| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2008 05:20:22 PM · #1101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have no idea what impulses are going on there. |
It could be exactly the same impulse as humans. We have no more reason, outside of an indoctrinated superiority complex, to think otherwise. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:28:58 PM · #1102 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Uh oh, here come the qualifications. |
You are correct sir! I don't like it when any side of an issue uses a ratchet to construct their arguments. :) |
I would think that the definition of suffering is self-evident. We need not play the game of semantics here, because we are all intuitively on the same page. More to the point, if anyone really needs the point to be made, the kind of "suffering" a long-distance runner endures and that experienced by a Jew at Auschwitz are not to be equated. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:31:23 PM · #1103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My goal wasn't to rip down his framework, but rather ask why he considers his framework to be corrent if and when someone disagrees with it. |
I believe I've answered this. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:38:24 PM · #1104 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My goal wasn't to rip down his framework, but rather ask why he considers his framework to be corrent if and when someone disagrees with it. |
I believe I've answered this. |
I'm going to quote you and I need you to show me where you answered it. It appears you simply say "it's self-evident". That's no answer.
"In my view, very simply. There is only one moral absolute: suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral. Since we're talking about the human sphere, this doesn't mean to suggest that destructive natural forces like hurricanes are immoral. We also don't need to confuse the abatement of suffering with hedonism, so we don't need to argue that shooting heroin is moral. We don't need gods for any of this, since we are strictly talking about humans' ability to cause or ameliorate suffering."
"By reiterating that the only reasonable measurement of the morality of an action is to quantify the amount of suffering it causes or reduces, because we have nothing else, and to point out that commonplace moral actions can be argued to proceed from a desire to alleviate suffering. Also, as I said, it's not incumbent on me or anyone to convince others of anything. The nature of the absolute is that it is absolute, irrespective of arguments for or against. Tricky, but true."
If I missed a different quote, please provide it. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:40:43 PM · #1105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have no idea what impulses are going on there. |
It could be exactly the same impulse as humans. We have no more reason, outside of an indoctrinated superiority complex, to think otherwise. |
It could. I agree. But we have no way of knowing and certainly you would be the first to argue that lack of evidence against is not evidence for. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:42:43 PM · #1106 |
Yes, that's my answer. How does one respond to the suggestion that human suffering is not the measure of a moral absolute? By reiterating that the only reasonable measurement of the morality of an action is to quantify the amount of suffering it causes or reduces, because we have nothing else, and to point out that commonplace moral actions can be argued to proceed from a desire to alleviate suffering. Also, as I said, it's not incumbent on me or anyone to convince others of anything. The nature of the absolute is that it is absolute, irrespective of arguments for or against. Tricky, but true.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 17:42:52. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:55:07 PM · #1107 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, that's my answer. How does one respond to the suggestion that human suffering is not the measure of a moral absolute? By reiterating that the only reasonable measurement of the morality of an action is to quantify the amount of suffering it causes or reduces, because we have nothing else, and to point out that commonplace moral actions can be argued to proceed from a desire to alleviate suffering. Also, as I said, it's not incumbent on me or anyone to convince others of anything. The nature of the absolute is that it is absolute, irrespective of arguments for or against. Tricky, but true. |
OK. Thanks. I will not judge your moral framework but I will say it's hardly a robust position to only be able to reiterate your position in the face of disagreement. "Well, that's the way it is."
Dahkota seems to be saying the same thing. Her "discovery" is merely to say something is self-evident. I don't quite buy it all except I feel validated in my own argument that such and such is "self-evident" in my own framework and when someone disagrees I can just say "Well, that's the way it is".
This is from Dahkota's linked encyclopedia above:
Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.
"With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking. Likewise, with respect to justification, this judgment may be justified in one society, but not another. Taken in one way, this last point is uncontroversial: The people in one society may have different evidence available to them than the people in the other society. But proponents of MMR usually have something stronger and more provocative in mind: That the standards of justification in the two societies may differ from one another and that there is no rational basis for resolving these differences. This is why the justification of moral judgments is relative rather than absolute."
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 18:03:10. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:09:32 PM · #1108 |
the problem with arguing with DrAchoo at this point is he is arguing from a position of power. He can answer repeatedly 'its a different moral framework,' or 'its justified by his moral framework,' or 'you don't understand that moral framework' without having to provide any justification or proof for even the existence of moral frameworks, let alone differences in moral frameworks and validity of moral frameworks. Moral relativism can excuse any belief by simply stating that someone holds a differing belief - prove empirically that they are wrong; it is impossible.
For example, I state discrimination is wrong. He states that someone with a different moral framework may disagree with me. I can't argue against that and I have no empirical proof he is wrong. In other words, according to DrAchoo, morality is opinion not fact. Since I cannot prove morality, I cannot argue from a position of power.
I can state, however, that cultures, through out time and space, have held to the belief in the golden rule (this is empirically provable) or a variation of it. The cultures and societies did not necessarily talk to each other to discuss their moral frameworks. But it seems odd that something that is wholy opinion is held by so many over such a great stretch of time, regardless of situation. while individuals might hold different beliefs, society as a whole has held to a tenet that remains powerful to this day.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:21:14 PM · #1109 |
(In best He-man voice) By the power of Greyskull! I HAVE THE POWER!!! Bwahahaha!
Thanks Dahkota. I needed that.
Maybe I'll throw you a bone here. I agree that there are generalities which seem to transcend time and culture. Cruelty is bad. Killing is frowned upon. Honesty is valued. However, I generally think people argue about issues where two of these generalities appear to be in conflict with each other. One feels value A should take precedence in the situation and one feels value B should take precedence. THIS is where practical everyday morality lies. Nobody goes around arguing whether we should steal a candy bar we can afford simply because we're hungry and don't want to pay for it. But people DO argue about things like gay marriage because there are conflicting generalities and nobody can agree on which set or rules takes precedence over the other. Louis, for example, is advocating that avoiding suffering trumps all (or nearly all, just to give him a bit of wiggle room). I may advocate that the fact the Bible says homosexuality is immoral is the trump card. Mousie or someone else may advocate Liberty above all. I see no rational way to solve this problem. To quote your encyclopedia again, "Objectivists maintain that, typically, at least one party in a moral disagreement accepts the moral judgment on account of some factual or logical mistake, and that revealing such mistakes would be sufficient to rationally resolve the disagreement." I do not see that happening here. What "factual or logical mistake" is being made by each party? They are simply approaching the problem with a different set of ground rules. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:21:58 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK. Thanks. I will not judge your moral framework but I will say it's hardly a robust position to only be able to reiterate your position in the face of disagreement. "Well, that's the way it is."
Dahkota seems to be saying the same thing. Her "discovery" is merely to say something is self-evident. I don't quite buy it all except I feel validated in my own argument that such and such is "self-evident" in my own framework and when someone disagrees I can just say "Well, that's the way it is". |
You seem surprised by the notion of a moral axiom. Not sure why. It is the basis for most systems of rules, moral, mathematical, religious. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:26:35 PM · #1111 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK. Thanks. I will not judge your moral framework but I will say it's hardly a robust position to only be able to reiterate your position in the face of disagreement. "Well, that's the way it is."
Dahkota seems to be saying the same thing. Her "discovery" is merely to say something is self-evident. I don't quite buy it all except I feel validated in my own argument that such and such is "self-evident" in my own framework and when someone disagrees I can just say "Well, that's the way it is". |
You seem surprised by the notion of a moral axiom. Not sure why. It is the basis for most systems of rules, moral, mathematical, religious. |
And outside a theological (and here I merely mean "supreme being" rather than religious) framework, is an arbitrary starting point. "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths." Louis' 'axiom' that "suffering is abhorent" couldn't even be agreed on for five posts. Obviously without a lot of refinement it does not appear to be a "self-evident" truth.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 18:27:13. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:41:08 PM · #1112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis' 'axiom' that "suffering is abhorent" couldn't even be agreed on for five posts. Obviously without a lot of refinement it does not appear to be a "self-evident" truth. |
It probably is for him. Just like apparently from your arguments, the existence of a supreme being is something of an axiom for your world view. It is why most of the discussions along these lines are fundamentally pointless. You quite literally live in a different world from the one some of the people you are arguing with do.
The mathematical digression earlier was actually pretty illustrative of that - for you it is a self evident truth that squares and circles are different. Coming from a different set of axioms (such as topology, or non-Euclidian geometry, such self-evident truths are obviously fallacious.
Down at the bottom, different sets of self-evident truths or axioms lead to different results, but if you pick and poke at them, eventually you end up with 'because it is' |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:46:36 PM · #1113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But people DO argue about things like gay marriage because there are conflicting generalities and nobody can agree on which set or rules takes precedence over the other. Louis, for example, is advocating that avoiding suffering trumps all (or nearly all, just to give him a bit of wiggle room). I may advocate that the fact the Bible says homosexuality is immoral is the trump card. Mousie or someone else may advocate Liberty above all. I see no rational way to solve this problem. To quote your encyclopedia again, "Objectivists maintain that, typically, at least one party in a moral disagreement accepts the moral judgment on account of some factual or logical mistake, and that revealing such mistakes would be sufficient to rationally resolve the disagreement." I do not see that happening here. What "factual or logical mistake" is being made by each party? They are simply approaching the problem with a different set of ground rules. |
But see, here's the thing - we aren't all arguing one moral point, we are arguing many. That is why I was trying to get everyone to decide on what the central argument was. Unless, one is decided, there will be no consensus. For me at least, I need to know WHY someone is against gay marriage. What specifically is the problem with it? I honestly don't know as I see the entire issue as solely one of discrimination. If I don't understand why someone is against it, I can't see their point of view. And no, just being against it is not enough - that is not the moral issue - there is something else at stake here that I don't yet see.
Is one person against gay sex in general? Maybe another is against the redefinition of marriage. And a third just doesn't like change of any kind. Without knowing what is causing the disagreement, I can't understand the disagreement. this is why moral relativism doesn't answer the question - we don't know what is being questioned (or at least I don't). We can't judge if there is a factual or logical mistake in any one's reason until we find out what the reason really is.
Hope that made sense... |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:51:32 PM · #1114 |
speaking of moral axioms 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 18:52:01. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 06:55:24 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Down at the bottom, different sets of self-evident truths or axioms lead to different results, but if you pick and poke at them, eventually you end up with 'because it is' |
OK. Absolutists would say that there are axioms which are "self-evident" to EVERYONE. Relativists would say there are axioms which are "self-evident" to ME. If we're arguing under reativism than I can simply say, "hey, that's not MY self-evident" axiom. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 07:04:56 PM · #1116 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Is one person against gay sex in general? Maybe another is against the redefinition of marriage. And a third just doesn't like change of any kind. Without knowing what is causing the disagreement, I can't understand the disagreement. this is why moral relativism doesn't answer the question - we don't know what is being questioned (or at least I don't). We can't judge if there is a factual or logical mistake in any one's reason until we find out what the reason really is.
Hope that made sense... |
I promised I wouldn't get back into it. I promised I wouldn't get back into it. I promised I wouldn't get back into it.
Sigh. ;) OK, I'll just offer an example to see how you respond. I really don't want to argue the nuance though so I just want to see your reply and judge it for what it's worth.
The judeo-christian moral framework
1) Homosexuality is forbidden. This is a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
2) Marriage is a sacred (devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.) covenant between two individuals and God. This is also a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
3) To institutionalize Gay Marriage would be to put an official stamp of approval on a juxtaposition that makes no sense under 1 and 2. (ie. you cannot have a forbidden act at the base of a sacred union.)
4) Judeo-Christians, like everybody, have the right to participate in self-government, advocate for themselves, and advance their positions.
I had agreed that if we could somehow divorce "civil marriage" from "religious marriage" then we could potentially have a solution. However, for too many, the term "marriage" is too sacred within their framework to apply to gay couples.
How would you respond? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 07:08:02 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Down at the bottom, different sets of self-evident truths or axioms lead to different results, but if you pick and poke at them, eventually you end up with 'because it is' |
OK. Absolutists would say that there are axioms which are "self-evident" to EVERYONE. Relativists would say there are axioms which are "self-evident" to ME. If we're arguing under reativism than I can simply say, "hey, that's not MY self-evident" axiom. |
and now we are back to my point - moral relativism holds that all opinions are equally valid as everything is relative. However, you run into the problem that nothing is good and nothing is bad. ever. My taking of your life is not wrong or bad or immoral if I believe so. Additionally, if you look at from a societal point of view rather than an individual one, then killing you today might be wrong but killing you tomorrow might not be, depending on the consensus of society at that given point in time. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 07:18:58 PM · #1118 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Down at the bottom, different sets of self-evident truths or axioms lead to different results, but if you pick and poke at them, eventually you end up with 'because it is' |
OK. Absolutists would say that there are axioms which are "self-evident" to EVERYONE. Relativists would say there are axioms which are "self-evident" to ME. If we're arguing under reativism than I can simply say, "hey, that's not MY self-evident" axiom. |
and now we are back to my point - moral relativism holds that all opinions are equally valid as everything is relative. However, you run into the problem that nothing is good and nothing is bad. ever. My taking of your life is not wrong or bad or immoral if I believe so. Additionally, if you look at from a societal point of view rather than an individual one, then killing you today might be wrong but killing you tomorrow might not be, depending on the consensus of society at that given point in time. |
Ya, that's a quagmire isn't it? I'm glad I don't live in a relative world. ;) |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 07:35:09 PM · #1119 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
However, you run into the problem that nothing is good and nothing is bad. ever. My taking of your life is not wrong or bad or immoral if I believe so. Additionally, if you look at from a societal point of view rather than an individual one, then killing you today might be wrong but killing you tomorrow might not be, depending on the consensus of society at that given point in time. |
It is possibly worth pointing out that this isn't actually an argument for or against moral relativism. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 08:25:44 PM · #1120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The judeo-christian moral framework
1) Homosexuality is forbidden. This is a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
2) Marriage is a sacred (devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.) covenant between two individuals and God. This is also a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
3) To institutionalize Gay Marriage would be to put an official stamp of approval on a juxtaposition that makes no sense under 1 and 2. (ie. you cannot have a forbidden act at the base of a sacred union.)
4) Judeo-Christians, like everybody, have the right to participate in self-government, advocate for themselves, and advance their positions.
How would you respond? |
I understand your position and how you've arrived there. But I feel there are flaws in your argument.
with regard to #1, the bible is also against interracial marriage, drinking, gambling, prostitution, and many other things currently accepted in society. If I chose to believe the bible about homosexuality, I am required to believe it about everything else - it is either right or not right, not right on somethings and wrong on others. And yet, I don't see christians standing up to argue many of these points. If one is to use a book for justification of a belief, one should make sure to follow the book truly rather than pick and choose what one finds important.
With regard to #2, I agree that marriage is sacred in the bible (presuming you marry the right person of the right race)
with regard to #3, it doesn't follow in your argument. No one is forcing any christian church to recognize gay marriage. today, many religions do not recognize secular marriage - this will not change if gay marriage is passed.
with regards to #4, you are correct. But so is everyone else.
Strange, you were such an advocate of moral relativism and yet so opposed to allowing others to exist within their own moral framework. Or was that just a point with which to argue and amuse yourself?
Treat others as you wish to be treated. Walk a mile in another man's shoes. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people in order to be noticed by them. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 08:27:40 PM · #1121 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dahkota:
However, you run into the problem that nothing is good and nothing is bad. ever. My taking of your life is not wrong or bad or immoral if I believe so. Additionally, if you look at from a societal point of view rather than an individual one, then killing you today might be wrong but killing you tomorrow might not be, depending on the consensus of society at that given point in time. |
It is possibly worth pointing out that this isn't actually an argument for or against moral relativism. |
Or noting that societies have agreed in general throughout history and across all cultures that killing people is immoral, even if sometimes necessary. That single fact yields the inescapable conclusion that morality is both universal and not determined by religious belief... a point that Doc has thus far only countered with "what ifs" and examples of fringe cultures. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:00:49 PM · #1122 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I understand your position and how you've arrived there. But I feel there are flaws in your argument.
with regard to #1, the bible is also against interracial marriage, drinking, gambling, prostitution, and many other things currently accepted in society. If I chose to believe the bible about homosexuality, I am required to believe it about everything else - it is either right or not right, not right on somethings and wrong on others. And yet, I don't see christians standing up to argue many of these points. If one is to use a book for justification of a belief, one should make sure to follow the book truly rather than pick and choose what one finds important. |
A) On a housekeeping front. You are going to have to show me biblical passages forbidding interracial marriage. I can find passage discouraging interreligious marraige (but not forbidding it) and I can see passages forbidding intercultural marriage (although my guess is technically speaking the Israelites and say Phillistines were probably the same ethnic race). OTOH I'd hardly say that gambling and prostitution are "accepted in society" given the first has regulation and the second is still illegal in most parts. You probably haven't visited many Southern Baptist churches if you think they don't have feelings about such activities.
B) More importantly, how does that deny my tenent #1? If anything it simply says most Christians are bad and they ought to be paying attention to many more things. Ignoring one more (homosexuality) doesn't seem to be a way at rectifying this situation.
Originally posted by dahkota:
with regard to #3, it doesn't follow in your argument. No one is forcing any christian church to recognize gay marriage. today, many religions do not recognize secular marriage - this will not change if gay marriage is passed. |
You don't think being a part of a country that institutionalizes such a marriage means that the individual doesn't have to recognize it on some level?
Originally posted by dahkota:
with regards to #4, you are correct. But so is everyone else. |
Never said they couldn't.
Originally posted by dahkota:
Treat others as you wish to be treated. Walk a mile in another man's shoes. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people in order to be noticed by them. |
The most important commandment is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 21:02:35. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:08:04 PM · #1123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most important commandment is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. |
and your neighbour like yourself would seem to be a relevant finish to that most important commandment, wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:48:52 PM · #1124 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most important commandment is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. |
and your neighbour like yourself would seem to be a relevant finish to that most important commandment, wouldn't you say? |
Yes. It's trump card #2. But the first is #1 and that would indicate to me there may be precepts or rules you must value OVER your neighbor. If it comes down to following God or loving your neighbor and the two are in direct conflict, the first trumps. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:05:41 PM · #1125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
with regard to #3, it doesn't follow in your argument. No one is forcing any christian church to recognize gay marriage. today, many religions do not recognize secular marriage - this will not change if gay marriage is passed. |
You don't think being a part of a country that institutionalizes such a marriage means that the individual doesn't have to recognize it on some level? |
But as an individual you should be reconciled by now with the fact that the United States has a secular government, allowing all sorts of things that your religion doesn't allow. In fact, you should be protesting Proposition 8 on the grounds that the government should not be defining marriage AT ALL. |
|
