Moral subjectivity is such an untenable position that I have never seen anybody argue in its favor who didn't at some point blatantly contradict himself.
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostStop dodging. The problem is that YOU are acting incoherently when you attempt to impose your moral values - which are entirely subjective,
Last edited by Tassman; 06-06-2019, 12:32 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYes you did. You argued that they were barbaric.
Our society's moral code is based on that same deity.
And yet our laws and moral codes can be traced back to the same roots as those "tribal societies" and are based on the same.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...-dominionists/
And yet you keep arguing as if morals are objective,“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo, I said I consider such behavior “barbaric”. Obviously, those tossing homosexuals from rooftops believe they are performing God’s will. Just as Christians in the West did when they incarcerated homosexuals...or killed 'witches'.
You said:
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI’m picking you up on your erroneous notion that “tossing gays off of rooftops" reflects current social mores. It doesn’t, except in the more barbaric countries of the world, e.g. Syria under ISIS.
When I claimed that was just YOUR opinion you countered with:
No, it’s the opinion of the society's to which you and I belong, namely signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This reflects our community social values, not those which are grounded in the values of 1,500 years ago when Islam was founded. We’ve moved on from there. Even modern Muslims interpret these things more in keeping with current social values, just as do modern Christians.
Indeed, but that’s changing. A bit silly to base a ‘moral code’ in the 21st century on that of nomadic tribal morality that dates back thousands of years, don’t you think?
What do you mean “traced back”? If they are the objective Law of God, surely they should be maintained exactly as God demands…as say, Mike Pence and the Dominionists believe.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...-dominionists/
No, just that ‘morality’ generally follow’s the communal values of the day and those values change over time. That’s my argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
You categorized these societies and countries as barbaric. Not as your opinion but as a moral judgment.
So you denied it was just your opinion and claimed that their morals were inferior which means you are considering your morals to be objectively better than theirs.
Why? Morals are just relative values each society uses right?
I mean our moral values come from Christian-Judeo moral codes. Even our laws are based on such things as the 10 commandments and the bible.
So you claiming that the muslims are barbaric because they base their moral codes on the Quran is nonsensical.Last edited by Tassman; 06-07-2019, 05:41 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou may choose to view my statement as a “moral judgment” but it’s not. It’s a socially-based opinion. I, given my Western social acculturation, certainly view tossing homosexuals off rooftops as “barbaric” …don’t you? Even if the Muslin faithful think it’s what God wants. They are entitled to their view, I think they are wrong because its cruel.
But they have evolved considerably since then. We no longer use scripture to justify slavery or the Jim Crow Laws or the denigration of women, the killing of witches and in most instances, the denial of homosexual rights and etc. The Dominionists, and their desire to return to good ole’ fashioned OT Morality, being the exception.
So, you accept the Muslim moral code with its Sharia amputations and roof-tossing and stoning of ‘sinners’? Interesting.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut I believe morals are objective.
You don't. So you have no basis to make that judgement call. The fact that you do, shows us that deep down you do believe morals are objective even if you won't admit it openly.
You seem to think "evolve" equates to "better" but then since morals are just relative values there is no better. They can "change" but they can't "evolve" into anything better or "devolve" into something worse. There was nothing wrong with Jim Crow laws under your moral worldview. There was nothing wrong with burning witches, or gassing Jews, or anything else. It simply is a different value set than we have today.
I don't have to. I believe in objective morality.
YOU have to accept it under what you claim morality is. Keep up, Tassman. YOU are the one saying that there is no objective right or wrong.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo? Muslims believe morals are “objective” too, including when they toss homosexuals off rooftops. They are just doing what God wants, just as Christians did when they incarcerated homosexuals.
Are you telling me what I believe “deep down”?
My claim is that morality reflects the evolving values of society. This has been historically true in practical terms re the “objective” morality of the bible or Koran.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSlavery might not be moral today, but it might be again in 100 years. And if so, it would not be "better" or "worse" than today. It would just be the morals of that society, which even might be this society one day.
So by Tass' light it must be OK...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 Sparko View PostIt means that we have a basis for complaining about whether some other group or person is moral or not. You don't.
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy between what you claim morals are (subjective) and how you react to other societies that don't agree with your morals.
Yes, you claim that, but then you seem to have some objective sense of this goal or standard that morality is striving for, making it better.
That standard is an objective goal that you believe exists that morals are evolving to. Which means you think morals are objective.
Otherwise morals would not "evolve" they would just change from society to society, neither one being better or worse than the last. Slavery might not be moral today, but it might be again in 100 years. And if so, it would not be "better" or "worse" than today. It would just be the morals of that society, which even might be this society one day.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYour basis for such “complaining about other people’s morality” is precisely the same as for me and everyone else. Namely, the the community values with which we have been acculturated.
I’m sure you agree that tossing homosexuals off rooftops is “barbaric” and for the same reason as I. Until relatively recently homosexuals were treated abominably by Western society too. Our community values have changed whereas those of certain Islamic societies have not.
Our morals are no more “objective” than those of the tribal communities that wrote the Old Testament and its New Testament derivatives. The people who wrote those books were merely reflecting the subjective social mores of the day; they were no more objective than our social mores.
Indeed. Great civilizations have risen and fallen throughout human history…along with their prevailing value-systems. Our own society might indeed crumble…especially as global warming destroys our environment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSee you can't make up your mind. You want morals to be objective and subjective at the same time. You are a hypocritical moron who can't even see your own contradictions.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThis is the exact same knot I've seen every moral relativist tie himself in when trying to defend his views. There are very few atheists who have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its logical conclusion and embrace nihilism.
CS Lewis covered it quite well in Mere Christianity
"But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostExcept since you claim that morals are just each societies own values your complaint has no teeth
It would be like complaining that Germans wearing lederhosen is evil.
it's just that's societies morals Tassman, right? Just their culture. Nothing right or wrong with it.
See you can't make up your mind. You want morals to be objective and subjective at the same time.
You are a hypocritical moron who can't even see your own contradictions. If morals are just cultural values then they have no actual "right or wrong" values. They just "are".“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat else is morality if not a set of rules based upon the community values of each society?
Bad fashion sense is not necessarily "evil".
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it, according to the standards of their culture. But such activity is no longer acceptable in our culture today, any more than bible-based witch-killing, racial discrimination or incarcerating homosexuals is acceptable. It was once, it is no longer.
Then you have no complaint. But the fact that you are here arguing with me and others about what is good and what is bad, what is moral and immoral, means that you do believe in some moral standard of "good" that we should all strive towards. And the fact that you think Muslims murdering homosexuals is immoral in their own society shows you believe that standard to be objective and universal.
I never said that, this is your misrepresentation of what you think I said.
The fact that you can't even see what you are doing is just the icing on the cake of your ignorance.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
3 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 03:46 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 02:59 PM
|
Comment