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 seer View Post
    It is "post hoc" justification Carp, what you have been doing all along.
    thank you. I suck at latin.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      I suck at latin.
      So what?
      "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
        Chrawnus - assuming you (like Seer and Sparko) base your moral framework on the bible and "god's word," then you have a moral preference for the precepts of the bible. It is entirely subjective to you. Had you been born in the Middle East you would likely have been quoting the Quran instead. We all have moral preferences. I prefer to call it what it is. We see our moral preferences as obligations on our actions, but they are derived internally based on external stimuli. Serr and Sparko have a preference to see homosexuality as sinful. They have that preference because they base their moral framework on the text of the bible (as they interpret it). Your attempt to define your way to an objection is simply not apt. Triangles are physical and/or geometric realities with a particular definition.



        I don't see that as solving your problem. Laws place upon us obligations. That does not make the legal system "absolute/objective." Obligations are about the limits we accept from others or impose on ourselves. I have an obligation to pay my taxes because I choose to live in this country. That does not make the tax laws objective/absolute. I have a sense of obligation to provide for my family. That obligation does not arise from some absolute/objective source. It arises from a combination of the laws of this and, and the things I was raised to (and have come to) value. It springs internally.



        It is both. Ultimately, what we value is (at least in part) subjectively arrived at. I can give my reasons for valuing life - but eventually I will get to the subjective experience of living and how I feel about it. There is no escaping that all moral reasoning ultimately traces to subjective roots.



        Exactly. "Valuing," by definition, requires a valuer. It is a subjective act. There is no value if there is no one and nothing there to perceive that value.



        The world is used to using "moral" to talk about how we determine "right or ought action" from "wrong or ought not action." "Preference framework" is not wrong. It's merely too wide. Thge moral framework is a subset of our overall preference framework.

        When I said "Morality is inherently about obligations" I'm not speaking about the kind of obligations that the law places on us for example. Moral obligations are the kind of obligations that exists regardless of the culture and legal framework we live in. I would say that what you call "moral preferences derived internally based on external stimuli" and the sense of right and wrong that we call a "conscience" are an indication of these moral obligations, you simply don't believe that's what they are because in your worldview arriving at objective/absolute moral obligations is simply not possible. You've already determined from the get go that subjective values are all that exists, and therefore there is no possible way to argue for the existence of absolute moral obligations with you.

        You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.

        I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion here. It seems clear to me that our disagreements lay deeper than simply whether or not morality is objective or subjective, but we also seem to have disagreements about when something is sufficiently well-reasoned. Trying to unravel how far back our disagreements go exactly would take more energy than I care to spare right now, so I'll go back to simply reading the posts in this thread, for the time being.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Charles View Post
          Well, if someone is thirsty and you offer them salt instead of water and I point out that salt will not solve the problem because the person needs water would you then say: "That is not an argument - it's a restatement of the meaning of the terms." It is rather simple. Your idea that you can continually point to it being a "restatement of the meaing of terms" and go on to say "So what?" is based on the idea that the meaning of terms is not important to the case discussed. You have completely failed to show why it is not important. If you did not in any way try to argue that certain actions are better or worse than others, you could say "So what?". What you are actually saying "So what?" to so far are all the ideas you present yourself. Or you are allowing me to say exactly that to every argument you can come up with. So what? You are simply presenting an idea while claiming that I have no reason what so ever to agree with you, unless I happen to do so already.

          The idea that philosophers "start by simply assuming an absolute/objective base for moralizing" seems to be yet another question begging idea about moral reasoning. Where is the evidence?

          The point that you seemed to find a bit contradicting was the point that there could be moral standards that are objective on how humans should treat each other. The fact that such standards would not apply when humans cease to exist would not prove them to be subjective. It would only prove that the reality in which they apply no longer exists.

          If your best argument is that those who oppose you point out to what words actually mean and you cannot show them why that meaning is not important I don't think you have a very strong case.

          I will admit that pointing to what objective standards are, why and how is very difficult and if you want to point out that I am not doing so in this post or the previous, you are absolutely right. That would be another thread and it would take a lot of time.
          I think this is one of the few times I've actually amen'd a post by someone who's worldview is diametrically opposed to mine on these forums. That doesn't happen often.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            When I said "Morality is inherently about obligations" I'm not speaking about the kind of obligations that the law places on us for example. Moral obligations are the kind of obligations that exists regardless of the culture and legal framework we live in. I would say that what you call "moral preferences derived internally based on external stimuli" and the sense of right and wrong that we call a "conscience" are an indication of these moral obligations, you simply don't believe that's what they are because in your worldview arriving at objective/absolute moral obligations is simply not possible. You've already determined from the get go that subjective values are all that exists, and therefore there is no possible way to argue for the existence of absolute moral obligations with you.

            You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.

            I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion here. It seems clear to me that our disagreements lay deeper than simply whether or not morality is objective or subjective, but we also seem to have disagreements about when something is sufficiently well-reasoned. Trying to unravel how far back our disagreements go exactly would take more energy than I care to spare right now, so I'll go back to simply reading the posts in this thread, for the time being.
            I don't often agree with you but this is spot on.
            "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


            • For Carp and all. Jonathan Haidt has done, and references, much research on this very subject. It directly ties in with Carp's claim of rationality. A must watch...

              Last edited by seer; 03-16-2019, 01:56 PM.
              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 Chrawnus View Post
                You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.
                .

                I made that point to him earlier. He is basically replacing God with himself. He is making himself god and the source of morality that he believes everyone should follow. Then when questioned he comes up with some made-up rationalization to justify his moral view.

                Comment


                • You need to fix the link seer, it just says "http://jonathan%20haidt/" and doesn't take you anywhere.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    For Carp and all. Jonathan Haidt has done, and references, much research on this very subject. It directly ties in with Carp's claim of rationality. A must watch...

                    Jonathan Haidt
                    Your link is invalid.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      I think this is one of the few times I've actually amen'd a post by someone who's worldview is diametrically opposed to mine on these forums. That doesn't happen often.
                      And I wrote almost the same about your post at the same time. Interesting. I am not sure our worldviews are diametrically opposed, however.
                      "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 Charles View Post
                        And I wrote almost the same about your post at the same time. Interesting. I am not sure our worldviews are diametrically opposed, however.
                        In my worldview, almost everything, from the existence of matter, space and time, the basis of morality and the validity of reason are all tied to the existence of God. You be the judge if that makes our worldviews "diametrically" opposed or not.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          You need to fix the link seer, it just says "http://jonathan%20haidt/" and doesn't take you anywhere.
                          Done
                          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 Chrawnus View Post
                            In my worldview, almost everything, from the existence of matter, space and time, the basis of morality and the validity of reason are all tied to the existence of God. You be the judge if that makes our worldviews "diametrically" opposed or not.
                            Well... Since I am an agnostic I cannot say I rule out the idea that some of that could be true. However, my concept of God is probably rather different from yours so I would say our world views are probably very different though probably not diametrically opposed.
                            "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 Chrawnus View Post
                              Everything, unless you're content with building a moral framework out of thin air. But as far as I can tell you seem to have no problem doing that.
                              "Thin air" is a bit of hyperbole. Our moral frameworks spring from our life experiences coupled with our ability to reason. That is true for all of us.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              It might be inconsistent, but why is acting inconsistently with your own values worse than acting in accordance with them?
                              This seems so obvious, Chrawnus - it boggles the mind a tad to think you need an explanation. So you seem to be suggesting that someone acting against what they value can potentially be seen by them as somehow "better?" I value life and living - so let me just kill myself. I value happiness, so let's see if I can do everything possible to make myself unhappy. That might be better.

                              The very idea seems ludicrous on the face of it. If I value something - then I will implicitly see actions that protect/enhance what I value as "better" than actions that destroy or diminish it. If that requires explanation...I am at a loss as to how to help you.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              A person who values his existence but decides to take his own life on some strange random impulse might have acted against his own values, but in your worldview you're unable to explain why either choice, snuffing out his own existence, or continuing it, was preferable to one or the other.
                              Our immediate impulses do sometimes run counter to our deeper valuing. There is no question about that. We can also be impacted by drugs of various kinds, or transient conditions in life. I'm not sure how any of this supports your (presumed) case that moral frameworks are rooted in absolute/objective moral truths - or that these so-called "truths" actually exist.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              You might just introduce another set of subjective values to support the values you used to argue that existence is preferrable to non-existence, but then we're back at the "pushing the problem one step backwards" part again.
                              We are all deeply rooted in the subjective. But what your "pushing it one step backwards" means, I have no idea.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              You're arguing that using reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions is preferrable to getting your moral beliefs "from the book", or by "following the herd" because when you're using reasoning you can get from,

                              1) Attempt to influence the underlying valuing so they align (these may be done by rational arguments, emotional arguments, social arguments, etc. to 2) When the underlying valuing aligns, use reason to arrive at a common moral conclusion.

                              Something which you cannot do when you get your morals "from the book", or "the herd."

                              I have two immediate thoughts popping up in my head right now. One is (and I think you suspect what it is already, even before reading it), I don't see how to justify being able to move from 1) to 2) in a worldview with subjective values, it just seems to be a case of "because I said so", in which case you're no better of than the people who build their moral frameworks based on the bible, or based on the "herd" they're following. You've simply pushed the point of contention backwards a step and exchanged "because the bible says so", or "because other people say so" to "because I say so".
                              I think I have acknowledged multiple times that the people who blindly "follow the herd" are doing so because of what they value - the book - their god - and so fit the subjective/relative moral model. The problem is primarily that there is minimal chance of influencing what they value, because they see themselves as beholden to "the supreme being" and have endowed the book they worship with "divine authority." They cannot show any of this to be true. And since I believe their god doesn't actually exist, as OBP noted way back, that means what they are actually doing is following the moral precepts (as they interpret them) from a few dozen men who they cannot identify, whose original writings were from 2000-3500 years ago and are lost to time, and who wrote in a foreign (and largely dead) language and an ancient (also obsolete) culture. And from this they squeeze out "absolute/objective moral principals" that are binding on all.

                              Yet there is no cohesion among the followers of this books (which is conveniently blamed on "sin") and the book does label anyone who actually dares to disagree as "following their own wisdom and vain" (which I'd probably write in my holy book if I wanted everyone to follow it too. We have irrationality piled on irrationality, and somehow you think simply recognizing that humanity engages in a relative/subjectie act when it moralizes is somehow an odd thought?

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              My other thought is that I don't see how at least the people who get their morals "from the book" cannot use reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions. True, they might be constrained by what the book says, and might not be able to speculate as wildly as someone who's not bound by the book, but there is nothing that says that they cannot use their reasoning to inform their reading of the book they adhere to, and what sort of principles, values and rules that they extract from it.
                              And yet - when push comes to shove and the arguments fall apart, the recourse is pretty much always "it's god's word! How dare you question it!" Yes, it is possible that someone who gets moral ideas from a book can reason to them themselves. When it comes to the bible - my experience is that the default is to simply follow the book. The primary (only?) two questions asked are "what does the book say" and "do I have the right interpretation of what is in the book."

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              "Speaking out of absolute/objective norms" and "repeating the dictates of an ancient book" (leaving out the "projected on a supreme being to lend it authority" part because that's something I have my doubts about whether you're going to be able to justify) are not necessarily in contradiction with each other. It's possible that they are "speaking out absolute/objective moral norms from the dictates of an ancient book" as well.
                              Then they need to be able to make that argument. So far - what I see is personal interpretations of .... (see above).
                              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 seer View Post
                                So you are saying that there are objectively better moral ends or goals, like the objectively better ends when exercising?
                                The "better" ends of exercising are subjective, Seer. For most of us, if we exercise, we see improvement and better health. For some of us, exercise is not possible or even recommended. It depends entirely on our physiology and general place in life. "Exercise makes you better" is generally true for most of us, just like "randomly killing humans is immoral" is generally true for most of us. It is true for so many of us, it is as close to universal as we get. But it is clearly not true for all of us - ask the Maoist

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Right you are using a post hoc rationalization again. The point is one does not need a logical justification to value his life, it is completely unnecessary.
                                Where did I say they HAD to have a logical justification for valuing life? We value what we value. Sometimes it's rational. Sometimes it's not. But even what is based on some amount of reason will ultimately root in personal experience and preference.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                And any justification that jumps off of that is merely, again, post hoc reasoning. Reading back into the non-rational, emotive valuing of one's life.
                                You don't HAVE to accept my reasons for valuing life, Seer. You're not me.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                You are again giving me a subjective reason, I asked for an objective grounding.
                                I provided this several times. I'll let my previous posts stand.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                And how do you know that your subjective brain is coming to correct absolute/objective moral conclusions? Without begging the question?
                                Again, "green is not blue." I inserted your missing words for you. You still don't have an argument, Seer - and you still don't see it.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X