Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

You simply keep repeating yourself, admitting that you are just doing what is good in your own eyes, while expecting everyone else to align with your values.

Most of this sentence is correct - except the underlined portion. The word "expect" should be "hope." That is basically what we all do. We see our own moral framework as "the best" (for obvious reasons) and hope we can convince others to align to it. When we cannot, we resort to ignoring, isolation/separation, or contention. You and Seer do this as well. You just call your moral framework "absolute/objective" while I recognize that all moral frameworks are relative/subjective.

You have just made yourself the objective standard.

Most of this sentence is correct - except the underlined portion. The word "expect" should be "hope." That is basically what we all do. We see our own moral framework as "the best" (for obvious reasons) and hope we can convince others to align to it. When we cannot, we resort to ignoring, isolation/separation, or contention.

Repeating yourself isn't convincing anyone that you are correct.

One can always hope...

You claim everyone has their own morality, but you expect them to align with yours.

Same error.

[carpedm9587]

Well no Carp, nowhere did you explain, apart from assertion, why moral reasoning leads to a better understanding of ethics over the herd.

Yes, Seer. I have. Several times. You keep ignoring it and or deleting it and then claiming I have not responded. That pattern suggests further response will not be beneficial.

Especially in light of the fact that such reasoning could equally lead to gulags or the the killing of dissidents.

This is your error, Seer. You focus on the places where it does not lead to differences, and ignore the possibilities where it can - possibilities not available to your own approach.

In other words your moral reasoning is a self-justifying sham that leads nowhere when it comes morality. But for some strange reason you believe it is valid - I guess a man needs his illusions.

Ironic. That was pretty much my assessment of you and Sparko.

[seer]

This is your error, Seer. You focus on the places where it does not lead to differences, and ignore the possibilities where it can - possibilities not available to your own approach.

You say there is no possibility of you changing my mind. But logically why is that even an issue since at bottom it is all relative? You convincing the Maoist of your position doesn't tell us what is moral or not, it just tells us that you convinced the Maoist to accept your subjective view. Just as, if the Maoist convinced you of his position does not mean that now murdering dissidents is a moral good.

[carpedm9587]

You say there is no possibility of you changing my mind.

There is no possibility of changing your mind using reason, Seer - because your moral framework is not arrived at using reason.

But logically why is that even an issue since at bottom it is all relative?

"Relative" and "reasoned" are not mutually exclusive.

You convincing the Maoist of your position doesn't tell us what is moral or not, it just tells us that you convinced the Maoist to accept your subjective view.

Does not tell us if it is "absolutely/objectively" moral, because it is a relative/subjective framework. So you are again complaining that "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Repeating it over and over doesn't make it an argument.

Just as, if the Maoist convinced you of his position does not mean that now murdering dissidents is a moral good.

Same comment.

[seer]

There is no possibility of changing your mind using reason, Seer - because your moral framework is not arrived at using reason.

But what has your reason wrought? How does your reasoning, or the Maoist's, lead to more a correct moral understanding? It doesn't Carp, and never will in your relative world.

"Relative" and "reasoned" are not mutually exclusive.

The point is why are your views, or the Maoist's, more valid than mine if it is all relative?

Does not tell us if it is "absolutely/objectively" moral, because it is a relative/subjective framework. So you are again complaining that "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Repeating it over and over doesn't make it an argument.

So again, how do your moral conclusions, based on reason, tell us any more than what your personal view is? In other words, why would any Theist trade his view of universal moral truths with your relative view? Logically that makes no sense...

[carpedm9587]

But what has your reason wrought?

A functional, workable moral framework that I use to make moral decisions daily.

How does your reasoning, or the Maoist's, lead to more a correct moral understanding? It doesn't Carp, and never will in your relative world.

Again, I have agreed with this all along, because you are complaining (again) that a relative/subjective moral framework cannot make absolute/objective moral statements. We already know that. You're not making an argument. You're just complaining "green is not blue," for the umpteenth time. So, once again, I 100% agree that a relative/subjective moral framework will not reach absolute/objective conclusions. Never said otherwise. So what?

The point is why are your views, or the Maoist's, more valid than mine if it is all relative?

They are not absolutely/objectively more valid. They are relatively/subjectively more more valid. So, once again, more "green is not blue."

So again, how do your moral conclusions, based on reason, tell us any more than what your personal view is?

They don't. More "green is not blue."

In other words, why would any Theist trade his view of universal moral truths with your relative view?

The theist will cling to their illusion of absolute/objective moral truths so long as they wish to - all the while ignoring their relative/subjective nature. Since their view is not rationally arrived at, it cannot be rationally disputed.

Logically that makes no sense...

Pretty much my point exactly.

As I have said before, Seer - relative/subjective morality does not ensure the ability to align moral frameworks. There are some avenues for doing so, but they are not guaranteed and may well fail. When that happens, we do what we always do: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. Even those of you who believe you have access to "absolute/objective" moral truths are doing this every single day. You just add the twist of claiming your moral truths ARE absolute/objective without much evidence to support the claim.

[JonathanL]

A functional, workable moral framework that I use to make moral decisions daily.

As far as I can tell Seer's got one of those too, so either reason is unnecessary to arrive at such a moral framework, or you're wrong about him not arriving at his own moral framework through reason.

[seer]

A functional, workable moral framework that I use to make moral decisions daily.

But I have that with my Book...

Again, I have agreed with this all along, because you are complaining (again) that a relative/subjective moral framework cannot make absolute/objective moral statements. We already know that. You're not making an argument. You're just complaining "green is not blue," for the umpteenth time. So, once again, I 100% agree that a relative/subjective moral framework will not reach absolute/objective conclusions. Never said otherwise. So what?

So if you agree that your reasoning doesn't lead to a more correct or valid understanding of ethics than what one would find in the herd or Book - then why is reason superior?

The theist will cling to their illusion of absolute/objective moral truths so long as they wish to - all the while ignoring their relative/subjective nature. Since their view is not rationally arrived at, it cannot be rationally disputed.

Bu your rationality only leads to relative and subjective views. Which are no better or valid than what one finds in the Book. The process tells us nothing, save what you personally prefer. Carp, you are only reasoning to bolster your opinion, and in your relative world that has no more credence that what one finds in a book or in the herd.

[carpedm9587]

But I have that with my Book...

You have no rational defenses for your moral positions, Seer. So you may perceive your moral framework as "functional," but it is merely blind allegiance to a few dozen men you largely can't identify who lived 2000-3500 years ago, who's original writings you do not have, and who wrote in a different language and culture. So you really don't have much of anything you can defend.

So if you agree that your reasoning doesn't lead to a more correct or valid understanding of ethics than what one would find in the herd or Book - then why is reason superior?

Yet another "green is not blue" objection, and I have answered this already. See my previous responses.

Bu your rationality only leads to relative and subjective views.

It leads to subjective/relative views. Yes.

Which are no better or valid than what one finds in the Book.

They are subjectively/relatively more valid. More "green is not blue."

The process tells us nothing, save what you personally prefer.

Correct. More "green is not blue." To which I respond, "so what?" You will again complain that green is not blue...

Carp, you are only reasoning to bolster your opinion, and in your relative world that has no more credence that what one finds in a book or in the herd.

Correct. More "green is not blue." To which I respond, "so what?" You will again complain that green is not blue...

It's all you have, Seer. I cannot explain why you cannot see it. Unlike you, I don't assume people are intrinsically blind. But you appear to have blinded yourself to this one.

[seer]

You have no rational defenses for your moral positions, Seer. So you may perceive your moral framework as "functional," but it is merely blind allegiance to a few dozen men you largely can't identify who lived 2000-3500 years ago, who's original writings you do not have, and who wrote in a different language and culture. So you really don't have much of anything you can defend.

You mean I don't have a rational defense for murdering dissidents like the Maoist? In your relative world why would that matter? If it is truly all subjective why does it matter how we come by our moral beliefs? When I say that you can not show why moral conclusions that come about by reason have any no more credence than those that come by following the book or the herd you revert to your green blue nonsense. But that is the very crux of the matter - reason offers nothing that is more correct, true or valid when it comes to ethical questions. You can invent a syllogism that supports your position, well so can the Maoist - but so what?

[Sparko]

Most of this sentence is correct - except the underlined portion. The word "expect" should be "hope." That is basically what we all do. We see our own moral framework as "the best" (for obvious reasons) and hope we can convince others to align to it. When we cannot, we resort to ignoring, isolation/separation, or contention. You and Seer do this as well. You just call your moral framework "absolute/objective" while I recognize that all moral frameworks are relative/subjective.



Most of this sentence is correct - except the underlined portion. The word "expect" should be "hope." That is basically what we all do. We see our own moral framework as "the best" (for obvious reasons) and hope we can convince others to align to it. When we cannot, we resort to ignoring, isolation/separation, or contention.



One can always hope...



Same error.

Nope. you are correct that we all expect/hope others will agree with us. But that is because we all know in our hearts that there is an objective morality that everyone should agree with. Even if we have it wrong, we think we have it right and others should agree.

But if you truly believe that morals are relative, then you should be satisfied with your own morality and allow others to have theirs. If I like football, that is my preference. I don't expect everyone else to like football. I can allow them to dislike it and it won't bother me in the least. However if I expect that everyone else in the world should like football or they are wrong, then I actually believe liking football to be an objective thing.

The fact that you don't understand that distinction is why you keep arguing with Seer and can't just say, 'OK you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to and be done with it.'

[Sparko]

Also, if you are arguing that morals are arrived at via reason and logic, then you are indeed claiming that there is some objective truth behind them that everyone should agree with. You are arguing for objective morality.

[carpedm9587]

You mean I don't have a rational defense for murdering dissidents like the Maoist?

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

In your relative world why would that matter?

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

If it is truly all subjective why does it matter how we come by our moral beliefs?

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

When I say that you can not show why moral conclusions that come about by reason have any no more credence than those that come by following the book or the herd you revert to your green blue nonsense.

No more "absolute/objective" creedence - but then this is just more complaining that "green is not blue." We already know relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. Say something that has actual content and we can potentially discuss. Otherwise... more "green is not blue" nonsense, as you say.

But that is the very crux of the matter - reason offers nothing that is more correct, true or valid when it comes to ethical questions.

Nothing more absolutely/objectively true or valid, because (again) it's a relative/subjective moral world and we are all subject to it. So you are again complaining "green is not blue." I again ask "so what?"

You can invent a syllogism that supports your position, well so can the Maoist - but so what?

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?

[carpedm9587]

Nope. you are correct that we all expect/hope others will agree with us.

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

But that is because we all know in our hearts that there is an objective morality that everyone should agree with. Even if we have it wrong, we think we have it right and others should agree.

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.

But if you truly believe that morals are relative, then you should be satisfied with your own morality and allow others to have theirs.

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.

If I like football, that is my preference. I don't expect everyone else to like football. I can allow them to dislike it and it won't bother me in the least. However if I expect that everyone else in the world should like football or they are wrong, then I actually believe liking football to be an objective thing.

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 don't understand that distinction is why you keep arguing with Seer and can't just say, 'OK you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to and be done with it.'

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.

[carpedm9587]

Also, if you are arguing that morals are arrived at via reason and logic, then you are indeed claiming that there is some objective truth behind them that everyone should agree with. You are arguing for objective morality.

No - I'm not. I've shown this repeatedly. If you think this, then you have not understood the arguments made.