Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[Sweetdeath]

I'm kinda surprised Sweetdeath hasn't weighed in on this controversy.  SD, anything to add  ???

I'm here, i've just been lurking. 

I am pretty strong voiced when it comes to 'family values.'

Since i was born, i felt any two people of any gender, or sexual preference can make up a family. With marriage, without it, and even without children. The whole ideal that a real 'family' consists of one man, one woman, and 2.5 children is truly sickening.

I think people should be able to consent, do as they like, and stop being judged because some narrow minded views from the stone age won't go away.

and yeah, this whole chick fila thing just boils my blood. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

When someone says eg that genital mutilation is wrong, and do not qualify that statement, there seems to me a natural inference that this is stated as a fact. I certainly don't think that the natural default position is one of moral relativism and that we can therefore imply a disclaimer along the lines you suggest.

I do.  Unless someone actually tells me "this is an absolute fact" when discussing morality, I assume it's an opinion and, since they're the ones saying it, that it's their opinion.  They don't have to preface everything they say that's their opinion with "this is my opinion" because that's the default setting for webby things like cultural traditions and mores.

And I didn't qualify my opinion on genital mutilation being wrong because genital mutilation was not the topic under discussion, it was just an example chosen at random by you that I picked up on.

There are also people who aren't even aware of the difference between subjective vs. objective morality. Everyone has an opinion on "right" and "wrong", but not everyone examines the philosophical underpinnings of what they think or where their opinions come from. If they aren't aware of these concepts, can you really ascribe one definition over another to them without probing into it a little further?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There are also people who aren't even aware of the difference between subjective vs. objective morality. Everyone has an opinion on "right" and "wrong", but not everyone examines the philosophical underpinnings of what they think or where their opinions come from. If they aren't aware of these concepts, can you really ascribe one definition over another to them without probing into it a little further?

Not really. Most opinions on right and wrong are more visceral, gut reactions to a situation.  Someone's sense of justice or morality or good has been offended or slighted in some manner, so they react. 

Since we just passed the Hiroshima anniversary, let's take that for an example. I think most people would say that burning babies or killing innocent pregnant women is "wrong." Yet the USA burned probably hundreds of babies and killed hundreds of innocent pregnant women (and their fetuses) in one second on August 6, 1945.  (And the Japanese did their share of burning and killing, as well, in other places). Avid anti-abortionists would say that abortion is wrong "in all instances." Yet they could justify killing pregnant women and their fetuses because "it was a war."  I think you can justify Hiroshima from the perspective that it and Nagasaki did end the war, and probably saved more people that they killed. Obviously, many people disagree, and we can argue about it until we are blue in the face. But that just goes to show that, given the right circumstances, someone can justify just about anything.  All of our opinions about right and wrong are subjective. 

[En_Route]

I am unsure how you  can assert that your subjective morality is superior to someone else's  subjective morality without reference to objective criteria.

It's easy, that's my opinion.

When someone says eg that genital mutilation is wrong, and do not qualify that statement, there seems to me a natural inference that this is stated as a fact. I certainly don't think that the natural default position is one of moral relativism and that we can therefore imply a disclaimer along the lines you suggest.

I do.  Unless someone actually tells me "this is an absolute fact" when discussing morality, I assume it's an opinion and, since they're the ones saying it, that it's their opinion.  They don't have to preface everything they say that's their opinion with "this is my opinion" because that's the default setting for webby things like cultural traditions and mores.

And I didn't qualify my opinion on genital mutilation being wrong because genital mutilation was not the topic under discussion, it was just an example chosen at random by you that I picked up on.

I agree. There's little easier than giving an opinion. I think though there is a world of difference between saying this is wrong and saying this seems wrong to me. It has certainly kept the philosophers busy over many centuries. The blogger who was cited by Ali seems to me to fall unequivocally into the former camp.

[En_Route]

There are also people who aren't even aware of the difference between subjective vs. objective morality. Everyone has an opinion on "right" and "wrong", but not everyone examines the philosophical underpinnings of what they think or where their opinions come from. If they aren't aware of these concepts, can you really ascribe one definition over another to them without probing into it a little further?

Not really. Most opinions on right and wrong are more visceral, gut reactions to a situation.  Someone's sense of justice or morality or good has been offended or slighted in some manner, so they react. 

Since we just passed the Hiroshima anniversary, let's take that for an example. I think most people would say that burning babies or killing innocent pregnant women is "wrong." Yet the USA burned probably hundreds of babies and killed hundreds of innocent pregnant women (and their fetuses) in one second on August 6, 1945.  (And the Japanese did their share of burning and killing, as well, in other places). Avid anti-abortionists would say that abortion is wrong "in all instances." Yet they could justify killing pregnant women and their fetuses because "it was a war."  I think you can justify Hiroshima from the perspective that it and Nagasaki did end the war, and probably saved more people that they killed. Obviously, many people disagree, and we can argue about it until we are blue in the face. But that just goes to show that, given the right circumstances, someone can justify just about anything.  All of our opinions about right and wrong are subjective. 

Once you accept that we are just gene-carrying repositories and that our ways of seeng things and imposing sense on the world are for the most part adaptive mechanisms or by -products thereof, it cures you of buying into concepts like morality or higher human purposes.

[The Magic Pudding]

Once you accept that we are just gene-carrying repositories and that our ways of seeng things and imposing sense on the world are for the most part adaptive mechanisms or by -products thereof, it cures you of buying into concepts like morality or higher human purposes.

Not for me.  I like to live comfortably so I'll build a house and put a nice picture on the wall because it pleases me.  Perhaps I'm a maladapted mechanism, despite my evolutionary inheritance I don't enjoy the tooth and claw lifestyle. I don't have to though, I can build a nice cosy set of morals.  Some higher human purposes like the picture on my wall are pleasing to me, Curiosity on Mars and space exploration generally for instance.  Maybe this quells my fear of death or gives hope for my offspring's survival, doesn't really matter, I buy it anyway.  Just because life has been brutal doesn't mean we have to accept it, we have conciousness, we know our past and we can plan our future.

[En_Route]

Once you accept that we are just gene-carrying repositories and that our ways of seeng things and imposing sense on the world are for the most part adaptive mechanisms or by -products thereof, it cures you of buying into concepts like morality or higher human purposes.

Not for me.  I like to live comfortably so I'll build a house and put a nice picture on the wall because it pleases me.  Perhaps I'm a maladapted mechanism, despite my evolutionary inheritance I don't enjoy the tooth and claw lifestyle. I don't have to though, I can build a nice cosy set of morals.  Some higher human purposes like the picture on my wall are pleasing to me, Curiosity on Mars and space exploration generally for instance.  Maybe this quells my fear of death or gives hope for my offspring's survival, doesn't really matter, I buy it anyway.  Just because life has been brutal doesn't mean we have to accept it, we have conciousness, we know our past and we can plan our future.

Our evolutionary inheritance is a great deal more subtle than you imply. It certainly doesn't mean we can't enjoy ourselves or pursue our personal  aims and ambitions. The idea that the purpose of life  or a moral code can be found outside the minds of individuals is what I am knocking,

[En_Route]

There are also people who aren't even aware of the difference between subjective vs. objective morality. Everyone has an opinion on "right" and "wrong", but not everyone examines the philosophical underpinnings of what they think or where their opinions come from. If they aren't aware of these concepts, can you really ascribe one definition over another to them without probing into it a little further?

Not really. Most opinions on right and wrong are more visceral, gut reactions to a situation.  Someone's sense of justice or morality or good has been offended or slighted in some manner, so they react. 

Since we just passed the Hiroshima anniversary, let's take that for an example. I think most people would say that burning babies or killing innocent pregnant women is "wrong." Yet the USA burned probably hundreds of babies and killed hundreds of innocent pregnant women (and their fetuses) in one second on August 6, 1945.  (And the Japanese did their share of burning and killing, as well, in other places). Avid anti-abortionists would say that abortion is wrong "in all instances." Yet they could justify killing pregnant women and their fetuses because "it was a war."  I think you can justify Hiroshima from the perspective that it and Nagasaki did end the war, and probably saved more people that they killed. Obviously, many people disagree, and we can argue about it until we are blue in the face. But that just goes to show that, given the right circumstances, someone can justify just about anything.  All of our opinions about right and wrong are subjective. 

If we accept that, then the words wrong and right seem to me lose  their point. Certainly I wouldn't say burning babies is wrong any more than I would say burning babies is green. My own personal philosophy would certainly lead me to want to protect babies from harm where I could, but I would make no claims that I am right to do so or that the baby- arsonist's actions are wrong.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If we accept that, then the words wrong and right seem to me lose  their point. Certainly I wouldn't say burning babies is wrong any more than I would say burning babies is green. My own personal philosophy would certainly lead me to want to protect babies from harm where I could, but I would make no claims that I am right to do so or that the baby- arsonist's actions are wrong.

I suppose if one person says "I save burning babies because it's the right thing to do," and another says "I save burning babies because I can't stand the smell of burning flesh," and a third says "I save burning babies because I like babies," the ultimate effect and outcome is the same.

[hismikeness]

If we accept that, then the words wrong and right seem to me lose  their point. Certainly I wouldn't say burning babies is wrong any more than I would say burning babies is green. My own personal philosophy would certainly lead me to want to protect babies from harm where I could, but I would make no claims that I am right to do so or that the baby- arsonist's actions are wrong.

I suppose if one person says "I save burning babies because it's the right thing to do," and another says "I save burning babies because I can't stand the smell of burning flesh," and a third says "I save burning babies because I like babies," the ultimate effect and outcome is the same.

I feel an Asmo comment about babies coming...

[Sandra Craft]

I think though there is a world of difference between saying this is wrong and saying this seems wrong to me. It has certainly kept the philosophers busy over many centuries. The blogger who was cited by Ali seems to me to fall unequivocally into the former camp.

I just assume subjectivity in anything that can't be objectively proven or disproven (or shown, at least, to be very very probable) and I think people having to constantly qualify and hedge their words is annoying and time-wasting.  It also makes for very flabby reading and conversation.  But there's no problem in asking someone to expand or clarify what they mean -- as you point out, philosopers do that all the time.  I think a lot of that comes down to semantic nit-picking, but everybody needs a hobby. 

[En_Route]

I think though there is a world of difference between saying this is wrong and saying this seems wrong to me. It has certainly kept the philosophers busy over many centuries. The blogger who was cited by Ali seems to me to fall unequivocally into the former camp.

I just assume subjectivity in anything that can't be objectively proven or disproven (or shown, at least, to be very very probable) and I think people having to constantly qualify and hedge their words is annoying and time-wasting.  It also makes for very flabby reading and conversation.  But there's no problem in asking someone to expand or clarify what they mean -- as you point out, philosopers do that all the time.  I think a lot of that comes down to semantic nit-picking, but everybody needs a hobby. 

I think my point is that many people do believe that there is an objective basis for morality and reject the idea that it  is subjective or culture- specific. So when they say X Is wrong they mean exactly that.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think my point is that many people do believe that there is an objective basis for morality and reject the idea that it  is subjective or culture- specific. So when they say X Is wrong they mean exactly that.

And these tend to be ideological thinkers - fundamentalist if religious; dogmatic if not religious.  Whether Evangelical Christian or Leninist-Stalinist Communist, they see the world in black and white, and usually base their opinion upon some written authoritative text, whether Matthew or Marx.

[jumbojak]

I think my point is that many people do believe that there is an objective basis for morality and reject the idea that it  is subjective or culture- specific. So when they say X Is wrong they mean exactly that.

And these tend to be ideological thinkers - fundamentalist if religious; dogmatic if not religious.  Whether Evangelical Christian or Leninist-Stalinist Communist, they see the world in black and white, and usually base their opinion upon some written authoritative text, whether Matthew or Marx.

I'm not sure that's fair. Seeing a world where rape is wrong and always has been is hardly the same as holding dogmatic Christian or Marxist views. It is entirely possible to determine that an action is wrong without carrying the assosiated worldview of a religion. Note that I am not saying that the appropriate action is always obvious or easy to figure out, or that the situation at hand never plays a role. There does seem to be a 'right' way to do thing. And I for one don't rely on authoratative text.

[Sandra Craft]

I think my point is that many people do believe that there is an objective basis for morality and reject the idea that it  is subjective or culture- specific. So when they say X Is wrong they mean exactly that.

Sure they might, and it might also just be a manner of speaking or a bit of shorthand that assumes a mutual cultural understanding.