Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

I mean you have no rational basis for engaging in any moral discussion.

But so what? All you have in the end are your subjective beliefs, whether you invent a syllogism to justify them or not. Stop pretending otherwise.

Morality always matters to each of us. It is how we sort actions.

Yes, but why does it matter where we get our ethics? It is all relative - correct?

Because moral positions rationally arrived at can be rationally discussed and debated, which provides a possible avenue for alignment, which each of us seek.

Right you can invent a syllogism that supports your subjective view as can the Maoist. But so what, being good at a logical argument tells us absolutely nothing about what is moral or not. It just tells us about what you prefer. That is no more meaningful than getting your ethics from the herd. Why would it be?

A syllogism is a logical structure. If properly constructed - it is sound. If the premises are true, it is valid. When the premises are subjective/relative, then the conclusion will be subjective/relative. There is nothing new here. You just keep repeating "relative//subjective is not absolute/objective." Again - agreed. I've never argued otherwise. Can you say anything OTHER than repeating this obvious fact?

But there are no "true" moral premises in your world Carp, just what is true for you. And where does that get us, we get to know what you prefer. Who cares?

[carpedm9587]

But so what? All you have in the end are your subjective beliefs, whether you invent a syllogism to justify them or not. Stop pretending otherwise.

I've never said or pretended otherwise. But your complaint is still "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." The "so what" from my side is that anyone will seek to find alignment with others in their community, because a commonly held moral code is better protected and easier to live than one that is completely unique. It is the inter-personal part of relative/subjective morality.

Your "so what" (so far) is just to repeatedly complain that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. You have NO answer to "so what" that I can see, other than to continually complain that this is the case. I already agree this is the case. So what?

Yes, but why does it matter where we get our ethics? It is all relative - correct?

A morality that is not rationally arrived at cannot be rationally discussed - leaving us with nothing other than ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. A morality that is rationally arrived at can be discussed and debated, creating avenues for alignment before we have to resort to that list.

Right you can invent a syllogism that supports your subjective view as can the Maoist. But so what, being good at a logical argument tells us absolutely nothing about what is moral or not. It just tells us about what you prefer. That is no more meaningful than getting your ethics from the herd. Why would it be?

Again - this entire objection boils down to "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." We know that. I've agreed to that. I've never said otherwise. You have no response to "so what." All you can do is repeat the complaint. We also know green is not blue. Again - so what?

But there are no "true" moral premises in your world Carp, just what is true for you. And where does that get us, we get to know what you prefer. Who cares?

And the same is true of this objection. It's all you have, Seer - and it's still not an argument - no matter how many times you repeat it.

Morality is relative/subjective.

To this, all you can say is "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective" in a variety of ways.

No kidding. That's kind of in the definition of the terms.

Do you have an actual objection that does NOT reduce to this observation? If not - then you have no argument. All you have is a continual restatement of the obvious - to which I have already responded hundreds of times now...only to have you repeat the same mantra over and over and over again.

I don't know what other readers think, but I find myself getting bored. I prefer an argument with actual content.

[Sparko]

"Hope" and "Expect" are not the same concept.



No - that is because we all perceive our moral framework as "best." If we ever encounter a moral position that appears to us to be superior, we immediately adopt it because of that perception. Ergo, at any given time, we believe our moral framework to be the best it can be. Hence, we seek to have that framework aligned with by others. That is our quest - our hope. Only a fool would make it their expectation. I am under no illusion that you or Seer are ever going to align to my moral framework. There is no basis for discussion/argument (despite my previous foolish attempts) because your moral position is not rationally grounded.



No. We all assess actions against our own moral framework. That's how morality works. Recognizing that someone has come to a difference moral conclusion does not place on me a requirement that I accept that moral conclusion. I merely note that they see it as correct for them. We see through the lens of our own oral framework - not the lens of everyone else's moral framework.



Liking a sport is not the equivalent of assessing the morality of an action that can affect me and/or the people around me.



The fact that you would make this repeated assertion when it's simply not true is why you do not understand what it means for moral frameworks to be relative/subjective. Relative/subjective simply means we each arrive at our own moral conclusions. It does not mean I am going to accept everyone else's. If I perceive an action as immoral, I will perceive it as immoral for all sentient actors. I assess your behavior against my moral framework - not against yours.

the fact that you keep arguing with us that we are wrong means you EXPECT us to acknowledge your morals as the true standard, not hope we do. And the fact that you believe it is rational instead of just a subjective value means you believe it to be an objective truth that others should recognize as valid. You keep destroying your stated position every time you argue with Seer about your 'rational' basis.

[carpedm9587]

the fact that you keep arguing with us that we are wrong means you EXPECT us to acknowledge your morals as the true standard, not hope we do.

As I noted before, I made the mistake of entering into a rational discussion about morality before truly considering the nature of your moral framework. Since it is grounded in "what the herd says" and that herd is a small collection of long dead men, there is no avenue for such discussion and my attempts to do so were misinformed. Recognizing the futility of such discussions with a "what's in the book" person, I don't plan to engage in such discussions again. Your only possible moral assessment is "is it in the book?"

But your assumption that I had an "expectation" is incorrect - and repeating it is not going to make it so. I had hoped to convince, but I didn't have much of an expectation of doing so. Now I realize that there is little/no hope of convincing someone who's morality is arrived at the ways yours is.

And the fact that you believe it is rational instead of just a subjective value means you believe it to be an objective truth that others should recognize as valid.

No - you are making the same mistake Seer is making and assuming that subjective/relative things cannot be rationally based. There is nothing in the definition of "rational" that precludes premises and conclusions that are subjective/relative.

You keep destroying your stated position every time you argue with Seer about your 'rational' basis.

No - but I can understand how your demonstrated lack of understanding of the issues (see above) would leave you with that impression.

[Sparko]

As I noted before, I made the mistake of entering into a rational discussion about morality before truly considering the nature of your moral framework. Since it is grounded in "what the herd says" and that herd is a small collection of long dead men, there is no avenue for such discussion and my attempts to do so were misinformed. Recognizing the futility of such discussions with a "what's in the book" person, I don't plan to engage in such discussions again. Your only possible moral assessment is "is it in the book?"

But your assumption that I had an "expectation" is incorrect - and repeating it is not going to make it so. I had hoped to convince, but I didn't have much of an expectation of doing so. Now I realize that there is little/no hope of convincing someone who's morality is arrived at the ways yours is.



No - you are making the same mistake Seer is making and assuming that subjective/relative things cannot be rationally based. There is nothing in the definition of "rational" that precludes premises and conclusions that are subjective/relative.



No - but I can understand how your demonstrated lack of understanding of the issues (see above) would leave you with that impression.

Carp, it is you who are confused. Everyone else seems to see right though your view on morality.

The only rational argument you can make about subjective morals is why it is right for YOU, not for someone else. As soon as you start arguing that something is right or wrong for everyone you have lost your argument.

So if you believe murder is wrong, the only rational reason you can give is why it is wrong for you. If you argue it should be wrong for everyone else, you are making an objective claim as to murder being bad.

The fact that you can't see that is your problem. Everyone else sees it. You are the irrational one here. Wanting to both have morals apply to everyone and claiming they are subjective.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, it is you who are confused. Everyone else seems to see right though your view on morality.

So far, "everyone" is "people who agree with you." That's not a very compelling argument. And they have not made any better argument than you or Seer.

The only rational argument you can make about subjective morals is why it is right for YOU, not for someone else.

Correct, to a point. Because we share a common humanity and many common characteristics, we value similarly. As a consequence, there is a high incidence of parallelism between our moral frameworks. It is this inter-personal commonality that most of us appeal to when attempting to make a case for finding common ground.

As soon as you start arguing that something is right or wrong for everyone you have lost your argument.

I can argue that something SHOULD be right/wrong for everyone from the perspective of my moral framework - which is natural because we all assess morality from the vantage of our own moral framework. There is no inconsistency here. We are each simply trying to get the rest of the world to see things as we see them from a moral perspective. That is perfectly consistent with a relative/subjective moral framework and does not require an "absolute/objective" framework (which you STILL cannot show even exists).

So if you believe murder is wrong, the only rational reason you can give is why it is wrong for you. If you argue it should be wrong for everyone else, you are making an objective claim as to murder being bad.

Murder is a bad choice because the term itself means "illicit or illegal killing." So "murder is bad" is redundant. However, if I make the case that "random killing is bad," I do not need to appeal to some absolute/objective (which you cannot show exists). I can merely appeal to valuing life, to the common bond humanity shares, and to moral precepts long accepted by most of the human family. I do not need to appeal to "absolute/objective" moral truths. I merely need to appeal to widely held moral positions and the reasons why those positions are held - including the benefits they realize for the human family.

The fact that you can't see that is your problem. Everyone else sees it. You are the irrational one here. Wanting to both have morals apply to everyone and claiming they are subjective.

The fact that you keep clinging to these arguments suggests you cannot see outside of your "absolute/objective" sandbox. Unfortunately, you have no basis for claiming absolute/objective moral truths, you cannot escape the reality of your own subjective/relative moral framework - so you are somewhat "spitting into the wind," as they say. Really, Sparko - this argument has no substance. You can repeatedly assert it - but it doesn't make it true.

[Sparko]

So far, "everyone" is "people who agree with you." That's not a very compelling argument. And they have not made any better argument than you or Seer.



Correct, to a point. Because we share a common humanity and many common characteristics, we value similarly. As a consequence, there is a high incidence of parallelism between our moral frameworks. It is this inter-personal commonality that most of us appeal to when attempting to make a case for finding common ground.



I can argue that something SHOULD be right/wrong for everyone from the perspective of my moral framework - which is natural because we all assess morality from the vantage of our own moral framework. There is no inconsistency here. We are each simply trying to get the rest of the world to see things as we see them from a moral perspective. That is perfectly consistent with a relative/subjective moral framework and does not require an "absolute/objective" framework (which you STILL cannot show even exists).

I dont have to show it, you keep arguing for it while denying it at the same time. If you are correct, then even though we all share a common framework, the fact remains that there is nothing wrong with murdering people except you don't like it for whatever reason you can come up with. Your reason for not murdering someone is no more valid than someone else's reason for thinking murder is just fine. Yet you don't actually believe that, you think murder is wrong and is wrong even for people who don't agree with you. That means you believe in objective morality despite denying it. The more you argue and try to rationalize your wacked out view, the more you are showing you don't believe what you claim you do.

Murder is a bad choice because the term itself means "illicit or illegal killing." So "murder is bad" is redundant. However, if I make the case that "random killing is bad," I do not need to appeal to some absolute/objective (which you cannot show exists). I can merely appeal to valuing life, to the common bond humanity shares, and to moral precepts long accepted by most of the human family. I do not need to appeal to "absolute/objective" moral truths. I merely need to appeal to widely held moral positions and the reasons why those positions are held - including the benefits they realize for the human family.

fine. describe it however you want. If you are appealing to the value of life as the reason killing someone randomly is wrong, then you are saying that the value of human life is some basic universal truth that everyone should agree with. That is an objective value you are appealing to. But if morals are subjective then so is the value of human life. If someone doesn't value human life and wants to go around on a killing spree that is not actually wrong in any way. You keep arguing as if there are certain values that are objectively true, while claiming they are subjective.

The fact that you keep clinging to these arguments suggests you cannot see outside of your "absolute/objective" sandbox.

the one who can't see outside of their box is you. It really is ironic.

Unfortunately, you have no basis for claiming absolute/objective moral truths, you cannot escape the reality of your own subjective/relative moral framework - so you are somewhat "spitting into the wind," as they say. Really, Sparko - this argument has no substance. You can repeatedly assert it - but it doesn't make it true.

You are the one who keeps arguing as if there are objective moral values while claiming there are none.

[seer]

A morality that is not rationally arrived at cannot be rationally discussed - leaving us with nothing other than ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. A morality that is rationally arrived at can be discussed and debated, creating avenues for alignment before we have to resort to that list.

But that is the point Carp, you are not rationally justifying anything. You are telling us you like pizza, then inventing an argument to justify it. That is post hoc justification and has no credence.

1. All unicorns are blue.
2. Fluffy is a unicorn.
3. Therefore Fluffy is blue.

You offer nothing better, more rational, or justifiable than what the herd or Book offers.

[Charles]

But that is the point Carp, you are not rationally justifying anything. You are telling us you like pizza, then inventing an argument to justify it. That is post hoc justification and has no credence.

1. All unicorns are blue.
2. Fluffy is a unicorn.
3. Therefore Fluffy is blue.

You offer nothing better, more rational, or justifiable than what the herd or Book offers.

I agree to some extent but I have not seen you offer any rational justification yourself. So while I agree with your criticism of carpe I also agree with him that you are finding yourself in the exact same situation. What you point to is also just in irrational idea about what is just. And then you come up with some idea that this is all good because a god whose existence you cannot prove would share your view of would have given it to you according to your subjective interpretation of a book. So what?

[carpedm9587]

I dont have to show it,

That assumption is part of your problem. If you're going to convince others that your moral framework is the one and only absolute/objective framework all should follow, it might be good to begin by showing it actually exists.

you keep arguing for it while denying it at the same time.

No.

If you are correct, then even though we all share a common framework, the fact remains that there is nothing wrong with murdering people except you don't like it for whatever reason you can come up with.

Already answered

Your reason for not murdering someone is no more valid than someone else's reason for thinking murder is just fine.

No more "absolutely/objectively" valid - but then again, we know that because it's a relative/subjective moral world. So...more "green is not blue."

Yet you don't actually believe that, you think murder is wrong and is wrong even for people who don't agree with you.

Because, as has been noted, we all assess moral choices from the perspective of our own moral framework.

That means you believe in objective morality despite denying it.

No. The framework is entirely relative/subjective to me.

The more you argue and try to rationalize your wacked out view, the more you are showing you don't believe what you claim you do.

No.

fine. describe it however you want. If you are appealing to the value of life as the reason killing someone randomly is wrong, then you are saying that the value of human life is some basic universal truth that everyone should agree with.

I did not say the "value of life." I said "my valuing life." A thing has value to the degree that someone values it. I value life. Most humans do. That doesn't make "valuing life" an absolute/objective reality (except that one person's valuing is objective to another person).

That is an objective value you are appealing to.

No.

But if morals are subjective then so is the value of human life.

The value of human life IS subjective. If no one valued life - it would have no value. I take that as a given.

If someone doesn't value human life and wants to go around on a killing spree that is not actually wrong in any way.

It is in my moral framework - it is in the moral framework of most humans. If we cannot convince this person to shift their moral framework, then we will resort to "contend" because of the extreme risk they pose to the lives we value. That will usually mean capture and incarcerate. In some cultures, it will mean capture and kill (though I don't find that choice moral).

You keep arguing as if there are certain values that are objectively true, while claiming they are subjective.

No - I have never made this claim. You seem to keep trying to impose it on me.

the one who can't see outside of their box is you. It really is ironic.

You are welcome to make something other than an emotional rant to make your case, Sparko. So far, you and Seer have one tool in your "moral debate" toolbox: continually complaining that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. I've already agreed to that. It's not an argument. It's a restatement of the definition of the terms. And now we have your "you are using absolute/objective morality in your argument - without one whit of evidence to back that up. When I assess the world with my eyes, I am assessing an objective reality, but from a subjective perspective. That we all look at the same reality and mostly come to the same conclusion about the color of an object does not make our experience of that object less subjective. And the color-blind person will disagree with our subjective assessment. Getting into a discussion about the specific color of that object does not make our experience less subjective. We often, and in many contexts, seek to have our ideas/positions affirmed by our peers.

Likewise, we all look at the behavior of another (an objective reality) through the lens of our own moral framework. That we tend to come to common moral conclusions does not make our moral assessment any less subjective. And the sociopath is going to disagree with us. We all tend to seek moral alignment with our community. The strong willed person will seek to convince others to their point of view. The weak-willed one will "follow the herd" and abandon their own moral decision making to the will of others.

You are the one who keeps arguing as if there are objective moral values while claiming there are none.

I have never made anything close to that argument.

[carpedm9587]

But that is the point Carp, you are not rationally justifying anything. You are telling us you like pizza, then inventing an argument to justify it. That is post hoc justification and has no credence.

1. All unicorns are blue.
2. Fluffy is a unicorn.
3. Therefore Fluffy is blue.

You offer nothing better, more rational, or justifiable than what the herd or Book offers.

I've responded to this before. I'll leave my previous response. Repetition is getting tedious.

[carpedm9587]

I agree to some extent but I have not seen you offer any rational justification yourself. So while I agree with your criticism of carpe I also agree with him that you are finding yourself in the exact same situation. What you point to is also just in irrational idea about what is just. And then you come up with some idea that this is all good because a god whose existence you cannot prove would share your view of would have given it to you according to your subjective interpretation of a book. So what?

I'm curious, Charles. So far, I've seen nothing from Seer except repeated restatement of the definitions of subjective/relative and absolute/objective. So exactly what criticism are you agreeing with?

[Charles]

I'm curious, Charles. So far, I've seen nothing from Seer except repeated restatement of the definitions of subjective/relative and absolute/objective. So exactly what criticism are you agreeing with?

I agree that you cannot build a convincing case on relativism. However I think you have made your case clear, and I agree that there is no need to continue unless new points are made.

[carpedm9587]

I agree that you cannot build a convincing case on relativism. However I think you have made your case clear, and I agree that there is no need to continue unless new points are made.

A convincing case of what?

[Charles]

A convincing case of what?

A convincing case of arguing a given action is better or worse than another in moral terms.