Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[En_Route]

Secondly, you believe in the existence of an objective morality or you don't. I don't think there is an intermediate position, and if I'm right then that does make it a black and white issue.

I don't know that I believe one way or another, because it seems irrelevant to me. Humans are subjective and our brains are subjective, so our philosophies will always be subjective. I don't know that that means that there are no universals. There could be something written into our DNA that approaches some kind of "objective" driving force for how we construct morality. But I don't care, frankly, because, even if there are universals, our ability to access them isn't universal (as I mentioned to Bruce). And then you get into the clutter of semantics and the limitations of language when it comes to expressing "subjective" vs. "objective" ideas. So, while I do lean away from objective definitions, I definitely don't take a "black and white" stand on it.

Many people are exercised by the distinction between objective and subjective morality because the claims of the latter are much weaker. So in some cultures compulsory genital mutilation may be regarded as perfectly acceptable , in others it may regarded with abhorrence. So is it a case of each to their own ?

[xSilverPhinx]

What if I just say that there is an objective morality, and make up a objective law-maker to back me up?

The way I see it, we're all really just children of our moral and cultural/geographical zeitgeist, and lean on that when it comes to making assertions of what is projected right or wrong. It's also clear in the bible, so even theists who do say they have an objective moral law maker to back up their assertions actually don't have that much at all.

I also think that arguing philosophy brings us to a standstill, and that better answers lie in neurobiology, at least as start off points. Maybe I think that mostly because I'm no philosopher. The whole thing is just too complicated and convoluted.

I would be interested to hear how you think neurobiology might contribute to the debate. I'm no neurobiologist. Some people might say I'm not much of a philosopher either.

I'm no neurobiologist either, but I find the topic to be interesting. The evolution of social animals as well.

It seems that even babies as young as two years old have a sense of fairness and when watching a puppet play, better like puppets that help other puppets than those who harm. It's interesting because they're still too young to have cultural morals (which are also a huge part of our individual moral philosophies) instilled in them. There was even a study done to show this http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/do_infants_have_a_sense_of_fairness

Empathy tests with animals are also very interesting, in which chimps will sometimes rather not eat themselves if they see that it causes a fellow family member pain or suffering.

Other social animals have their forms of social contracts. Cooperation definitely is a superior strategy for some animals than individualistic striving for survival.  

It's all very simplistic for them of course, they usually don't live in groups too large to offer some real problems and "moral" complications that generate multiple an "us versus them" situations.  Sam Harris wrote a book arguing for an objective morality from a neurobiological standpoint, but I haven't read it.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Many people are exercised by the distinction between objective and subjective morality because the claims of the latter are much weaker. So in some cultures compulsory genital mutilation may be regarded as perfectly acceptable , in others it may regarded with abhorrence. So is it a case of each to their own ?

I agree with your first assessment, and, as I said, anyone that claims to have an objective insight into an objective morality, by default, pretty much has to be wrong. I don't know what the "each to their own" argument has to do with that, because I think you can operate subjectively and still have to defend your thinking. That's your position, as well, isn't it?

Edit: Or do you mean, "each to their own" when it comes to defining whether they believe in an objective or subjective morality?

[Ali]

I wouldn't say that I'm clinging to objective morality, because to be completely honest, I don't really care whether morality is objective or subjective.  Again, that all seems more like arguing semantics, and I honestly have very little interest in semantics.  All I'm objecting to is that ER is saying this blogger (and I) are espousing irrationalities.  I don't think that she's irrational in her objection (nor do I think I am irrational.)  Whether you call it objective or subjective morality, I think there are compelling and reasonable reasons that don't just fall back on "because X says so" to disapprove of Mr. Cathy's conduct.  I also think that ER is playing silly buggers, since he disapproves of me all of the time.  LOL 

[En_Route]

I wouldn't say that I'm clinging to objective morality, because to be completely honest, I don't really care whether morality is objective or subjective.  Again, that all seems more like arguing semantics, and I honestly have very little interest in semantics.  All I'm objecting to is that ER is saying this blogger (and I) are espousing irrationalities.  I don't think that she's irrational in her objection (nor do I think I am irrational.)  Whether you call it objective or subjective morality, I think there are compelling and reasonable reasons that don't just fall back on "because X says so" to disapprove of Mr. Cathy's conduct.  I also think that ER is playing silly buggers, since he disapproves of me all of the time.  LOL 

You are both saying  that his views are plain wrong without explaining your criteria and how these can be validated. If what you are saying is that you think he is wrong because you think he is wrong, fair enough; itemising what you object to is quite separate from demonstrating that this is morally wrong or even spiritually wrong for that matter. I don't agree with your choice of language and the line of argument you advance, but we wouldn't probably differ very much in our sympathies and leanings in practice. Ergo, I totally approve of you.

[Ali]

I don't think he's wrong just because I think he's wrong! I have a reason!  I think he's wrong because he's actively working to advance a cause that flies in the face of justice and equality, and I value justice and equality.  It may be subjective but does subjective automatically = irrational?   

[En_Route]

I don't think he's wrong just because I think he's wrong! I have a reason!  I think he's wrong because he's actively working to advance a cause that flies in the face of justice and equality, and I value justice and equality.  It may be subjective but does subjective automatically = irrational?   

Justice and equality are themselves  highly problematic constructs. But this is probably as clearcut a scenario as one could wish for. Leaving aside religious scruples, then it is hard to see on what sane grounds you could argue for   prohibiting gay marriage. So, once you accept that religion is a chimera, there is simply no evidence in support of Mr. Cathy's position. I still regard it as misleading and erroneous to infer from this that  holding his position is immoral or "wrong" in the sense of being contrary to some natural moral order.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I don't think he's wrong just because I think he's wrong! I have a reason!  I think he's wrong because he's actively working to advance a cause that flies in the face of justice and equality, and I value justice and equality.  It may be subjective but does subjective automatically = irrational?  

Not at all. Believing in justice and equality does (or can) have a rational basis.  But some other value system could also have a rational basis.  It's just impossible to prove that one is inherently, objective, universally right.

[jumbojak]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

I agree.  It can encourage religious ideas to creep in by the back door.

If one talks of the spiritual dimension of man, it seems to me that you are in the supernatural zone, including but not exclusively religion.  Spiritual is not a synonym for moral, so what  spiritually wrong means I have no idea. As it happens for someone to argue that something is morally wrong as if that is an incontrovertible fact falls into the same trap of mistaking assertion for proof which is the hallmark of much theist grandstanding .

Yeah, but you don't even believe in morals, so according to you, nothing is morally wrong.    The writer and I disagree; actively working to deny people equal rights is some kind of wrong.  I don't care if you call it "morally wrong", or "spiritually wrong", or just "wrong wrong."  I'm not overly interested in the semantics of it.  It's wrong.  And the message of the article is, I don't have to be nice and play along and act like your opinion is equally valid if what you are doing is actively hurting people like that.  I don't see how that is "spurious reasoning" or irrational.  If that's irrational, is the rational response that yes, we should be nice to these people and play act like it's a-okay for them to use their personal opinions to keep a whole section of our fellow Americans second class citizens?  Because if that's rational, I'm just as happy to bump along in my own little irrational rut.

The author's reasoning was spurious because she claimed Cathy's views to be empirically wrong. What empirical measure could possibly show a moral action to be wrong? And you can develop objective morality through reason. Ask, "Is it reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry?" Just as there is no reasonable basis for murder, theft and rape there is no reasonable basis for denying equal mairrage rights. That makes the action objectively morally wrong.

[xSilverPhinx]

The author's reasoning was spurious because she claimed Cathy's views to be empirically wrong. What empirical measure could possibly show a moral action to be wrong?

Try arguing causal link with some people. Some will see just about any disaster or misfortune as empirical evidence for their beliefs. Allow gay marriage is the cause of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear reactor meltdowns, hurricanes, big pink teapot falling from the sky....wait...

[Ecurb Noselrub]

And you can develop objective morality through reason. Ask, "Is it reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry?" Just as there is no reasonable basis for murder, theft and rape there is no reasonable basis for denying equal mairrage rights. That makes the action objectively morally wrong.

I'm going to challenge this, but first I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no problem with equal rights for gays or for allowing them to marry. I'm just going to, only for the sake of argument, give a reasonable basis for being against it. Let's say that as a society we decide that it is a worthy goal to encourage the development of nuclear families in which children are raised by their natural biological parents, to the extent possible. To promote this goal, we decide to give additional tax breaks and other financial and social incentives to families made up of the biological father/mother and children, hoping to encourage natural families to stay together and thrive. While not denying the right to enter into civil unions to other people, we favor couples who fall into the first category because we have determined that the overall cost to society is greater when natural families break up, so the biological nuclear family is given incentives (including the exclusive right to call their unions "marriages") and other family types are not given equal incentives.  Assume for the sake of this argument that there is no constitutional impediment to doing this.

Here there is an agreed upon goal and a means developed to reach that goal. No specific group is targeted for exclusion, but a specific group is targeted for special favors (every single law that exists does this last part).  That forms a reasonable basis for the action, one effect of which is to deny gays the right to a civil union called marriage.  

Again, I don't subscribe to this, but it is reasonable, given the social goal that this particular fictional society chose.

[Recusant]

. . .

I'll leave the main body of your post for anybody who's interested in that particular discussion. Myself, I've been over that ground more than once, and find it tedious and annoying, because that society doesn't exist, and those who pretend that it does are disingenuous twits, in my opinion. I am interested, however, in how one comes to the conclusion quoted below. It seems overly broad to me:

. . . a specific group is targeted for special favors (every single law that exists does this last part).

So, for instance, a law which imposes a penalty for murder is giving special favor to those who don't murder? Is that how it works?

[xSilverPhinx]

Just some thoughts, using another example. Divorce.

What if it's just a family that is better off not being together? Such as in the case of an abusive parent or husband/wife? Some might even try to use the system and forcibly keep the family together to continue to reap benefits, to the detriment of their family.

As for adoption by gay couples, some children are way better off living in a home with two loving parents than in one with two abusive parents, even if biological.

It's complicated.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'll leave the main body of your post for anybody who's interested in that particular discussion. Myself, I've been over that ground more than once, and find it tedious and annoying, because that society doesn't exist, and those who pretend that it does are disingenuous twits, in my opinion.

I find it a bit ironic because some really vocal people I know who defend that idea of nuclear family are in fact themselves divorced. I really don't give them the light of day.

[jumbojak]

And you can develop objective morality through reason. Ask, "Is it reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry?" Just as there is no reasonable basis for murder, theft and rape there is no reasonable basis for denying equal mairrage rights. That makes the action objectively morally wrong.

I'm going to challenge this, but first I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no problem with equal rights for gays or for allowing them to marry. I'm just going to, only for the sake of argument, give a reasonable basis for being against it. Let's say that as a society we decide that it is a worthy goal to encourage the development of nuclear families in which children are raised by their natural biological parents, to the extent possible. To promote this goal, we decide to give additional tax breaks and other financial and social incentives to families made up of the biological father/mother and children, hoping to encourage natural families to stay together and thrive. While not denying the right to enter into civil unions to other people, we favor couples who fall into the first category because we have determined that the overall cost to society is greater when natural families break up, so the biological nuclear family is given incentives (including the exclusive right to call their unions "marriages") and other family types are not given equal incentives.  Assume for the sake of this argument that there is no constitutional impediment to doing this.

Here there is an agreed upon goal and a means developed to reach that goal. No specific group is targeted for exclusion, but a specific group is targeted for special favors (every single law that exists does this last part).  That forms a reasonable basis for the action, one effect of which is to deny gays the right to a civil union called marriage.  

Again, I don't subscribe to this, but it is reasonable, given the social goal that this particular fictional society chose.

To make this argument work you must first establish by reason that nuclear families where children are raised by their biological parents are more beneficial than all other types of family units. I don't think you can do this and even if you could, marriage would have to be restricted to heterosexual couples intent on having children.

If you take this position, the idea of step-parents becomes less valuable to society, and it is neccesary to prevent heterosexual individuals with children from marrying and utilising the special priveleges reserved for nuclear families.