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

Homophobic Trump...

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    More "green is not blue."
    I think it is a very big mistake to think this way of expressing your point strengthens your case.

    If I say "Lies are not true. So what, we already knew that?" I am not making a strong case for lying.

    If the best you can do is to try to make it a trivial point that we have no reason to feel any obligation to be influenced by your moral view, your case is certainly not very strong. The fact that we already knew beforehand that what you said would not apply does not make the case any weaker. Quite the opposite.
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I have responded to all of this, Seer. It's getting boring repeating myself. I'll leave you to reread the thread.
      Let's recap then. What is the point of moral reasoning? Is it to discover moral truths, or simply to justify our intuitive beliefs after the fact? If it is the latter I don't see how that adds anything to the discussion. Then I have to ask Carp, if our famous Maoist made a better argument than you showing that the collective is much more important than an individual human life, and that to protect the collective it may in fact be necessary to exterminate or imprison dissidents - would you then reject your valuing of human life? Of course not, proving that, in theory at least, that your moral sense is not wed to reasoning. You would reject the Maoist's reasoning no matter how good his argument.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        That is effectively what it comes down to.
        No.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        The argument for this so called rational decision acknowledges that the decision is based on presuppositions that usually are founded in nothing more than personal preference.
        Correct so far....

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Regardless of who tosses the coin, the outcome favours a set of values based on personally evaluated "line of best fit."
        For the Christian, it comes down in favour of the Bible, for the Samurai it comes down in favour of Bushidou: there is precious little difference between the 7 points of Bushidou and the moral code of the Bible. In fact, there are so many correlations throughout history and cultures that a person could be forgiven for thinking that there is an underlying objectiveness to morality. There are so many variations in how the underlying correlations actually play out in praxis, that a person could be forgiven for thinking that morality is wholly a matter of personal taste. For example, murder is all but universally considered immoral, but what actually constitutes murder as opposed to lawful killing is a matter of distinct disagreement.
        So the analogy of a "coin toss" is not correct. A coin toss, assuming a fair coin, is completely random. We know it will end up 50/50 heads/tails over time. But any given coin toss is essentially unpredictable.

        Moral frameworks are not. They are initially forged in the cauldron of our upbringing, which is a complex environment influenced by many forces. They are then further shaped by our personal experiences. "Random" is not an accurate word for this. Subjective and relative are.

        But that does not mean "random" does not apply at all. There is always a degree of randomness to our lives, and since the experiences of our lives are part of what shapes our moral framework, it too is involved.

        Moral reasoning is what it is. It is subjective. It is relative. It's not a matter of arguing whether that is "better" or "worse" - it is a matter of accepting a thing for what it is. Over the course of these many pages, I've shown multiple ways in which morality springs from the individual and then aggregates to the "collective" - with a feedback loop for current and future generations. I've shown how even the so--called "moral realist" or "moral absolutist" or "moral objectivist" is operating subjectively and relatively, and cannot even show that objective/absolute moral standards exist. The opposing claims are:

        1) morality is based on objective/absolute standards that spring from god and our deviation is due to sinfulness.
        2) morality is based on subjective/relative standards that are influenced by society and role-up to societal norms in a complex interaction.

        The so-called moral realist cannot defend 1) because they cannot demonstrate that either this god or these standards exist.
        They cannot successfully attack 2) (at least so far) because their only argument is to continually repeat "moral relativisms/subjectivism is not moral absolutism/objectivism." As I have noted countless times, this is not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms. It's like thinking that saying "green is not blue" somehow refutes the existence of green. It doesn't.

        But thanks for the contribution, Tab. It was refreshing to hear another voice.
        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


        • So - if we drop the concept of morals, and switch to ethics as (very) roughly synonymous, we find that at some point everyone can be expected to engage in situational ethics. Even when our paradigm would not normally permit an action, it is not immune to a little mental prestidigitation to circumvent the internal conflicts.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            No.



            Correct so far....



            So the analogy of a "coin toss" is not correct. A coin toss, assuming a fair coin, is completely random. We know it will end up 50/50 heads/tails over time. But any given coin toss is essentially unpredictable.

            Moral frameworks are not. They are initially forged in the cauldron of our upbringing, which is a complex environment influenced by many forces. They are then further shaped by our personal experiences. "Random" is not an accurate word for this. Subjective and relative are.

            But that does not mean "random" does not apply at all. There is always a degree of randomness to our lives, and since the experiences of our lives are part of what shapes our moral framework, it too is involved.

            Moral reasoning is what it is. It is subjective. It is relative. It's not a matter of arguing whether that is "better" or "worse" - it is a matter of accepting a thing for what it is. Over the course of these many pages, I've shown multiple ways in which morality springs from the individual and then aggregates to the "collective" - with a feedback loop for current and future generations. I've shown how even the so--called "moral realist" or "moral absolutist" or "moral objectivist" is operating subjectively and relatively, and cannot even show that objective/absolute moral standards exist. The opposing claims are:

            1) morality is based on objective/absolute standards that spring from god and our deviation is due to sinfulness.
            2) morality is based on subjective/relative standards that are influenced by society and role-up to societal norms in a complex interaction.

            The so-called moral realist cannot defend 1) because they cannot demonstrate that either this god or these standards exist.
            They cannot successfully attack 2) (at least so far) because their only argument is to continually repeat "moral relativisms/subjectivism is not moral absolutism/objectivism." As I have noted countless times, this is not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms. It's like thinking that saying "green is not blue" somehow refutes the existence of green. It doesn't.

            But thanks for the contribution, Tab. It was refreshing to hear another voice.
            But what you are not getting is that if morals are subjective and there IS NO ACTUAL GOOD OR EVIL, then it doesn't matter what your reasoning is, it is no better than the reasoning of someone who reasons something differently or completely opposite. As far as better or worse, all reasons have the same value since they are subjective to the person making them. So if I decide I want to base my morals on flipping coins, it is not more or less valid than you wanting to use your reasons. My morals are subjective to me so it doesn't matter by what method I come to them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              But what you are not getting is that if morals are subjective and there IS NO ACTUAL GOOD OR EVIL, then it doesn't matter what your reasoning is, it is no better than the reasoning of someone who reasons something differently or completely opposite. As far as better or worse, all reasons have the same value since they are subjective to the person making them. So if I decide I want to base my morals on flipping coins, it is not more or less valid than you wanting to use your reasons. My morals are subjective to me so it doesn't matter by what method I come to them.
              More "green is not blue" objections...
              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 tabibito View Post
                So - if we drop the concept of morals, and switch to ethics as (very) roughly synonymous, we find that at some point everyone can be expected to engage in situational ethics. Even when our paradigm would not normally permit an action, it is not immune to a little mental prestidigitation to circumvent the internal conflicts.
                We see THAT all the time, Tab. Individuals engage in it. Entire societies engage in it. It's happening now in the U.S. A whole swath of people who would normally criticize someone like Trump who violates MANY of our social moral norms are simply turning a blind eye to it, for a variety of reasons.
                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
                  Moral reasoning is what it is. It is subjective. It is relative. It's not a matter of arguing whether that is "better" or "worse" - it is a matter of accepting a thing for what it is.
                  Is this your private definition of moral reasoning Carp? What does this even mean? If it is not about what is better or worse morally, then why even call it "moral" reasoning in the fist place.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Is this your private definition of moral reasoning Carp? What does this even mean? If it is not about what is better or worse morally, then why even call it "moral" reasoning in the fist place.
                    Reread the post. You are not responding to what the post actually says.
                    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
                      Reread the post. You are not responding to what the post actually says.
                      Correct - I misunderstood your point...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        More "green is not blue" objections...

                        So you are admitting that I am correct and there is actually no difference in your "rational" basis, someone else's "rational" basis that disagrees with yours, and flipping a coin?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          So you are admitting that I am correct and there is actually no difference in your "rational" basis, someone else's "rational" basis that disagrees with yours, and flipping a coin?
                          No. There is a difference.
                          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
                            No. There is a difference.
                            Only to each person, Carp. Because morals are subjective, right? So each person thinks their reason for their morals is the best. You think your reasoning is the best, Mao thinks his is the best, the coin flipper thinks his is the best, Seer and I think ours is the best. But if morals are truly subjective then the "reasons" are meaningless self-justifications.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Only to each person, Carp. Because morals are subjective, right?
                              Yes - they are subjective to the individual, and inter-subjective (I don't remember who coined that term - maybe Star?) to the society/culture/group.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So each person thinks their reason for their morals is the best.
                              Yes.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              You think your reasoning is the best, Mao thinks his is the best, the coin flipper thinks his is the best, Seer and I think ours is the best. But if morals are truly subjective then the "reasons" are meaningless self-justifications.
                              Ahhh... you managed to sneak in another "green is not blue" complaint. Really, Sparko - this is all you and Seer have. Morality cannot be relative/subjective, because then it wouldn't be absolute/objective. That car can't be green, because then it wouldn't be blue!

                              You still don't have an argument.

                              My response was about the distinction between a purely random event (flipping a coin) and an influenced event (what we value and how we come to moral conclusions). If someone decides "flipping a coin" is the ideal strategy, and nothing will convince the otherwise, then they will be out of sync with most of us about 50% of the time. They will find themselves quickly ignored, isolated/separated, or contended with - depending on the specific moral conclusion in question.
                              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 Sparko View Post
                                Only to each person, Carp. Because morals are subjective, right? So each person thinks their reason for their morals is the best. You think your reasoning is the best, Mao thinks his is the best, the coin flipper thinks his is the best, Seer and I think ours is the best. But if morals are truly subjective then the "reasons" are meaningless self-justifications.
                                I asked Carp this a while back:

                                if our famous Maoist made a better argument than you showing that the collective is much more important than an individual human life, and that to protect the collective it may in fact be necessary to exterminate or imprison dissidents - would you then reject your valuing of human life? Of course not, proving that, in theory at least, that your moral sense is not wed to reasoning. You would reject the Maoist's reasoning no matter how good his argument.

                                I wonder how he would answer...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                340 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X