| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2010 08:15:17 PM · #3801 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is part and parcel of what I'm talking about. Doesn't that sound like us forcing our morality on them? For a "personal experience" guy, Jeb, you don't sound like all "personal experiences" are created equally... |
I have a problem, and have for many years, with the attitude that we as Americans go all over the world telling people what to do.
The discriminatory people I have the problem with are the three Americans.
So......you're perfectly okay with genocide if it's not in your little corner of the world?
The whole damn thing with human rights is a slippery slop(e), and it's hard to define where to draw the line.
Message edited by author 2010-01-05 20:17:10.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:16:32 PM · #3802 |
Interesting read Mr. Ey, but you might want to read This, take a look at the countries which tend to be a bit more liberal in this regard and then decide where it is that you would want to live.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:20:12 PM · #3803 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere. |
This is part and parcel of what I'm talking about. Doesn't that sound like us forcing our morality on them? For a "personal experience" guy, Jeb, you don't sound like all "personal experiences" are created equally... |
I am ever so glad I was sitting down when I read this...it truly is a gem.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:23:48 PM · #3804 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere. |
This is part and parcel of what I'm talking about. Doesn't that sound like us forcing our morality on them? For a "personal experience" guy, Jeb, you don't sound like all "personal experiences" are created equally... |
I am ever so glad I was sitting down when I read this...it truly is a gem.
Ray |
I appreciate the irony in the statement, Ray. The difference is I'm not a "personal experience" guy and the statement makes sense under an absolute morality framework, but not under a relative one. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:24:56 PM · #3805 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a problem, and have for many years, with the attitude that we as Americans go all over the world telling people what to do.
|
Do you appreciate you just completely contradicted yourself the post before when you said, "We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere."? Unless I misunderstood and you have "a problem" with trying to stop discrimination everywhere. I didn't think that's what you meant when you said it.
Message edited by author 2010-01-05 20:27:32. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:30:13 PM · #3806 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a problem, and have for many years, with the attitude that we as Americans go all over the world telling people what to do.
|
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you appreciate you just completely contradicted yourself the post before when you said, "We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere."? Unless I misunderstood and you have "a problem" with trying to stop discrimination everywhere. I didn't think that's what you meant when you said it. |
Yep.....fumbled that one badly.
I'd like to see it stop everywhere, but I would feel it's not my place to interfere in some societies. But I have a real issue with genocide, and we've gone to war more than once over it.
So yeah, it's contradictory, but I draw the line at genocide. Then I want to do something....
|
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:50:55 PM · #3807 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a problem, and have for many years, with the attitude that we as Americans go all over the world telling people what to do.
|
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you appreciate you just completely contradicted yourself the post before when you said, "We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere."? Unless I misunderstood and you have "a problem" with trying to stop discrimination everywhere. I didn't think that's what you meant when you said it. |
Yep.....fumbled that one badly.
I'd like to see it stop everywhere, but I would feel it's not my place to interfere in some societies. But I have a real issue with genocide, and we've gone to war more than once over it.
So yeah, it's contradictory, but I draw the line at genocide. Then I want to do something.... |
Well, I hear ya. I completely agree. (Although it might indicate you are a closet Moral Universalist after all...) Death penalties for homosexuality? That's insanity.
I should speak to Ray a moment more to make myself clear. One of the problems with these threads is that there are two overarching systems of morality: universal morality and relative morality. Many times people who are Universalists say things that make no sense to the Relativists (and vice versa) because it makes no sense in the other system. Sometimes I take some pleasure in pointing out when someone is making no sense within their own system. What I probably don't do a good enough job of is denoting that I am now speaking "as a Relativist" (and not the Universalist that I am). I was doing just that in the thread you so aptly pointed out as sounding wrong coming out of my mouth.
Message edited by author 2010-01-05 20:51:30. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 08:53:57 PM · #3808 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I completely agree. |
I hate it when we do that!
8>) LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
01/05/2010 09:00:22 PM · #3809 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We're trying to stop discrimination everywhere. |
This is part and parcel of what I'm talking about. Doesn't that sound like us forcing our morality on them? For a "personal experience" guy, Jeb, you don't sound like all "personal experiences" are created equally... |
We get you're a "personal beliefs" guy who feels one's beliefs should be forced onto another unwillingly and can ignore the likely catalyst in this situation (i.e. the christian evangelicals) for doing just that, not to mention christianity in general for spreading those lies about homosexuality (among other things) for centuries yet you're going to cry foul over a couple of posts that suggests just a personal opinion? |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 09:33:46 PM · #3810 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I should speak to Ray a moment more to make myself clear. One of the problems with these threads is that there are two overarching systems of morality: universal morality and relative morality. Many times people who are Universalists say things that make no sense to the Relativists (and vice versa) because it makes no sense in the other system. Sometimes I take some pleasure in pointing out when someone is making no sense within their own system. What I probably don't do a good enough job of is denoting that I am now speaking "as a Relativist" (and not the Universalist that I am). I was doing just that in the thread you so aptly pointed out as sounding wrong coming out of my mouth. |
I thought such might be the case Doc, but I just simply could not resist. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 10:00:55 PM · #3811 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Many times people who are Universalists say things that make no sense to the Relativists (and vice versa) because it makes no sense in the other system. Sometimes I take some pleasure in pointing out when someone is making no sense within their own system. |
Except that you only THINK it makes no sense. We've been down a similar road before in Africa, decrying segregation scarcely a generation removed from our own practice of it. This is relative morality at it's most obvious: when it changes.
Murder itself has always been frowned upon, but society tends to turn a blind eye to the plight of "lesser" people. If Uganda declared the death penalty for prostitutes or muslim extremists, I doubt it would generate this sort of reaction, and the same would have been true of homosexuals just a decade or two ago. Those evangelicals would have found a less hostile audience here in America, when gay bashing hardly made the local news, much less the sort of outrage leveled at Uganda. However, as the perception of homosexuality has changed in recent years, so too has our relative stance on its moral acceptability. Homosexuality hardly raises an eyebrow on TV anymore, there are gay politicians and priests, many of us have an openly gay friend or relative who wouldn't have dared come out of the closet when we were kids, and gay marriage is now LEGAL in several states. This is a seismic shift in attitude, and only possible where morality is defined by the evolution of society. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 10:21:24 PM · #3812 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Many times people who are Universalists say things that make no sense to the Relativists (and vice versa) because it makes no sense in the other system. Sometimes I take some pleasure in pointing out when someone is making no sense within their own system. |
Except that you only THINK it makes no sense. We've been down a similar road before in Africa, decrying segregation scarcely a generation removed from our own practice of it. This is relative morality at it's most obvious: when it changes.
Murder itself has always been frowned upon, but society tends to turn a blind eye to the plight of "lesser" people. If Uganda declared the death penalty for prostitutes or muslim extremists, I doubt it would generate this sort of reaction, and the same would have been true of homosexuals just a decade or two ago. Those evangelicals would have found a less hostile audience here in America, when gay bashing hardly made the local news, much less the sort of outrage leveled at Uganda. However, as the perception of homosexuality has changed in recent years, so too has our relative stance on its moral acceptability. Homosexuality hardly raises an eyebrow on TV anymore, there are gay politicians and priests, many of us have an openly gay friend or relative who wouldn't have dared come out of the closet when we were kids, and gay marriage is now LEGAL in several states. This is a seismic shift in attitude, and only possible where morality is defined by the evolution of society. |
We've been down THIS road many times as well. Universal morality doesn't necessarily mean morality never changes, it just means it applies universally while the rule is in effect.
Maybe it makes sense to look at it this way. Universalists think we are all working to discover the same morality. Relativists think we are all working to discover our own morality. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 10:33:33 PM · #3813 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Many times people who are Universalists say things that make no sense to the Relativists (and vice versa) because it makes no sense in the other system. Sometimes I take some pleasure in pointing out when someone is making no sense within their own system. |
Except that you only THINK it makes no sense. We've been down a similar road before in Africa, decrying segregation scarcely a generation removed from our own practice of it. This is relative morality at it's most obvious: when it changes.
Murder itself has always been frowned upon, but society tends to turn a blind eye to the plight of "lesser" people. If Uganda declared the death penalty for prostitutes or muslim extremists, I doubt it would generate this sort of reaction, and the same would have been true of homosexuals just a decade or two ago. Those evangelicals would have found a less hostile audience here in America, when gay bashing hardly made the local news, much less the sort of outrage leveled at Uganda. However, as the perception of homosexuality has changed in recent years, so too has our relative stance on its moral acceptability. Homosexuality hardly raises an eyebrow on TV anymore, there are gay politicians and priests, many of us have an openly gay friend or relative who wouldn't have dared come out of the closet when we were kids, and gay marriage is now LEGAL in several states. This is a seismic shift in attitude, and only possible where morality is defined by the evolution of society. |
We've been down THIS road many times as well. Universal morality doesn't necessarily mean morality never changes, it just means it applies universally while the rule is in effect.
Maybe it makes sense to look at it this way. Universalists think we are all working to discover the same morality. Relativists think we are all working to discover our own morality. |
In that case, I pity the Universalist, for their aim is impossible :D |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 11:34:44 PM · #3814 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Universalists think we are all working to discover the same morality. Relativists think we are all working to discover our own morality. |
Relativists believe that people judge what is right or wrong through personal and cultural perspectives, both of which tend to change over time, while universalists assume that everyone should agree on a single perspective (usually their own). As K10DGuy hinted, the latter has never happened and never will. |
|
|
|
01/05/2010 11:35:53 PM · #3815 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Universalists think we are all working to discover the same morality. Relativists think we are all working to discover our own morality. |
Relativists believe that people judge what is right or wrong through personal and cultural perspectives, both of which tend to change over time, while universalists assume that everyone should agree on a single perspective (usually their own). As K10DGuy hinted, the latter has never happened and never will. |
Well, if that's the case, we should leave the Ugandans to kill their homosexuals and call it a day. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 12:30:31 AM · #3816 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if that's the case, we should leave the Ugandans to kill their homosexuals and call it a day. |
Nice.
The overarching "rule" of morality is the ethic of reciprocity -- the golden rule. If anything can be said to be universal as far as ethics and morality goes, this is it. And it makes sense -- it is historically evolutionarily advantageous for humans. Virtually every latter-day development away from barbarism and toward enlightenment can be explained by a natural inclination for the overwhelming majority of humans to eschew the suffering of others and to treat them with the kindness they themselves wish for. I can't think of a single progressive social advancement that was not anchored by this fundamental impulse.
That is why your quoted statement above is so repugnant, even as an off-the-cuff, let's-finish-this-thing remark.
For the record, my reason for posting the Ugandan story was to outline the American evangelists' role in this abomination. My comment was meant to be ironic -- that homophobia is harmful; in fact, institutionalized or condoned in any way, it's deadly. It wasn't posted because it's an ethical dilemma happening in Africa (although why that should matter to a "universalist" like you is unknown), it was posted because it has relevance for your society, today, and in your own backyard. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 01:14:14 AM · #3817 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if that's the case, we should leave the Ugandans to kill their homosexuals and call it a day. |
Nice.
The overarching "rule" of morality is the ethic of reciprocity -- the golden rule. If anything can be said to be universal as far as ethics and morality goes, this is it. And it makes sense -- it is historically evolutionarily advantageous for humans. Virtually every latter-day development away from barbarism and toward enlightenment can be explained by a natural inclination for the overwhelming majority of humans to eschew the suffering of others and to treat them with the kindness they themselves wish for. I can't think of a single progressive social advancement that was not anchored by this fundamental impulse.
That is why your quoted statement above is so repugnant, even as an off-the-cuff, let's-finish-this-thing remark.
For the record, my reason for posting the Ugandan story was to outline the American evangelists' role in this abomination. My comment was meant to be ironic -- that homophobia is harmful; in fact, institutionalized or condoned in any way, it's deadly. It wasn't posted because it's an ethical dilemma happening in Africa (although why that should matter to a "universalist" like you is unknown), it was posted because it has relevance for your society, today, and in your own backyard. |
Louis, I'm kinda disappointed in you. Before you were putting on the brave face taking moral relativism to it's logical conclusion:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned. |
But now you are all backtracking. Really, in truth, I'm not disappointed at all because I think you are admitting what you naturally feel (the "disappointment" comes because you are a good debater and you got yourself painted in a corner). Of course the statement above is repugnant. It was meant to be to show that we care when Wrong is being done whether it is within our society or not. We all believe in Right and Wrong, and though we don't always agree on what that looks like, we all agree it's real. But the statement above is the natural result of moral relativism. We can deny it all we want, but it is the truth.
Whether you meant it or not with the link, you have revealed that we feel within ourselves a stirring that such a judgement is not Right though it is thousands of miles away in a society and culture we have never visited. Does that feeling seem to correlate with the two ideas that a) there are no universal human rights or b) morality is defined by the individual's personal experience? I don't. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 02:09:47 AM · #3818 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
It's an issue of refusing to create art with a certain subject (in this case a gay wedding ceremony). Freedom of speech = ability to create whatever art you want. |
But you are not creating art for you or for the sake of art - you are "creating art" at the request of clients for THEIR consumption - and in that sense it is indeed a service. |
Damn. Yanko'd again. Oh. Wait -  Yanko himself stepped in and said the same thing! Cool. Carry on.
:-) |
To me, to be yanko'd means to be ignored. To attempt to put forth something reasonably valid in the argument at hand but to have it completely ignored, stepped over, pushed back, thrown aside... (Although I have no idea how the term came into being, and even though he was also yanko'd, Yanko is indeed exempt.)
So if the client is paying for the "art", is that now a service?
And if the sign says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", can anyone actually do that, and under what law?
But alas, the conversation has again moved on and we're back to the finer points of the art of debate. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 03:19:53 AM · #3819 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if that's the case, we should leave the Ugandans to kill their homosexuals and call it a day. |
Nice.
The overarching "rule" of morality is the ethic of reciprocity -- the golden rule. If anything can be said to be universal as far as ethics and morality goes, this is it. And it makes sense -- it is historically evolutionarily advantageous for humans. Virtually every latter-day development away from barbarism and toward enlightenment can be explained by a natural inclination for the overwhelming majority of humans to eschew the suffering of others and to treat them with the kindness they themselves wish for. I can't think of a single progressive social advancement that was not anchored by this fundamental impulse.
That is why your quoted statement above is so repugnant, even as an off-the-cuff, let's-finish-this-thing remark.
For the record, my reason for posting the Ugandan story was to outline the American evangelists' role in this abomination. My comment was meant to be ironic -- that homophobia is harmful; in fact, institutionalized or condoned in any way, it's deadly. It wasn't posted because it's an ethical dilemma happening in Africa (although why that should matter to a "universalist" like you is unknown), it was posted because it has relevance for your society, today, and in your own backyard. |
Louis, I'm kinda disappointed in you. Before you were putting on the brave face taking moral relativism to it's logical conclusion:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned. |
But now you are all backtracking. Really, in truth, I'm not disappointed at all because I think you are admitting what you naturally feel (the "disappointment" comes because you are a good debater and you got yourself painted in a corner). Of course the statement above is repugnant. It was meant to be to show that we care when Wrong is being done whether it is within our society or not. We all believe in Right and Wrong, and though we don't always agree on what that looks like, we all agree it's real. But the statement above is the natural result of moral relativism. We can deny it all we want, but it is the truth.
Whether you meant it or not with the link, you have revealed that we feel within ourselves a stirring that such a judgement is not Right though it is thousands of miles away in a society and culture we have never visited. Does that feeling seem to correlate with the two ideas that a) there are no universal human rights or b) morality is defined by the individual's personal experience? I don't. |
He used the word "if" as in "if anything can be said to be universal"... And where are you getting "personal experience" from? He suggested a historical pattern for his reasoning. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 06:27:51 AM · #3820 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course the statement above is repugnant. It was meant to be to show that we care when Wrong is being done whether it is within our society or not. We all believe in Right and Wrong, and though we don't always agree on what that looks like, we all agree it's real. But the statement above is the natural result of moral relativism. We can deny it all we want, but it is the truth.
Whether you meant it or not with the link, you have revealed that we feel within ourselves a stirring that such a judgement is not Right though it is thousands of miles away in a society and culture we have never visited. Does that feeling seem to correlate with the two ideas that a) there are no universal human rights or b) morality is defined by the individual's personal experience? I don't. |
I think that you are confusing a few ideas.
Humans in societies frame the social contracts within their society in the language of "rights". Humans also tend to comprehend natural law (biologically we appear to be hardwired to think this way - it carries an evolutionary advantage) - this is more subjective, but again it can be framed in the language of "rights".
In Uganda, the government has decided to apply the death penalty (or at least life imprisonment) for people who are openly gay. The fact that the social contract in Uganda has been framed thus might make it "legal" in Uganda and may reflect local popular opinion (where it might be viewed as being "right" by the majority - though obviously not everyone).
There is no contradiction in people from a different society condemning that decision as being against natural law (in their subjective opinions) and being contrary to the principles of social contracts to which most nations aspire.
It is entirely consistent with moral relativity that different people will see "right" and "wrong" differently. There is no one "right" way, but we can say for sure that the principles of most countries with the most influence in the development and promulgation of international human rights (ie aspirational social contracts) conflict very starkly with the position in Uganda today.
PS - it is also consistent for people to see the influence of the US evangelists as being "wrong", as in "misguided and reckless as to the consequences".
PPS - in different circumstances, the approach could easily be considered "right". For example, if the natural incidence of homosexuality rocketed so as to threaten the viability of the human race, then legal sanctions designed to repress homosexual behaviour and encourage hetersexual behaviour might be morally defensible.
Message edited by author 2010-01-06 06:33:24.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2010 07:06:56 AM · #3821 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
PPS - in different circumstances, the approach could easily be considered "right". For example, if the natural incidence of homosexuality rocketed so as to threaten the viability of the human race, then legal sanctions designed to repress homosexual behaviour and encourage hetersexual behaviour might be morally defensible. |
Interesting......it sounds like you're saying that homosexuality has natural incidence.........8>)
That flies in the face of what the fundamentalists try to say, and there's where all the problems lie.
If this was to be agreed upon as a basic truth, the problem of gays being harassed and discriminated against would go away.
Just one time I'd love to see some kind of proof for these so-called "cures" that some of these fundamentalists claim.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2010 08:18:13 AM · #3822 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We all believe in Right and Wrong, and though we don't always agree on what that looks like, we all agree it's real. But the statement above is the natural result of moral relativism. We can deny it all we want, but it is the truth. |
"We all believe in Right and Wrong, and though we don't always agree on what that looks like" = Relativism, however we DON'T all agree that it's real. Some people would say there's no such thing as right and wrong because they're so subjective and subject to change (the part that you're continuing to ignore). Like I said before, what many Americans see as a "wrong" in Uganda is obviously considered "right" by many there, and has also been right at various points in Western societies. That we also saw apartheid as wrong just a few decades after we considered segregation right should make it starkly apparent that, while each of us have a personal concept of what WE consider right and wrong, there is no universal standard.
The statement above is not a result of moral relativism. It's the result of your recurring inability to consider concepts outside of black and white absolutes. You are effectively saying that 'because there's no universal standard, we have no justification for considering something wrong'... but justification is irrelevant. Those evangelicals tried to stamp out homosexuality as a "universal" wrong, and now they have to tap dance around the resulting murders that they also consider wrong when they had no business stirring up tensions in the first place. Our changing attitudes toward homosexuality are no more reason to let Uganda kill these people than it was to let South Africa continue racial discrimination— we can be upset because we consider both to be wrong NOW. At least in South Africa we weren't directly responsible for exporting hatred.
Message edited by author 2010-01-06 10:14:41. |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 08:23:07 AM · #3823 |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 10:22:20 AM · #3824 |
| Why are we (the US) trying to be the world police? Is it really any of our business if African nations declare homosexuality wrong? Would we want Russia or China telling us what our laws and/or values should be? |
|
|
|
01/06/2010 10:31:08 AM · #3825 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Why are we (the US) trying to be the world police? Is it really any of our business if African nations declare homosexuality wrong? Would we want Russia or China telling us what our laws and/or values should be? |
Did you think it was wrong when virtually every country in the world, the US included, spoke out against apartheid? |
|
