Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/06/2010 03:32:21 PM · #3851

How can a univeralist's bed be any easier to lie in? The wave of civil rights has already become a tsunami. There's no stopping it. Just ask the univeralists who opposed women's rights, interracial marriages, gays teaching in schools, etc, etc. Comfortity is inevitable. Unless you adapt and become a relativist you'll have a very difficult time trying to live in modern society while trying to enforce your archaic belief system, which only gets older by the minute.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 15:33:37.

01/06/2010 03:45:57 PM · #3852

Originally posted by yanko:

How can a univeralist's bed be any easier to lie in?

It's illusory. A member of the Taliban would consider it universally immoral for women to question a priest, while a Christian (putting aside Biblical references that say the same thing) would consider the right of free speech to be universally moral. It both cases, the assumption of a universal standard is only relevant from that person's perspective (relative) no matter how firmly he believes it applies to all.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 15:46:16.

01/06/2010 03:54:58 PM · #3853

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
How can a univeralist's bed be any easier to lie in?

It's illusory. A member of the Taliban would consider it universally immoral for women to question a priest, while a Christian (putting aside Biblical references that say the same thing) would consider the right of free speech to be universally moral. It both cases, the assumption of a universal standard is only relevant from that person's perspective (relative) no matter how firmly he believes it applies to all.

True but I was referring to someone who tries to live as a univeralist not that there are actual univeral truths. The only thing constant in this world is change.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/06/2010 03:56:10 PM · #3854

Originally posted by yanko:

If it makes it easier for you to think about, think of the Universalist who is for "civil rights" (however you are defining that above). Compare them to the Relativist who is likewise for the same "civil rights". There are problems and difficulties with both, but true relativism is a code that is all bark and no bite. It is impotent of power to effect change. The idea of "doing something about it" is rational in Universalism, but not in true Relativism.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 15:57:27.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/06/2010 04:04:23 PM · #3855

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
How can a univeralist's bed be any easier to lie in? The wave of civil rights has already become a tsunami. There's no stopping it. Just ask the univeralists who opposed women's rights, interracial marriages, gays teaching in schools, etc, etc. Comfortity is inevitable. Unless you adapt and become a relativist you'll have a very difficult time trying to live in modern society while trying to enforce your archaic belief system, which only gets older by the minute.

If it makes it easier for you to think about, think of the Universalist who is for "civil rights" (however you are defining that above). Compare them to the Relativist who is likewise for the same "civil rights". There are problems and difficulties with both, but true relativism is a code that is all bark and no bite. It is impotent of power to effect change. The idea of "doing something about it" is rational in Universalism, but not in true Relativism.

It's a good thing, then, that there are very few TRUE universalists or relativists. Unlike your insistence that everyone needs to fit into your comfortable little labels all the time (and thus falling into your debate traps you're so proud of), most people are generally a mix of labels, subject to changing and evolving, and open to new ideas, 'truths', morality systems, belief systems, etc.

This doesn't mean that anyone is automatically a push-over, wishy-washy, easily manipulated, et al, but it DOES mean that simply labeling people so that they fit within your own views and researches and book-learnins(sic) is an experiment doomed to failure and repeatedly frustrating 'discussions' on rant threads that never get anywhere :D

01/06/2010 04:11:27 PM · #3856

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If it makes it easier for you to understand, there wouldn't be a need for civil right laws had universalists not tried to enforce their belief systems onto others to begin with. No power would be needed.

01/06/2010 04:15:01 PM · #3857

Originally posted by yanko:

Ya, ok Yank. Whatever floats your boat. Do you think it's so simple that all universalists are against gay marriage and all relativists are for it? Is that the way your world works?

Universalism and Relativism are meta-ethics, not ethics unto themselves.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 16:16:58.

01/06/2010 04:22:38 PM · #3858

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
How can a univeralist's bed be any easier to lie in? The wave of civil rights has already become a tsunami. There's no stopping it. Just ask the univeralists who opposed women's rights, interracial marriages, gays teaching in schools, etc, etc. Comfortity is inevitable. Unless you adapt and become a relativist you'll have a very difficult time trying to live in modern society while trying to enforce your archaic belief system, which only gets older by the minute.

If it makes it easier for you to think about, think of the Universalist who is for "civil rights" (however you are defining that above). Compare them to the Relativist who is likewise for the same "civil rights". There are problems and difficulties with both, but true relativism is a code that is all bark and no bite. It is impotent of power to effect change. The idea of "doing something about it" is rational in Universalism, but not in true Relativism.

It's a good thing, then, that there are very few TRUE universalists or relativists. Unlike your insistence that everyone needs to fit into your comfortable little labels all the time (and thus falling into your debate traps you're so proud of), most people are generally a mix of labels, subject to changing and evolving, and open to new ideas, 'truths', morality systems, belief systems, etc.

This doesn't mean that anyone is automatically a push-over, wishy-washy, easily manipulated, et al, but it DOES mean that simply labeling people so that they fit within your own views and researches and book-learnins(sic) is an experiment doomed to failure and repeatedly frustrating 'discussions' on rant threads that never get anywhere :D

As I mentioned earlier, the only way to even approach an absolute moral code (for humans anyway) would be to not define it. Over time culture chisels away at it, one generation at a time, but the pillar will never be finished. So what ends up happening is you adopt the moral structure from the prior generation and that then gets molded into something different which you pass on to your children so it will always change. History shows this time and time again. It is why the elderly often complain about the changing of the culture and the new generation that is the catalyst for the change.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/06/2010 04:27:55 PM · #3859

So. If I am hired by someone to create art at their request, would I not be then obligated to do so regardless of my personal views? How many photogs who shoot weddings do so to please the customer rather than themselves? (I would wager most of the photogs who wish to make a living at it.)

Now, if JoeBob and JimBob, a couple of nice gentlemen from the hills of WesbygodVirginia, call me up and want me to photograph their wedding, but I have a thing against WesbygodVirginians, can I turn them down based on that alone? Or is that discrimination? I can understand that they cannot dictate to me how I should create art with my pigeons (or how Art should create with Godzilla) - that has nothing to do with discrimination or my dislike of WestbygodVirginians (it is all one word, you know). But if I am a "wedding photographer" and have an actual shingle that so states, I would say that even though I am an *artist* that I cannot discriminate against potential clients based on things like their statehood. I would like to say I can discriminate against them based on lacking teeth, but that's stereotypical prejudging and may or may not be true.

And no, that doesn't make any sense at all, but since I can't follow the whole univeralist (I like it without the "s")/relativist thing, I thought I'd just add my two point seven cents worth on the subject no one went back to.

01/06/2010 04:37:27 PM · #3860

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you think it's so simple that all universalists are against gay marriage and all relativists are for it? Is that the way your world works?

Nope. Never said that. Gay marriage has nothing to do with my point. If it helps just insert a different moral issue. You could try rock and roll. I believe the universalists had issues with that too at one point.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 16:39:07.

01/06/2010 04:37:29 PM · #3861

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

true relativism is a code that is all bark and no bite. It is impotent of power to effect change. The idea of "doing something about it" is rational in Universalism, but not in true Relativism.

Again, illusory. Any group doing something against your moral code obviously doesn't share your "universal" standard, so you both just end up claiming God (or whatever standard you think makes YOU right) is on your side. All the universal concept does is provide an artificial justification to force one side's belief upon the other. It's still all bark, but also rabid.

01/06/2010 04:51:43 PM · #3862

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is bound to take us down another rabbit hole, but I wonder, given this position, if Louis would consider any historical war to have been justified.

If it helps to understand my position better, I would say there's no justification for war. If you're attacked then it's reasonable to allow the victimized country to defend themselves in accordance to the laws of the day.

01/06/2010 04:53:06 PM · #3863

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
true relativism is a code that is all bark and no bite. It is impotent of power to effect change. The idea of "doing something about it" is rational in Universalism, but not in true Relativism.

Again, illusory. Any group doing something against your moral code obviously doesn't share your "universal" standard, so you both just end up claiming God (or whatever standard you think makes YOU right) is on your side. All the universal concept does is provide an artificial justification to force one side's belief upon the other. It's still all bark, but also rabid.

You obviously think I'm just painting my own code up to be "important". You don't get the fundamental meta-ethic of universalism. Let me know when you catch up.

01/06/2010 04:55:21 PM · #3864

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you think it's so simple that all universalists are against gay marriage and all relativists are for it? Is that the way your world works?

Nope. Never said that. Gay marriage has nothing to do with my point. If it helps just insert a different moral issue. You could try rock and roll. I believe the universalists had issues with that too at one point.

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

01/06/2010 05:14:59 PM · #3865

Originally posted by Melethia:

So. If I am hired by someone to create art at their request, would I not be then obligated to do so regardless of my personal views?

Refusing service amounts to saying, "We don't serve your kind here." Now there might be legitimate reasons for refusal (requiring shoes or a shirt, for example), but they must apply to everyone rather then excluding a class of people. As a wedding photographer, do you think you could tell a couple that you don't shoot fat people or latinos without the potential for reprisal? Of course people will try to skirt around doing something they don't want to by pretending they're booked or raising their rates to put the price out of reach, but if they're caught (someone else books the same date or a similar price immediately afterward) they could face legal action.

Someone said earlier that this is what we've come to: punishing people for being honest. Hello? The punishment is for discrimination, not honesty. A thief who tells you he's going to steal your stuff is just as surely a thief as someone who pretends to be trustworthy. It's deeply disturbing that anyone would gloss over prejudice to find fault with being caught... and even more so that the chief complaint of a group professing kindness toward all people is that they might actually have to practice what they preach. :-O

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/06/2010 05:15:32 PM · #3866

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you think it's so simple that all universalists are against gay marriage and all relativists are for it? Is that the way your world works?

Nope. Never said that. Gay marriage has nothing to do with my point. If it helps just insert a different moral issue. You could try rock and roll. I believe the universalists had issues with that too at one point.

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

And what is that suppose to prove? I never said universalists are against human rights or who first philosophized the concept.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

01/06/2010 05:43:39 PM · #3867

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

01/06/2010 05:51:10 PM · #3868

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Any group doing something against your moral code obviously doesn't share your "universal" standard, so you both just end up claiming God (or whatever standard you think makes YOU right) is on your side. All the universal concept does is provide an artificial justification to force one side's belief upon the other. It's still all bark, but also rabid.

You obviously think I'm just painting my own code up to be "important". You don't get the fundamental meta-ethic of universalism. Let me know when you catch up.

Your own description of universalism from earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

So yeah... you're considering your own code to be superior to others.

01/06/2010 06:08:23 PM · #3869

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Any group doing something against your moral code obviously doesn't share your "universal" standard, so you both just end up claiming God (or whatever standard you think makes YOU right) is on your side. All the universal concept does is provide an artificial justification to force one side's belief upon the other. It's still all bark, but also rabid.

You obviously think I'm just painting my own code up to be "important". You don't get the fundamental meta-ethic of universalism. Let me know when you catch up.

Your own description of universalism from earlier in this thread:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

So yeah... you're considering your own code to be superior to others.

The difference is I consider the UNIVERSAL code to be superior. My own code will match the universal code more or less than the other person (depending on the situation). I am actually not arrogant enough to consider that I am 100% in compliance with the Universal ethic. I'm likely to be off on something given human nature or my own foilables. Does that do anything for you?

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 18:10:30.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/06/2010 06:09:45 PM · #3870

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

No one should be subjected to torture.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 18:10:07.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

01/06/2010 06:19:33 PM · #3871

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

No one should be subjected to torture.

Ah - too bad I had to check my chicken - your previous post was more interesting. Now, who defines torture? And I note that you chose this one, one would think most people would readily agree, rather than say right to life, right to freedom, etc....

01/06/2010 06:25:38 PM · #3872

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

No one should be subjected to torture.

Ah - too bad I had to check my chicken - your previous post was more interesting. Now, who defines torture? And I note that you chose this one, one would think most people would readily agree, rather than say right to life, right to freedom, etc....

Well, you asked for any right. :) There is, of course, always an interface between academic and practical application which when examined in extremis will show all sorts of trouble (as we perfectly saw during the Bush administration with the whole "what constitutes torture" argument), but that is going to always exist and we should not lose the forest from the trees.

My question to you (or to a relativist if you aren't one), is this: Do you think a society (or an individual) has the authoritative right to declare that torture is, in fact, a moral choice which is available to them? And if they do decide this, should that new system (as bizarre as it sounds to you or I) be considered as legitimate as our own which frowns on such an act? Note I'm not asking whether societies or individuals ever participate in torture (because the answer there is obviously yes), but can they do so with as much moral legitimacy as someone who does not?

01/06/2010 06:31:00 PM · #3873

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You obviously think I'm just painting my own code up to be "important". You don't get the fundamental meta-ethic of universalism. Let me know when you catch up.

Your own description of universalism from earlier in this thread:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

So yeah... you're considering your own code to be superior to others.

The difference is I consider the UNIVERSAL code to be superior. My own code will match the universal code more or less than the other person (depending on the situation). I am actually not arrogant enough to consider that I am 100% in compliance with the Universal ethic. I'm likely to be off on something given human nature or my own foilables. Does that do anything for you?

Sure, it makes matters worse by viewing any moral code other than the one you consider universal as incorrect, and then refusing to take responsibility for those beliefs. You're forming opinions based upon personal interpretation of a specific religion, and then declaring everyone else WRONG as if it were undisputed truth. There is no practical difference between believing something is wrong and you believing some unproven deity has proclaimed it wrong. Both are only personal opinions with no other grounds for justification than you thinking so.

01/06/2010 06:36:52 PM · #3874

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You obviously think I'm just painting my own code up to be "important". You don't get the fundamental meta-ethic of universalism. Let me know when you catch up.

Your own description of universalism from earlier in this thread:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

So yeah... you're considering your own code to be superior to others.

The difference is I consider the UNIVERSAL code to be superior. My own code will match the universal code more or less than the other person (depending on the situation). I am actually not arrogant enough to consider that I am 100% in compliance with the Universal ethic. I'm likely to be off on something given human nature or my own foilables. Does that do anything for you?

Sure, it makes matters worse by viewing any moral code other than the one you consider universal as incorrect, and then refusing to take responsibility for those beliefs. You're forming opinions based upon personal interpretation of a specific religion, and then declaring everyone else WRONG as if it were undisputed truth. There is no practical difference between believing something is wrong and you believing some unproven deity has proclaimed it wrong. Both are only personal opinions with no other grounds for justification than you thinking so.

So to take the example above, if I believe torture is wrong. I am no different than someone who believes torture is not wrong? It's just a matter of personal interpretation. There is no undisputed truth that torture is wrong? It's up for discussion?