Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[Stevil]

Rape is wrong because the person being raped does not want to be raped.

Thus abortion is wrong because the person being aborted does not want to be aborted, thus imprisonment is wrong because the prisoner does not want to be imprisoned.

[Asmodean]

Rape is wrong because the person being raped does not want to be raped.

Thus abortion is wrong because the person being aborted does not want to be aborted, thus imprisonment is wrong because the prisoner does not want to be imprisoned.

Not to mention working for the coin. That there, terribly wrong.

One should recieve coin then work whenever one feels like it... Then recieve more coin.

[MadBomr101]

This is all very deep and meaningful but what does any of it have to do with chicken?   

[Asmodean]

Why... Working for coin to be spent on chicken. That's wrong on SO many levels - the proper way is just recieving chicken.

[En_Route]

This is all very deep and meaningful but what does any of it have to do with chicken?   

We're getting there.

[En_Route]

Rape is wrong because the person being raped does not want to be raped.

So why is it wrong to force someone do something against their their will ( I'll assume  that your stricture applies only to situations where there is no practical justification for so doing and the person doing the forcing is doing so purely for their own gratification). I'm also  assuming tentatively  that you are using the word"wrong" irrespective of time, place and society; ie that rape or other forms of duress are wrong in an absolute sense.

[jumbojak]

So what is the point of all this? can't call something wrong, no objective morality blah blah blah.  Virtually everyone here agrees there is no objective morality so why the tedious repetition?  Subjectivity doesn't mean I can't say something is wrong, it is wrong by my measure.  It means you have to be cautious and flexible in judgement, not disown the necessity of judging when it is necessary.  I'll try not to look at this thread again, it's like some people have the DEEP knowledge and everyone else are the designated morons.

From my perspective it is an attempt to get people to be more precise in their "moral" statements, to explain why they think something is "wrong" rather than to offer circular reasoning and thus hide their motive. Also it is to encourage people to be less judgmental of others. If you subscribe to subjective morality then how can you judge a person for not achieving your own morality when they are working towards a different "morality" goal?

Case in point

Rape is wrong because reasonable people given the task of deciding what is right and wrong would decide that rape is wrong.

This is not only circular, it is also an appeal to the majority.
If you live in a heavily Christian country, you then have no choice but to accept that gay relationships are wrong because the "reasonable" majority would decide that gay relationships are wrong. Thus a person subscribing to this philosophy ought to support laws against gay relationships.
Instantly the humanist equal rights atheists lose the debate.
Of course your way out of this mess is to simply claim that Christians aren't reasonable. If you do this, then it shows how open to interpretation your own philosophy is.

Okay, I'll grant you that that does sound circular the way I put it, but the reasoning behind it is not and I should have taken more time to clarify my point. ( every time I try to post while I'm on the ferry ends with me eating my words. ) The idea I am advocating is more of a thought experiment and is certainly not an appeal to the majority, What I'm saying is that if a group of rational people ( earlier I said reasonable although I meant rational ) were given the task of deciding what rules should govern society, that group would reach a certain set of rules. I don't think it matters what society these people come from provided they are rational. Certain rules, such as a prohibition on rape, would result from this excercise.

It's not a system that relies on any majority because the results of such an experiment depend not on opinion, but on certain logical truths about reasoning. In what possible world would rational people decide that rape is acceptable social behavior? Please note that I am not arguing that these truths are always easy to grasp. Some, like the fact that it is wrong to force a person to have sex with you are fairly easy.  It is wrong because if I don't want to be raped, I had better make sure I don't rape anyone else.

As for Christians being unreasonable in their assesment that gay marriage is wrong, I would agree with that sentiment. Christians who say that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so are being unreasonable. They are basing their conclusion on a biased biblical perspective, which says certain things are wrong simply because God says so. I have seen Christians trot out all sorts of arguments against gay marriage, however they are always based either on the Bible, or some flawed thinking. Would you say Christians are being reasonable when they make arguments against gay marriage?

[En_Route]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

[xSilverPhinx]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

[Stevil]

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

Is abortion moral?

[Stevil]

Would you say Christians are being reasonable when they make arguments against gay marriage?

If there is a god and if it is perfect, all knowing and all loving, and if it infallibly guided the bible and if the bible is against gay marriage, then yes the Christians are being rational.

[xSilverPhinx]

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

Is abortion moral?

Is a fetus capable of feeling pain or experiencing harm?

[En_Route]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

Why?

[jumbojak]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

This is a little more sophisticated than the golden rule and I think overcomes the golden rule's major shortcoming. That is to say, what do we do to people who break these moral rules? Do unto others is all well and good to determine what we should probably not do however, it does nothing to address what happens when people do things they should not

On my theory, in addition to making rules about what is right and wrong, we can also reason about what punishment to deliver to those individuals who do not follow the rules. If someone rapes another person, what rules would rational people decide upon to deal with those individuals. This gives us a basis for punishing people with authority, and it is only neccesary to review all the facts and come to a rational decision about how wrong action should be punished.

As for those who break the rules and get away with it, I see no difference between the objective moral theory I have schetched and the subjective theories in opposition. Sure you can break the rules, but even if you don't get caught you are still acting immorally, just as someone who contradicts themselves is acting irrationally. This is a prescriptive law ( if 'law' is even the right word here ) not a descriptive law, and as such it is not subject to any ultimate authority outside humanity.

[En_Route]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

This is a little more sophisticated than the golden rule and I think overcomes the golden rule's major shortcoming. That is to say, what do we do to people who break these moral rules? Do unto others is all well and good to determine what we should probably not do however, it does nothing to address what happens when people do things they should not

On my theory, in addition to making rules about what is right and wrong, we can also reason about what punishment to deliver to those individuals who do not follow the rules. If someone rapes another person, what rules would rational people decide upon to deal with those individuals. This gives us a basis for punishing people with authority, and it is only neccesary to review all the facts and come to a rational decision about how wrong action should be punished.

As for those who break the rules and get away with it, I see no difference between the objective moral theory I have schetched and the subjective theories in opposition. Sure you can break the rules, but even if you don't get caught you are still acting immorally, just as someone who contradicts themselves is acting irrationally. This is a prescriptive law ( if 'law' is even the right word here ) not a descriptive law, and as such it is not subject to any ultimate authority outside humanity.

What you propose does to my ears sound more like a legal code than a set of moral principles. Even if a universal consensus was achieved , any system of law or morality is still a human production, as you readily acknowledge.  Morality is simply an opinion which may or may not be widely shared. Your ideas are exactly that. You have no way of establishing them as facts or axioms. If I act immorally in your eyes but not in mine then your moral judgement per se is of no interest to me, precisely because moralityis a philosophical abstraction with no substance or consequences in its own right. Of course, if I act in a way that others consider immoral , there may be real- world consequences, but that is the result of  their reactions not the nature of my actions as such.