| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2008 10:02:14 PM · #1001 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while the important part of this post is the paragraph above, I would say the 9/11 bombing seems so wrong because of our position as victim. However, even our own apparent societal framework has allowed similar actions within the last 75 years. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did certainly achieve an end (ending the war), but at what moral cost (killing many, many civillians)? I think parallels could be drawn between 9/11 and the bomb. Probably within my own framework BOTH actions are wrong, but it is interesting to see we may not be able to claim the moral high ground as easily as we would like. |
Hmm. 220,000+ killed vs 3000 killed. I'm not sure 'keeping score' is a valid way to compare, but it looks to be close to 100x? |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 11:38:50 PM · #1002 |
All right, all right. perhaps my statement about curtailing the freedoms of gay people needs a little more clarification.
I'm not retarded here people... I understand that gays have been the target of bad behavior (that's putting it way too mildly I understand). What I am meaning to say is that there is no current law that forbids two gay people from living together as if they were married in our society. If gay marriage were to remain illegal then it would not forbid or outlaw being gay is my point...
A little trouble from thought to translation into words... my statement was very poorly worded.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:03:39 AM · #1003 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
... Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
 dponlymeI also take exception to the words you posted here. Some people in this thread know that like Matthew Shephard, my brother was targeted and killed because he was a homosexual.
Through history groups of people have been targeted for discrimination and annihilation. Some because of their ethnicity, or their pigmentation, some for cultural reasons.
Don't you think it's about time to end inequality on all levels?
To give complete rights to everyone? |
You have my deepest sympathies. No one deserves to murdered just for being who they are.
I do think it is time that inequality is erased. I don't think that redefining marriage (that's the way a lot of people see it) is a palatable way to go in order to achieve that for myself and obviously many others. I don't know what the solution (a workable one anyway) is but as you well know the marriage thing is stepping on a lot of toes. I don't fault gay people for wanting the right to marry and to work toward that goal but you apparently have a long way to go toward capturing a majority of the opinion in the US. Let's face it. Whether or not gay marriage is legal or not there are still going to be gay people who are targeted for hate crimes. Your best ally is time. Younger people are more apt to accept gay marriage than older. The young will be the older in time and I feel that you will eventually have the rights you seek. You will also have the acceptance from society that will come with time as well. Working to gain rights is not an easy process... it takes a lot of time.
I will say that I am at least doing my part here. I am not just filing the issue away with it's limited impact upon my life personally but am challenging myself to examine the issues. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:11:35 AM · #1004 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
I don't think each arguer is correct within their own framework (or I don't understand what you mean). You seem to be arguing for moral relativism, which I think is a mistake. There must be some moral absolute in this issue. Otherwise, to take an hyperbolic and extreme example, the actions of the 911 hijackers were correct within their own moral framework. But their actions were not correct.
If one has seriously considered this particular issue and wonders where to go from here, I would suggest the only answer lies in the application of the golden rule. At the risk of sounding morally arrogant, and with the understanding that I am not advocating for one side or the other, consideration of how one can lessen the suffering of other people while respecting their dignity is a good place to start. |
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:20:27 AM · #1005 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
Oh man... oh man oh man...
You could not be more wrong. Socially, legally, personally... we are denied and threatened all the time, in innumerable ways you might not even be able to see. I was a Boy Scout. I loved it. I kept my mouth shut that I was gay. I HAD to violate the oath about honesty just to participate (which every kid should have the chance to do) or face getting booted. I had to make a choice to either opt out, or lie in order to play along. I lied about being an athiest as well. Was I taking advantage of the Boy Scouts? I don't think so... it was just an ugly little compromise I had to make to be treated like all my friends, who were Scouts themselves, or stay home alone and unwanted.
The very real fear of retaliation I feel on an almost daily basis directly modifies how I express myself in almost every public situation, taking me away from how I want to live and making my day-to-day an exercise in how to conveniently live. Don't act too gay. Keep up a front of normalized if subdued masculinity. Choose your clothes carefully based on environment. Don't hold hands. Watch for certain words and don't speak them. Don't go into any unfriendly places, beer & sports fans are often a good indicator. God forbid, don't marry your husband! Being gay is an endless parade of second-guessing and warily looking over shoulders.
It's not like being black... you can't hide your blackness. You can hide your gayness. We're practically forced to make ourselves over by our apparent near-normality... we can slightly, continuously tweak our behavior and presentation to pass undetected, or risk getting the shit kicked out of us by someone who thinks it's practically their duty, a right of passage, even. Doing anything else is signing up for a world of hurt. It's sensible to compromise yourself this way. Sensible, but not good. It comes at a real cost. It can feel like living a lie.
When courts use getting hit on by a gay man as a legitimate defense for murder (gay panic!) you BET gays modify their actions, sacrificing short-term freedoms, like the ability to express romantic interest, for long-term freedoms, like the one to breathe.
I ran a rainbow flag up the pole in front of my house on Saturday... and there was a considerable part of me second-guessing even the simple freedom to express myself on my own property, for fear of the negative attention it may bring. A chilling efect, you might say... imposed on me by those who would rather not know I exist. To do what I want is to invite hostile attention, and that is not true freedom. I had to buck that pressure to do what I know is right.
Gay life is a daily exercise in curtailed freedoms. |
Mousie, It should not be this way for you or anyone. It does however illustrate my point. You still have all of these problems even though you are legally married. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:33:02 AM · #1006 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Moral relativism is really only valid in cases of situational ethics. To say that it is sometimes okay to kill someone and sometimes its not ok to kill someone is incorrect. It is always not ok to kill someone but sometimes certain situations evolve where it is the lesser of two evils.
In the case of discrimination, it is not ok to discriminate against anyone, based on sex or race (or handicap, hair color, number of toes, age, favorite color...). Not allowing someone to enter into a contract with another person based on their sex is discrimination (yes, I know, a woman can marry a man so they aren't discriminated against - but two women can't enter a marriage contract so there is sex discrimination). Years ago, people of different races were not allowed to marry in the US and could be jailed for doing so. That is no longer the case, though there are people that wish otherwise. Someday, a person's sex won't matter with regard to marriage contracts. there will always be people against it, but they will live, and life will go on.
I find it sad that so many people are so concerned about what every one else is doing, feel a need to dictate and control the lives of others. I often wonder what is missing in their life that they need to make people miserable.
I finally watched the 20/20 interview with the man who carried a baby. The phone calls and threatening letters from strangers who didn't even know these people was just so very sad. The anger these people display at something they have no business sticking their noses in is astounding. If they spent that much time and energy on their own lives, maybe they wouldn't be so angry. And for those that call on the bible and Jesus to 'back them up' in their hate, they need to remember that Jesus preached love, tolerance, forgiveness and peace. He believed that only God could judge what was in men/women's hearts, and everyone should just love and respect one another.
I'm not a christian, but I hear the bible and Jesus used as justification for so much hate that I can no longer swallow it... |
I understand why so many are turned off to Christianity... it is used and abused as a tool for hate. I would just caution that true Christians (not lip service people or zealots) are not going to do that. It is against the teachings of Jesus to do so. So many do not get that... it gives Christianity a big huge black eye for sure. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:39:41 AM · #1007 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Discrimination is unconstitional and abhorrent.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
When you say that your solution is the only one that 'should' ever be considered you do nothing to further the cause of gay marriage. |
You forgot to say "In my opinion".
I, and many other people see nothing worng with that verbiage.
This is a very black and white situation.......either you're in favor of the harassment and discrimination, or you're not. |
It's definitely my opinion. In stating it what I mean is that obviously many people have differing opinions and in trying to persuade them to your way of thinking.. to gain acceptance as it were.. this does not help. It didn't further my thinking on the matter. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 07:58:30 AM · #1008 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
Oh, you mean like the way we got rid of segregation by waiting for racism to disappear? Thank goodness those black folk were so patient with us and didn't muddy the public sphere with demonstrations and protests.
You've got your history backwards. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 08:49:26 AM · #1009 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ummm, aren't you just saying it's not okay to kill someone until there is a good reason for killing someone? That's not very helpful... |
No, that's not what I'm saying. At all. Regardless of the reasons for killing someone, it is always wrong to kill. How society judges it, based on situational circumstances, may be different. Not only that, but who you kill is also important with regard to society's view. Morals have nothing to do with punishment, the legal system, what country one lives in, or what religion one follows.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are missing my point anyway. Moral relativism is more concerned with there being more than one method of judging the correctness of an action. One could judge an action under Utilitarianism, under Islamic Sharia, under Humanitarianism, etc. Each framework could possibly give you a different answer for the correctness of the action in question. It has less to do with the simplicity or complexity of the rules invoked and more to do with the fact there are many frameworks that can be used in the first place and that no single framework can claim authority over the other. |
I completely understand your point and am trying to point out that, while moral relativism is a good excuse to allow injustice and immorality, its completely invalid as a method for defending immorality. You can justify an immoral act under any framework; it doesn't cease to be an immoral act.
John steals to feed his family. John's act is immoral but justified under many frameworks. We feel sorry for John so we excuse his behavior. Mike steals to feed his drug habit. Mike's act is immoral and, under most frameworks, unjustified. We don't feel sorry for Mike so we do not excuse his behavior. Both acts are immoral, but how we feel about them varies due to situational ethics. The act itself does not change.
How's this - in some middle eastern countries, it is okay to stone your wife or your daughter to death for dishonoring your family. A moral relativist would say not to intervene, as that is their culture and the culture believes it is okay so its okay. Does this fly with you?
There seem to be 'Universal Truths' across all cultures, even ones that have had no contact with each other. Call them Kantian 'oughts' or Hobbesian 'natural laws' if you like. Regardless, these exist beyond moral relativism. One can allow injustice to occur by bowing to belief in moral relativism if one likes, but I prefer to believe that basic moral principles cross all cultures and belief systems. You can excuse an act because of the situation, but the act itself is either immoral or moral, regardless of the framework from which you view it. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:18:32 AM · #1010 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
Oh, you mean like the way we got rid of segregation by waiting for racism to disappear? Thank goodness those black folk were so patient with us and didn't muddy the public sphere with demonstrations and protests.
You've got your history backwards. |
Your forgetting that this isn't history and this isn't the black civil rights movement. Gays don't have half the country on their side either and I doubt we'll have a civil war over gay rights. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:08:56 AM · #1011 |
| Saw this article today about a growing number of high ranking military officials calling for an end to the "don't ask don't tell" policy. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:43:45 AM · #1012 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
Oh, you mean like the way we got rid of segregation by waiting for racism to disappear? Thank goodness those black folk were so patient with us and didn't muddy the public sphere with demonstrations and protests.
You've got your history backwards. |
Your forgetting that this isn't history and this isn't the black civil rights movement. Gays don't have half the country on their side either and I doubt we'll have a civil war over gay rights. |
So, simply because the activist movement may be smaller, that justifies the discrimination?
The first shots in the war, if you want to call it that, have already been fired. I'm pretty sure they killed Harvey Milk. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:53:47 AM · #1013 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
Oh, you mean like the way we got rid of segregation by waiting for racism to disappear? Thank goodness those black folk were so patient with us and didn't muddy the public sphere with demonstrations and protests.
You've got your history backwards. |
Your forgetting that this isn't history and this isn't the black civil rights movement. Gays don't have half the country on their side either and I doubt we'll have a civil war over gay rights. |
Like many of DrAchoo's arguments, your arguments only make sense to people who doubt the legitimacy of homosexuals to begin with. Any right for any group has had to be fought for. Only after rights are fought for and won do people change their attitudes. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 11:04:08 AM · #1014 |
Dponlyme, I appreciate your sentiments here when you say:
I am at least doing my part here. I am not just filing the issue away with its limited impact upon my life personally but am challenging myself to examine the issues.
What I hope you can come to understand is that we are dealing with real people, with real hopes and dreams. That is why I bring up my family history. That. I think, is why  Mousie makes so much of his private life public. It is to demonstrate that real people, people you know are affected by the attitude that can be inferred from your earlier statement which I won̢۪t repeat again.
I wonder, Dponlyme, I wonder if you look deeply at your own circle of friends and family, would you find that, after all, this subject actually does have more than a limited impact on your life.
In any event, I hope these words help you understand this is not just an abstract, interesting subject for debate. We are talking about real lives, real people.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 11:26:42 AM · #1015 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Your forgetting that this isn't history and this isn't the black civil rights movement. Gays don't have half the country on their side either and I doubt we'll have a civil war over gay rights. |
Prop 8 passed with 48% of the voters opposed to it. This IS history, and the civil rights movement was not a civil war. Neither was the drive for women's suffrage. The actual Civil War was prompted by the secession of Southern slave states after Lincoln was elected on a campaign against slavery. That so many on the South were in favor of slavery, justified in part by by their moral and religious beliefs, did not make the oppression of a minority group right. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 11:49:30 AM · #1016 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The actual Civil War was prompted by the secession of Southern slave states after Lincoln was elected on a campaign against slavery. |
To be more specific, the South seceded after the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case in which it was ruled that the so-called "Missouri Compromise" (prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Western territories) was unconstitutional. When the Federal government refused to back down in the face of the Supreme Court decision, the South seceded and the North declared war, calling it a "rebellion".
I think I have that right anyway...
R. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:13:09 PM · #1017 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
All right, all right. perhaps my statement about curtailing the freedoms of gay people needs a little more clarification.
I'm not retarded here people... I understand that gays have been the target of bad behavior (that's putting it way too mildly I understand). What I am meaning to say is that there is no current law that forbids two gay people from living together as if they were married in our society. If gay marriage were to remain illegal then it would not forbid or outlaw being gay is my point...
A little trouble from thought to translation into words... my statement was very poorly worded. |
You might want to look into anti-cohabitation laws then... the last time I checked there were multiple states that have laws on the books that make it a crime to live in the same home with another adult unless you are married or blood related. Even if you're straight... and even if you have kids with the person you're living with!
Since gays can not get legally married in those states... it is NEVER legal for them to live in the same home as their partners, since that would fall under cohabitation laws.
It's true that these laws are not often enforced... they are, but only occasionally... yet that doesn't make it any less stressful, knowing that any attention you bring upon yourself could very well end up in an state-mandated eviction if you upset the wrong person.
So, being gay itself, specificaly, might not be illegal... but behaving as a normal couple without having the title 'marriage' can, in fact, be illegal. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:21:21 PM · #1018 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
All right, all right. perhaps my statement about curtailing the freedoms of gay people needs a little more clarification.
I'm not retarded here people... I understand that gays have been the target of bad behavior (that's putting it way too mildly I understand). What I am meaning to say is that there is no current law that forbids two gay people from living together as if they were married in our society. If gay marriage were to remain illegal then it would not forbid or outlaw being gay is my point...
A little trouble from thought to translation into words... my statement was very poorly worded. |
You might want to look into anti-cohabitation laws then... the last time I checked there were multiple states that have laws on the books that make it a crime to live in the same home with another adult unless you are married or blood related. Even if you're straight... and even if you have kids with the person you're living with!
Since gays can not get legally married in those states... it is NEVER legal for them to live in the same home as their partners, since that would fall under cohabitation laws.
It's true that these laws are not often enforced... they are, but only occasionally... yet that doesn't make it any less stressful, knowing that any attention you bring upon yourself could very well end up in an state-mandated eviction if you upset the wrong person.
So, being gay itself, specificaly, might not be illegal... but behaving as a normal couple without having the title 'marriage' can, in fact, be illegal. |
Also, keep in mind that it wasn't until 2003 that anti-sodomy (i.e. any sex act not leading to procreation) laws were struck down as unconstitutional and with rare exception, these laws were used exclusively against homosexuals.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 12:22:14. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:37:09 PM · #1019 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm just not sure how much 'suffering' can be abated by allowing gay marriage. Everything will be exactly the same except for gay couples having the financial advantages of marriage. Turning the hearts of people to gain a true acceptance is not going to come from gay marriage legality. Likely it will be the other way around. Acceptance is what will give the degree of suffering experienced by gays a major kick in the gut. When most people are accepting of gay's then you will see the real problems associated with being gay abating. These are my thoughts anyway. |
Why not ask my family, how about my mother specifically, about how much suffering was abated when I was finally allowed to marry my husband.
Why not ask her about how much suffering returned when Prop 8 passed?
I'm serious.
If you like, I'll even post a response here, asking her myself... but here's the short version:
When I came out to her, she cried. Not because I was gay and had let her down, but now she knew I would have to deal with a world that has let her down. A world that doesn't rise to her ideals of fairness and peace. She suffered knowing it would be much more difficult for me to find and maintain a relationship valued by certain sections of our society.
My marriage went a LONG way to easing that suffering. You could see it in her eyes... "Maybe... maybe the world is getting better! Maybe my son can finally live his life!"
Prop 8 passing tossed that feeling into the toilet. Her grief is palpable. "Maybe I was mistaken."
Again, I'd like to point out that this is NOT just a money thing, NOT just a rights and responsibilities thing. There is real emotional value in being able to participate in the rituals of a society. They give one a sense of belonging and acceptance. Marrige, for me, was a transformative experience that touched me on many levels. My marriage made me feel secure.
I can't find the quote, but one of my favorite that focuses on this idea came from The American Academy of Pediatrics of all people. They talk about the peace of mind and healthy environment that being married can help contribute to, that knowing your relationship is valued by the state and sociey can bring. They mention how important that stability and feeling of validation is, as part of an environment where kids are raised. They understand that it's about love and respect.
I've always tried to make it clear, here, that my own marriage is not just about tax law and civil protections... it's about my family, it's about permanently and legally bonding everyone in a day of celebration, it's about our future and our happiness.
We want marriage for the same reasons anybody else does... ALL of them! We ARE anybody else!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:38:13 PM · #1020 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The actual Civil War was prompted by the secession of Southern slave states after Lincoln was elected on a campaign against slavery. |
To be more specific, the South seceded after the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case in which it was ruled that the so-called "Missouri Compromise" (prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Western territories) was unconstitutional. When the Federal government refused to back down in the face of the Supreme Court decision, the South seceded and the North declared war, calling it a "rebellion".
I think I have that right anyway...
R. |
You should know Bear...you were there... ;) |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:47:53 PM · #1021 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Mousie, It should not be this way for you or anyone. It does however illustrate my point. You still have all of these problems even though you are legally married. |
But, don't you see, getting married made it a lot easier to face those problems. It really has! I am emboldened. I can grab his hand and run off to political protests without freaking out... for the first time in my life! We're a team! Him & me against the world! I know that no matter what happens, he'll be there beside me, and that makes it okay.
We can walk into a hospital and not stress about who's signing what... either of us can! What a relief!
Despite my worried, pessimistic heart, I can feel secure that he really loves me and won't leave me... all I need to do is look at my ring. Friends won't always wonder how serious or transient we are, like they do for long term boy/girlfriends... our relationship now has the stamp of permanence, and is more respected by them because of it.
Marriage itself is giving me the confidence and strength to stand up for what I believe in. It is the bedrock under our new, much more real, home.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:59:07 PM · #1022 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I completely understand your point and am trying to point out that, while moral relativism is a good excuse to allow injustice and immorality, its completely invalid as a method for defending immorality. You can justify an immoral act under any framework; it doesn't cease to be an immoral act.
John steals to feed his family. John's act is immoral but justified under many frameworks. We feel sorry for John so we excuse his behavior. Mike steals to feed his drug habit. Mike's act is immoral and, under most frameworks, unjustified. We don't feel sorry for Mike so we do not excuse his behavior. Both acts are immoral, but how we feel about them varies due to situational ethics. The act itself does not change.
How's this - in some middle eastern countries, it is okay to stone your wife or your daughter to death for dishonoring your family. A moral relativist would say not to intervene, as that is their culture and the culture believes it is okay so its okay. Does this fly with you?
There seem to be 'Universal Truths' across all cultures, even ones that have had no contact with each other. Call them Kantian 'oughts' or Hobbesian 'natural laws' if you like. Regardless, these exist beyond moral relativism. One can allow injustice to occur by bowing to belief in moral relativism if one likes, but I prefer to believe that basic moral principles cross all cultures and belief systems. You can excuse an act because of the situation, but the act itself is either immoral or moral, regardless of the framework from which you view it. |
Let me take a step back. I actually believe in an absolute morality, but that is only theoretically possible within a religious framework. Read the Wiki on moral relativism. Actually it's one of the longest wiki's I've seen so I won't blame you if you don't read the whole thing. One takehome is to note the only section critical of the idea comes from the religious sphere. Because I'm trying to keep religion out of my arguments on this thread I can actually take advantage of that fact and argue moral relativism because it is what is left when all arguments are secular.
If I push you on the simple idea that "killing is always wrong", does that hold for ants? Are they subject to moral absolutes like they are subject to physical absolutes like gravity? And if killing out of self-defense is "wrong" but acceptable because it's "less wrong", then what does "wrong" even mean?
Kant and Hobbes both believed in universal absolutes, but they did because they both believed in a creator (leaving out whether it was Christian or otherwise). Once again, absolute morality is only theoretically possible when we postulate a creator.(*) IF the universe was created and IF the creator has an interest in morality then the moral values of the creator can be looked at as the moral authority for our universe. All moral frameworks can be judged by the absolute measuring stick of the creator's moral values (like having the official meter bar in France for judging how accurate your own personal meter stick is).
For indirect support of moral relativism look at the criticism on the wiki and then look at the criticism for moral rationalism or deontological ethics. The criticisms for the latter two seem much more robust than for the former.
(*) This is theoretical. Practically we wind back up with moral relativism because there are competing arguments for what the creator's values are in specific. Islam claims to know, Christianity claims to know, Hinduism claims to know, etc. Still, the point is it is theoretically possible.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 12:59:22. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 01:03:35 PM · #1023 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(*) This is theoretical. Practically we wind back up with moral relativism because there are competing arguments for what the creator's values are in specific. Islam claims to know, Christianity claims to know, Hinduism claims to know, etc. Still, the point is it is theoretically possible. |
So it is theoretically possible but practically useless. Can we move on? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 01:11:42 PM · #1024 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I actually believe in an absolute morality, but that is only theoretically possible within a religious framework. I'm trying to keep religion out of my arguments on this thread... |
Then you failed with your first assertion. A basic sense of right and wrong does NOT require religion (simple example). If it did, civilizations wouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 01:13:38 PM · #1025 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Once again, absolute morality is only theoretically possible when we postulate a creator. |
This simply isn't so. |
|
