we have effectively given up the idea of truth. Human rights are true for you, killing dissidents is true for the Maoist.

[seer]

Does this actually make you feel better, Seer - or in any way contribute to the arguments you are trying to make?

In my experience - when people have "hit the wall" in a discussion or debate, they often resort to personal attacks instead of keeping the focus on the arguments. "He needs to be superior." "You're not that bright." "You're opinionated and close-minded." And so forth.

I think we should stay focused on the arguments. It's more productive - or at least it CAN be.

Right, like when you keep accusing us of magical thinking? Got it...