So what does everyone think of the Chik-fil-a brouhaha? I eat there rarely but next time I find myself in one of their franchise locations I'll be sure to ask for "a chicken sandwich, hold the intolerance." ...and a side of fries. The bible thumpers are suddenly really hungry for chicken.
If you're not familiar with this drama, you can get caught up here - Xian Chicken (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/chick-fil-a-appreciation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
I don't go for that type of reaction. The employees may work for a bigot, but that doesn't mean they should have to be treated as if they are bigots themselves. In addition, such an attitude, if adopted on a large enough scale, would likely trigger a supporting reaction among conservatives. ( as happened today at Chick-fil-a in Atlanta when a line of customers wrapped around the block )
What would be more effective would be a boycott of the chain. This option would command far greater attention among executives by directly impacting the bottom line. There are possible consequences for the employees, in the form of lost jobs and shifts, however this is unavoidable if the message is to reach top management.
There is no reason to insult employees' dignity, without knowlege of their personal charachter, if such complaints will ultimately never be heard by anyone but them. Common complaint are often 'summed up' to management, and they never seem to understand.
It ain't pretty. . . . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw) <~~ Some may consider this NSFW.
Well, this image was floating around my facebook
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/526366_10151077718978544_2131193141_n.jpg)
Quote from: jumbojak on August 02, 2012, 03:36:06 AM
I don't go for that type of reaction. The employees may work for a bigot, but that doesn't mean they should have to be treated as if they are bigots themselves. In addition, such an attitude, if adopted on a large enough scale, would likely trigger a supporting reaction among conservatives. ( as happened today at Chick-fil-a in Atlanta when a line of customers wrapped around the block )
That's what's been happening. Suddenly Xians across the country are jonesing for chicken sandwiches, Xian chicken sandwiches made with wholesome biblical family values.
Recusant: AAAUUUGGHH!!! :o
DJuliet: LOL ;D
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 05:31:18 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 02, 2012, 03:36:06 AM
I don't go for that type of reaction. The employees may work for a bigot, but that doesn't mean they should have to be treated as if they are bigots themselves. In addition, such an attitude, if adopted on a large enough scale, would likely trigger a supporting reaction among conservatives. ( as happened today at Chick-fil-a in Atlanta when a line of customers wrapped around the block )
That's what's been happening. Suddenly Xians across the country are jonesing for chicken sandwiches, Xian chicken sandwiches made with wholesome biblical family values.
Recusant: AAAUUUGGHH!!! :o
DJuliet: LOL ;D
I suspect that is exactly what the owners wanted to happen. I have never eaten at this chain and now I probably never will.
There wasa big brouhaha about it in Boston because the mayor sent a letter to the Chik-fil-a president saying he wasn't welcome in the city, and said he would try to block them from opening a store there. More here (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/meninos-letter-to-chik-fil-a-president-fuels-national-debate/) if you're curious.
I was cheering the mayor on, and still do in many ways, but I admit it makes me queasy to see him trying to block a business from opening because of their personal views, even if their views are ignorant and bigoted. Now, if they fired someone or refused to serve a customer over their sexual orientation, then I'd be happy to see them get shut down.
Quote from: Firebird on August 02, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
There wasa big brouhaha about it in Boston because the mayor sent a letter to the Chik-fil-a president saying he wasn't welcome in the city, and said he would try to block them from opening a store there. More here (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/meninos-letter-to-chik-fil-a-president-fuels-national-debate/) if you're curious.
I was cheering the mayor on, and still do in many ways, but I admit it makes me queasy to see him trying to block a business from opening because of their personal views, even if their views are ignorant and bigoted. Now, if they fired someone or refused to serve a customer over their sexual orientation, then I'd be happy to see them get shut down.
However, at this point, Chic-fil-a views were no longer personal. They crossed the line into a very pubic attempt to influence policy and while they should be allowed to express their views local governments and officials are free to express their displeasure. This includes deciding that they are not the type of business that they want in there cities.
I'd love to see a firm try that in the UK. :D
I imagine that would be rather popular.
USA + homophobia + Christianity + protest with minimal effort + fast food = WIN
I do find it kind of funny that so many people are taking up food that is clearly bad for you in "protest". You want to impact your health to make a point? Go for it.
We really shouldn't be suprised by their position. Chick-fil-a is the only business I know of that doesn't open on Sundays. Hell if they're willing to lose money by not staying closed fifty-two days a year, mabye a boycott won't be effective after all.
No loss to me: their chicken is good but way too greasy. My advice to anyone who hasn't eaten at Chick-fil-a and wants to try it, just to see what all the fuss is about, would be to make sure you have access to a bathroom after you leave.
The best way to try to influence someone is through dialogue and reason. This sort of reaction has the effect of galvanizing the store's position. It's supporters rallied and gave it one of the best business days it ever had yesterday. What was accomplished?
:D At first I was thinking you were talking about another type of chicken, but it seems not.
That chain must be having some of the best buisiness in some parts ever. What great PR it is for a private business to get involved in a heated debate. Banning it would only make it stronger.
If I ever open a business I might consider herding some people who cling onto primitive second-hand opinions into it...:D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 02, 2012, 03:58:02 PM
The best way to try to influence someone is through dialogue and reason. This sort of reaction has the effect of galvanizing the store's position. It's supporters rallied and gave it one of the best business days it ever had yesterday. What was accomplished?
It will have had an increase in sales and rallied people of a similar mindset to the brand over competitors. For the ideology it hasn't done a thing but in terms of business it has been very successful, and it has shown that intolerance in the States can actually be a good marketing plan for business. it has done a huge amount of damage actually for the perception of the American people being progressive and tolerant.
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 02, 2012, 03:58:02 PM
The best way to try to influence someone is through dialogue and reason. This sort of reaction has the effect of galvanizing the store's position. It's supporters rallied and gave it one of the best business days it ever had yesterday. What was accomplished?
It will have had an increase in sales and rallied people of a similar mindset to the brand over competitors. For the ideology it hasn't done a thing but in terms of business it has been very successful, and it has shown that intolerance in the States can actually be a good marketing plan for business. it has done a huge amount of damage actually for the perception of the American people being progressive and tolerant.
I wouldn't call it a huge success just yet -- things are very heated right now, so you have people rallying on both sides of the argument. Yesterday's "support day" was pretty impressive, but, at the end of the day I'm a bit skeptical about how permanently people can change their day-to-day eating habits to support a "cause". Not eating something is a lot easier than artificially eating a lot of something. What are the Chick-fil-a supporters going to do? Eat fried chicken every day for the rest of their lives? Not likely. Even the biggest fast-food junkie would need a break from constantly eating at one restaurant all of the time.
So, I think this will just be a test of how many of Chick-fil-a's existing clientele also support the company's position on marriage. Since most of chick-fil-a's restaurants are in the southern states anyway, I predict there there won't be a huge change one way or another over the long term. At most, it might stall the company from setting up ventures in more progressive areas.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 02, 2012, 07:25:26 PM
I wouldn't call it a huge success just yet -- things are very heated right now, so you have people rallying on both sides of the argument. Yesterday's "support day" was pretty impressive, but, at the end of the day I'm a bit skeptical about how permanently people can change their day-to-day eating habits to support a "cause". Not eating something is a lot easier than artificially eating a lot of something. What are the Chick-fil-a supporters going to do? Eat fried chicken every day for the rest of their lives? Not likely. Even the biggest fast-food junkie would need a break from constantly eating at one restaurant all of the time.
So, I think this will just be a test of how many of Chick-fil-a's old clientele also support the company's position on marriage. Since most of chick-fil-a's restaurants are in the southern states anyway, I predict there there won't be a huge change one way or another over the long term. At most, it might stall the company from setting up ventures in more progressive areas.
Its a huge success. Just having an increase of sales is a success but having an increase of sales, massive media coverage whilst being openly intolerant is a huge success. Anyone that has ever worked in/with marketing will know how much effect one media stunt can have on public perception and that those are always made in the initial moments, the reactions to the "protest" has been positive in terms of sales so the PR/marketing/ad company have found a hook that they can use to steadily increase margins. They don't need to target more progressive areas, and still there is a lot of spin that can be applied if they do which will be easy to overcome as the mass majority of people have short memories and believe what you tell them. In business people vote with there wallets and it has been clear that people support them.
I'm just saying that long-term business success isn't measured in terms of a one day turn-out or a two week fiasco. You may very well be right, but I think it's a bit early to say.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 02, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
I'm just saying that long-term business success isn't measured in terms of a one day turn-out or a two week fiasco. You may very well be right, but I think it's a bit early to say.
That's correct but that wouldn't be down to one publicity stunt either unless the data clearly indicates in no correlation to any other business strategies that there was a continuous decrease/increase in sales. You judge each strategy for its own merits especially in the first days as that is always when it has the most impact.
Difficult to say what it will be long term, but if it turns out that a lot of people see them as some weird form of crusaders for 'the eternal word of god' as mentioned by the guy holding the bible in one of those clips, then it might be.
Or it could just be that the whole thing dies down and people find some other easy scapegoat that isn't their business anyways for their problems. Hmpf. A business that isn't a church is making money off them by hiding behind some religious context. Gullible people ::)
People do have short memories, but they tend to remember those who have wronged them for a lot longer than not, so probably when things die down and return to normal that food chain would've lost a good number of customers who didn't like the message they endorsed.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
People do have short memories, but they tend to remember those who have wronged them for a lot longer than not, so probably when things die down and return to normal that food chain would've lost a good number of customers who didn't like the message they endorsed.
As long as the people that disagree enough to not eat at the fast food chain outnumber the don't cares and the homophobes then that could be very damaging. Does anyone know what the general polls say on homosexual marriage in the States.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 05:44:06 PM
:D At first I was thinking you were talking about another type of chicken, but it seems not.
That chain must be having some of the best buisiness in some parts ever. What great PR it is for a private business to get involved in a heated debate. Banning it would only make it stronger.
If I ever open a business I might consider herding some people who cling onto primitive second-hand opinions into it...:D
I think you may have just invented the creationburger.
UPDATE:
The Gay Rights folks are going to hold a "Kissing Protest" at Chik-fil-a locations nationwide tomorrow (Friday) by assembling outside of the restaurants and, well... kiss. Check out this CNN Video Report (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/us/us-chick-fil-a-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) for the story. Of particular interest, at about the 03:00 point, the company issues a statement that is clearly designed to distance themselves from the comments made by the company president, Dan Cathy, that started all the drama.
Board Mods: I probably shoulda created this thread in Current Events. I went Religion due to the heavy Xian angle of the issue. Move it if necessary.
Quote from: Firebird on August 02, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
There wasa big brouhaha about it in Boston because the mayor sent a letter to the Chik-fil-a president saying he wasn't welcome in the city, and said he would try to block them from opening a store there. More here (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/meninos-letter-to-chik-fil-a-president-fuels-national-debate/) if you're curious.
I was cheering the mayor on, and still do in many ways, but I admit it makes me queasy to see him trying to block a business from opening because of their personal views, even if their views are ignorant and bigoted. Now, if they fired someone or refused to serve a customer over their sexual orientation, then I'd be happy to see them get shut down.
Attempting to impose economic sanctions on people whose views you don't like is a very dangerous double- edged weapon. Free speech I think is a life- enhancing commodity.
I would imagine that refusing to serve people on grounds of their sexual orientation would be the subject of proportionate legal sanctions; closing a business down on those grounds seems a trifle extreme.
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
People do have short memories, but they tend to remember those who have wronged them for a lot longer than not, so probably when things die down and return to normal that food chain would've lost a good number of customers who didn't like the message they endorsed.
As long as the people that disagree enough to not eat at the fast food chain outnumber the don't cares and the homophobes then that could be very damaging. Does anyone know what the general polls say on homosexual marriage in the States.
That's why I tend to think that it was a smart PR move rather than a stupid one, but time will tell.
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 05:44:06 PM
:D At first I was thinking you were talking about another type of chicken, but it seems not.
That chain must be having some of the best buisiness in some parts ever. What great PR it is for a private business to get involved in a heated debate. Banning it would only make it stronger.
If I ever open a business I might consider herding some people who cling onto primitive second-hand opinions into it...:D
I think you may have just invented the creationburger.
Dear lord, I hope not. Selling burgers which spontaneously spawn lifeforms could be bad for business, giving new meaning to "you don't know what's in that meat". Btw, I insist that be the slogan.
Abiogensis, or life constantly being generated from non life, is a disproven scientific hypothesis. Not that that would discourage any creationists...
People are squawking about how this is free speech and that Mr. Cathy has a right to say and feel what he wants. And that's fine. But I can't imagine a business owner doing this and alienating a large portion of clientelle. Sure there are the knee jerk conservatives who fully support him, but I have to say he's lost business and potential business. But we'll see. I just can't see some one saying, "I don't believe you have certain rights and I will donate to causes to subvert you....but for now, how about buying a chicken sandwich?"
I wonder if he came out with other extreme biblical opinions how the uber conservatives would react. How about quoting Paul in that women should be silent and may not be able to teach men..for a start. And a campaign on Sparing the Rod and Spoiling the child?
Gotta make sure it's not Old Testament. You know that gets dismissed when it doesn't suit their needs.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
People do have short memories, but they tend to remember those who have wronged them for a lot longer than not, so probably when things die down and return to normal that food chain would've lost a good number of customers who didn't like the message they endorsed.
As long as the people that disagree enough to not eat at the fast food chain outnumber the don't cares and the homophobes then that could be very damaging. Does anyone know what the general polls say on homosexual marriage in the States.
That's why I tend to think that it was a smart PR move rather than a stupid one, but time will tell.
I think he was just spouting off his standard Xian ignorance and inadvertently managed to spark controversy that polarized people on either side of the issue. While they will reap some short-term benefits from Xian supporters, that uptick in business isn't likely to offset the loss of their gay and gay supporting clientele. How much chicken can Xians eat?
Quote from: Beachdragon on August 02, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
People are squawking about how this is free speech and that Mr. Cathy has a right to say and feel what he wants. And that's fine. But I can't imagine a business owner doing this and alienating a large portion of clientelle. Sure there are the knee jerk conservatives who fully support him, but I have to say he's lost business and potential business. But we'll see. I just can't see some one saying, "I don't believe you have certain rights and I will donate to causes to subvert you....but for now, how about buying a chicken sandwich?"
I wonder if he came out with other extreme biblical opinions how the uber conservatives would react. How about quoting Paul in that women should be silent and may not be able to teach men..for a start. And a campaign on Sparing the Rod and Spoiling the child?
Gotta make sure it's not Old Testament. You know that gets dismissed when it doesn't suit their needs.
Seconded.
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 08:25:06 PMAs long as the people that disagree enough to not eat at the fast food chain outnumber the don't cares and the homophobes then that could be very damaging. Does anyone know what the general polls say on homosexual marriage in the States.
According to the most recent polls (http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/), it's very evenly matched, with a slight balance in favor.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:32:54 PMAbiogensis, or life constantly being generated from non life, is a disproven scientific hypothesis. Not that that would discourage any creationists...
For the benefit of lurkers: I assume that you're thinking of the hypothesis known as Aristotelian abiogenesis, more commonly called "spontaneous generation," which was famously disproved by Pasteur. Modern hypotheses of abiogenesis are much different, and as far as I know the concept is still viable, from a scientific perspective.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 08:26:01 PM
Of particular interest, at about the 03:00 point, the company issues a statement that is clearly designed to distance themselves from the comments made by the company president, Dan Cathy, that started all the drama.
That's exactly what I meant by "and still there is a lot of spin that can be applied if they do which will be easy to overcome as the mass majority of people have short memories and believe what you tell them". It means bugger all, the statement was issued by the VP of corporate public relations its their job to issue cookie cutter comments that sound like they don't support something but actually doesn't say that at all, what it really says is that even though we may disagree with your lifestyle we will still serve you and we may stop this but I have no control. Otherwise the statement would have come from somebody with power and use words like "will" rather than "intend".
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 08:42:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
People do have short memories, but they tend to remember those who have wronged them for a lot longer than not, so probably when things die down and return to normal that food chain would've lost a good number of customers who didn't like the message they endorsed.
As long as the people that disagree enough to not eat at the fast food chain outnumber the don't cares and the homophobes then that could be very damaging. Does anyone know what the general polls say on homosexual marriage in the States.
That's why I tend to think that it was a smart PR move rather than a stupid one, but time will tell.
I think he was just spouting off his standard Xian ignorance and inadvertently managed to spark controversy that polarized people on either side of the issue. While they will reap some short-term benefits from Xian supporters, that uptick in business isn't likely to offset the loss of their gay and gay supporting clientele. How much chicken can Xians eat?
Which goes back to people's memories depending if they've been wronged or not (they don't have to be gay, gay supporters might be equally as offended). I don't have a clue. I think it was a smart PR move, if they keep up their momentum, or it can all fall apart and they've lost the portion of potential customers and money because of that. If they're adaptable, now might be a good time to adapt to reap the maxinum benefits. Depends on what they do. If they're banned in some state or their installation made more difficult, it could also flare up their stunt a little more.
Time will tell. ???
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 08:49:20 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 08:26:01 PM
Of particular interest, at about the 03:00 point, the company issues a statement that is clearly designed to distance themselves from the comments made by the company president, Dan Cathy, that started all the drama.
That's exactly what I meant by "and still there is a lot of spin that can be applied if they do which will be easy to overcome as the mass majority of people have short memories and believe what you tell them". It means bugger all, the statement was issued by the VP of corporate public relations its their job to issue cookie cutter comments that sound like they don't support something but actually doesn't say that at all, what it really says is that even though we may disagree with your lifestyle we will still serve you and we may stop this but I have no control. Otherwise the statement would have come from somebody with power and use words like "will" rather than "intend".
Oh, I totally agree. Corporate behavior is nothing if not completely predictable and almost universally insincere. Dan Cathy says something provocative, there's a huge backlash, company issues a statement proclaiming its neutrality, the scandal plays itself out and all the while the company is loving all the free exposure. If this was all the result of months of marketing strategy to lionize their company to the enormous Xian market it was a ballsy move and one that could easily blow up in their face.
Quote from: Recusant on August 02, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
According to the most recent polls (http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/), it's very evenly matched, with a slight balance in favor.
Thanks, I knew somebody would know. But wtf protestants are divided by race! (pg.3) Whats that all about?
Quote from: Recusant on August 02, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 08:32:54 PMAbiogensis, or life constantly being generated from non life, is a disproven scientific hypothesis. Not that that would discourage any creationists...
For the benefit of lurkers: I assume that you're thinking of the hypothesis known as Aristotelian abiogenesis, more commonly called "spontaneous generation," which was famously disproved by Pasteur. Modern hypotheses of abiogenesis are much different, and as far as I know the concept is still viable, from a scientific perspective.
Yes, that's why I added the 'constantly being generated'. Back in Pasteur's day it was a very heated debate. Amusingly, serious people were putting 'recipes' out there for making certain lifeforms such as rats :D There's a creationist video on YouTube when a guy uses a can of peanut butter to attempt to disprove evolution by disproving the old hypothesis of abiogenesis ???
*edited to add link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 08:56:40 PM
Oh, I totally agree. Corporate behavior is nothing if not completely predictable. Dan Cathy says something provocative, there's a huge backlash, company issues a statement proclaiming its neutrality, the scandal plays itself out and all the while the company is loving all the free exposure. If this was all the result of months of marketing strategy to lionize their company to the enormous Xian market, it was a ballsy move.
How and where was it announced and were there any graphics for it?
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 08:56:40 PM
Oh, I totally agree. Corporate behavior is nothing if not completely predictable. Dan Cathy says something provocative, there's a huge backlash, company issues a statement proclaiming its neutrality, the scandal plays itself out and all the while the company is loving all the free exposure. If this was all the result of months of marketing strategy to lionize their company to the enormous Xian market, it was a ballsy move.
How and where was it announced and were there any graphics for it?
Saturation advertising on the Trinity Broadcasting Network with a retouched version of the Last Supper showing Jesus and the Apostles happily chowing down on chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 09:05:37 PM
Saturation advertising on the Trinity Broadcasting Network with a retouched version of the Last Supper showing Jesus and the Apostles happily chowing down on chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.
Yeah it definitely has the hallmarks of marketing involvement. It could have been the president saying do this rather than the various teams sitting around coming up with ideas. I can't imagine the PR department being consulted at all unless they are people who enjoy a challenge or fully support the view.
Quote from: Crow on August 02, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 09:05:37 PM
Saturation advertising on the Trinity Broadcasting Network with a retouched version of the Last Supper showing Jesus and the Apostles happily chowing down on chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.
Yeah it definitely has the hallmarks of marketing involvement. It could have been the president saying do this rather than the various teams sitting around coming up with ideas. I can't imagine the PR department being consulted at all unless they are people who enjoy a challenge or fully support the view.
Wait, let me be clear, I'm just joking above. I was only speculating *IF* this whole thing was a marketing strategy, I'm not saying it was. I don't want there to be any misinformation spread by a communication failure.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 02, 2012, 09:29:11 PM
Wait, let me be clear, I'm just joking above. I was only speculating *IF* this whole thing was a marketing strategy, I'm not saying it was. I don't want there to be any misinformation spread by a communication failure.
ahhh ok.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx link=topic=10359.msg184136#msg184136
Dear lord, I hope not. Selling burgers which spontaneously spawn lifeforms could be bad for business, giving new meaning to "you don't know what's in that meat". Btw, I insist that be the slogan.
Abiogensis, or life constantly being generated from non life, is a disproven scientific hypothesis. Not that that would discourage any creationists...
It beats my effort "More shit for you to swallow".
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 09:41:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx link=topic=10359.msg184136#msg184136
Dear lord, I hope not. Selling burgers which spontaneously spawn lifeforms could be bad for business, giving new meaning to "you don't know what's in that meat". Btw, I insist that be the slogan.
Abiogensis, or life constantly being generated from non life, is a disproven scientific hypothesis. Not that that would discourage any creationists...
It beats my effort "More shit for you to swallow".
I'll stick with the euphenism, you could sell that line to the competition :D Might just be a bit too blunt and truthfully spoken...
All I can say is that I will never ever eat there again.
I probably would have felt very disinclined to ever go there again from the owner's words alone (he has the right to have that view and speak on it, but I also have the right to not want to have anything to do with his business), however the issue runs much deeper than that with the business's money going directly toward known hate groups. There is no way I'm giving the restaurant even a cent of money when there's a chance of it going toward those awful groups.
I kind of love this.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.happyplace.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F501be72367843.png&hash=b28877868e97cf9be9780f00056d160c4800bf3f)
Only in America would people turn eating fried chicken to a political movement.
Youtube "Chow Down On Chick-Fil-A." Funny.
Also, I love this article (http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-think-your-religion-dumb). Yes, yes, and yes.
Quote from: Ali on August 04, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
Also, I love this article (http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-think-your-religion-dumb). Yes, yes, and yes.
For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?
I didn't find it irrational at all. And yes, the topic of denying people civil rights is one that arouses a lot of emotion and passion in a lot of people. As it should, if you ask me.
Quote from: En_Route on August 04, 2012, 01:11:44 AM
Quote from: Ali on August 04, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
Also, I love this article (http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-think-your-religion-dumb). Yes, yes, and yes.
For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?
I didn't see where the article accused Cathy of being spiritually wrong, and although I don't agree that his actions are
emprically wrong, I do believe they are objectively morally wrong. To my eyes, the author went on an understandable rant motivated by spurious reasoning.
What we have here is a good piece of polemic ( and I do like polemic when it's well crafted ) from a talented writer. You would be suprised by the number of people who are pushed toward rational inquiry by this type of work. It has shock value and that shouldn't be underestimated.
Such a jarring effect is potentially greater given the highly publicised nature of the controversy. Although I'm not certain what impact this particular writer will have, if enough of this sort of material is produced the number of potential sympathisers should grow. More material, at the quality of this article or better can't hurt.
Quote from: En_Route on August 04, 2012, 01:11:44 AM
Quote from: Ali on August 04, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
Also, I love this article (http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-think-your-religion-dumb). Yes, yes, and yes.
For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?
Correct me if I am wrong, but, if something is morally wrong can it be anything other than spiritually wrong.
'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.
It's one thing in a religious context (even though I think it's based on falsehoods, but that's another matter) but when an atheist uses it, it's confusing.
Quote from: xSP'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.
Quote from: OldGit on August 05, 2012, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: xSP'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 .
Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 05, 2012, 06:38:09 AMCorrect me if I am wrong, but, if something is morally wrong can it be anything other than spiritually wrong.
There's this definition for spirited:Displaying animation, vigour, or liveliness.
Spirit: A fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character.
Working as a paramedic, pulling badly injured children out of cars would be morally a good thing. It is stretching it to say it's spiritually wrong but potentially damaging to the spirit.
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: OldGit on August 05, 2012, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: xSP'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. :P 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.
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: OldGit on August 05, 2012, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: xSP'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. :P 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.
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Personally I look to questions like: is this just/fair? Who does this harm? Who does it help? In the case of people working to actively keep gay marriage illegal, no, I do not believe that it is just or fair to deny people equal rights or protections under the law. Who does it hurt? Millions of families in the US who just happen to be gay, plus all of the rest of us because I believe that when we allow any of us to be oppressed, we open the door for all of us to be oppressed. Who does it help? No one, as far as I can tell. Religious people that believe that gay marriage is a sin can continue to not enter into gay marriages when it is legal, so I don't see that they really have a dog in this fight.
I don't see how any of that is irrational. I also don't believe you that you don't go through similar judgment exercises. Otherwise how could you ever form an opinion on anything, and you have LOTS of opinions. :P
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them. That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong. Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality. You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them. That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong. Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality. You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.
What about by using principles like justice and fairness? You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system? Why do we even have laws then? (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
Precisely. As long as people try to play the 'God' trump card we as a species a screwed. I'm not saying we wouldn't be screwed if everybody were atheists just that there's be one huge confounding variable removed from the path of human progress.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.
Which, as far as I can see is exactly what we do have, Xtians included. The only difference is that Xtians back their chosen morality up with "god says so" while others (at least in the West) back theirs up with "this seems fair". I will never understand why subjective morality is such an issue when that's what we're all (those of us who believe morality exists, at least) using. It's like arguing about the existence of air while you're breathing it in and using it to talk.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
Exactly.
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 04:12:48 PM
What about by using principles like justice and fairness? You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system? Why do we even have laws then? (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)
Justice and fairness treat everyone the same, and as a society people may decide that this is the best way to go. However, just deciding that this is how we want to go does not make it universally, objectively right. A person with sufficient power could decide that he/she wanted to force people to what is most beneficial to him, his family, or his tribe. There is no universal, objective argument that conclusively shows that he/she shouldn't do that. People in the Confederacy were quite satisfied that slavery was morally sound.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
I don't disagree with you. My point is simply that, in the absence of such a being, there is no universal, objective morality. In effect, even we who believe in such a being don't agree on what he wants, so we are pretty much back to moral relativism, which means that we decide what is right and wrong.
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them. That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong. Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality. You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.
What about by using principles like justice and fairness? You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system? Why do we even have laws then? (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)
Changing the adjectives doesn't escape from the fundamental issue that concepts of right and wrong are inherently self- validating. Human beings are rule- makers and all human societies establish at a minimum rules about core issues such as who you are allowed to kill or have sex with and who owns what; in Western societies our propensity for rule- manufacturing means a constant expansion of regulation to the point that you are at a risk if you start dating horrible things about people on Twitter in the UK. The rule- making, rule- enforcing and presumably rule- complying traits would seem to confer considerable evolutionary advantages.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 05, 2012, 06:04:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.
Which, as far as I can see is exactly what we do have, Xtians included. The only difference is that Xtians back their chosen morality up with "god says so" while others (at least in the West) back theirs up with "this seems fair". I will never understand why subjective morality is such an issue when that's what we're all (those of us who believe morality exists, at least) using. It's like arguing about the existence of air while you're breathing it in and using it to talk.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
Exactly.
The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is for another thread in another forum)..
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
Personally I look to questions like: is this just/fair? Who does this harm? Who does it help? In the case of people working to actively keep gay marriage illegal, no, I do not believe that it is just or fair to deny people equal rights or protections under the law. Who does it hurt? Millions of families in the US who just happen to be gay, plus all of the rest of us because I believe that when we allow any of us to be oppressed, we open the door for all of us to be oppressed. Who does it help? No one, as far as I can tell. Religious people that believe that gay marriage is a sin can continue to not enter into gay marriages when it is legal, so I don't see that they really have a dog in this fight.
I don't see how any of that is irrational. I also don't believe you that you don't go through similar judgment exercises. Otherwise how could you ever form an opinion on anything, and you have LOTS of opinions. :P
You can add to my list of opinions the repudiation of the idea that you need to believe in objective morality in order to form an opinion on anything.
Quote from: ERThe blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is for another thread in another forum)..
Gee, I'd give Ali more credit than that. She certainly seems more flexible in adjusting her opinions than a fundamentalist who says "because the Bible says so." Just because someone subscribes to an objective morality, doesn't mean that their opinions or basis for their arguments are entirely inflexible. I know plenty of people who claim to have an "objective" rooting in their morality, but have changed their opinions over time due to a rational argument (yes, it doesn't look that "objective" if it changes over time, but that's how some people like to frame things and -- honestly-- I think people are wired to think that way). For someone who hates people painting others with a black-and-white brush, you seem to do it an awful lot for "moralists".
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 06:35:17 PM
The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists.
Once again I have to disagree, which I think stems solely from my having a better general opinion of people than you do.
I think most of us understand very well that right and wrong are as subjective as anything else and there's nothing wrong with that, which is fortunate since it's unavoidable. There's also nothing wrong with a culture, society or nation deciding what it will subjectively consider, and treat, as right and wrong.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 05, 2012, 06:46:17 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 06:35:17 PM
The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists.
Once again I have to disagree, which I think stems solely from my having a better general opinion of people than you do.
I think most of us understand very well that right and wrong are as subjective as anything else and there's nothing wrong with that, which is fortunate since it's unavoidable. There's also nothing wrong with a culture, society or nation deciding what it will subjectively consider, and treat, as right and wrong.
As my daddy did say, self-praise is no praise.
In fact, moral relativism is by no means as popular or as widely- held a position as you seem to imagine. It seemed plain to me that the blogger and Ali were not hedging their bets on the rights and wrongs of Mr. Cathy's views. As for there being nothing wrong about a culture adopting a subjective code of morality, I assume you are using wrong in a subjective sense.
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 06:55:16 PM
As for there being nothing wrong about a culture adopting a subjective code of morality, I assume you are using wrong in a subjective sense.
Honestly now, is there another sense I could use it in?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: ERThe blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is for another thread in another forum)..
Gee, I'd give Ali more credit than that. She certainly seems more flexible in adjusting her opinions than a fundamentalist who says "because the Bible says so." Just because someone subscribes to an objective morality, doesn't mean that their opinions or basis for their arguments are entirely inflexible. I know plenty of people who claim to have an "objective" rooting in their morality, but have changed their opinions over time due to a rational argument (yes, it doesn't look that "objective" if it changes over time, but that's how some people like to frame things and -- honestly-- I think people are wired to think that way). For someone who hates people painting others with a black-and-white brush, you seem to do it an awful lot for "moralists".
Firstly, I'd say you can believe in an objective morality but change your mind about what it consists of. 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. It's not a reflection on the individuals who hold those views.Ali can speak for herself but it seems to me she is rooting for an objective morality, which many people do.
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. :P The whole thing is just too complicated and convoluted.
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 07:02:03 PM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 05, 2012, 07:17:19 PM
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. :P 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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.
If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.
I don't disagree with you. My point is simply that, in the absence of such a being, there is no universal, objective morality. In effect, even we who believe in such a being don't agree on what he wants, so we are pretty much back to moral relativism, which means that we decide what is right and wrong.
Let's say that everyone had reached a consensus on the morality enshrined in the Bible. Could you then say that something is right or wrong only because it says so in the bible? Is it possible that what you are told in the bible is right is in fact wrong and if so why not?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 07:02:03 PM
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 ?
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 07:24:58 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 05, 2012, 07:17:19 PM
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. :P 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 (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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 07:39:01 PM
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?
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
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 07:54:45 PM
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.
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? :D
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 08:19:02 PM
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? :D
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.
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 08:19:02 PM
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? :D
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.
Quote from: Ali on August 05, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: OldGit on August 05, 2012, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: xSP'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. :P 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.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 05, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
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...
Quote from: jumbojak on August 05, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 10:29:22 PM. . .
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:
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 10:29:22 PM. . . 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?
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.
Quote from: Recusant on August 05, 2012, 10:41:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 05, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Recusant on August 05, 2012, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 10:29:22 PM. . . 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?
My point is simply that every law discriminates: between murderers and non-murderers, between wealthy and not-wealthy; between those who drive over a certain speed limit and those who don't. The question is not whether a law discriminates or favors one over another - they all do. The question is whether there is a rational basis for the discrimination. In your example of murder, different societies draw different distinctions between how they treat those who kill others. In some states, self-defense is encouraged more than in other states, so that in a particular case, a person who exercises self-defense may be granted a special favor that is not available in another state. It's all about drawing distinctions, and that depends upon what goals a particular society has, what implicit or explicit value judgments it has made.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 05, 2012, 10:52:45 PM
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.
And a society could, in fact, restrict the term "marriage" and its benefits only to heterosexual couples intent on having children. All that is required is for a society to decide upon a value system and then create laws that reasonably encourage the desired behavior. For example, it is well established that teenage girls who get pregnant, drop out of school and become single mothers end up being poorer than those who wait until their education is finished and then have children in a family setting. The "Cinderella Effect" also shows that abuse is more likely to occur from a step-parent than a parent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect. So a society could decide that the optimum situation is to encourage young girls to stay in school, wait until marriage to have children, and then stay in that marriage in order to prevent split families.
I repeat, in case anyone did not read my previous post, that I have no objection to gay marriage or equal rights. I'm making a hypothetical argument only.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 11:00:24 PMMy point is simply that every law discriminates. . .
What you say makes sense to some degree, and if you had initially said that law is a means by which society recognizes distinctions, and enforces desired distinctions, I probably wouldn't have taken issue. However, I don't see that not interfering with the life of an individual who hasn't committed murder is a form of favor, special or ordinary.
Quote from: Recusant on August 05, 2012, 11:17:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 11:00:24 PMMy point is simply that every law discriminates. . .
What you say makes sense to some degree, and if you had initially said that law is a means by which society recognizes distinctions, and enforces desired distinctions, I probably wouldn't have taken issue. However, I don't see that not interfering with the life of an individual who hasn't committed murder is a form of favor, special or ordinary.
I probably exaggerated my point in my exuberant attempt to make one.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 05, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 05, 2012, 10:52:45 PM
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.
And a society could, in fact, restrict the term "marriage" and its benefits only to heterosexual couples intent on having children. All that is required is for a society to decide upon a value system and then create laws that reasonably encourage the desired behavior. For example, it is well established that teenage girls who get pregnant, drop out of school and become single mothers end up being poorer than those who wait until their education is finished and then have children in a family setting. The "Cinderella Effect" also shows that abuse is more likely to occur from a step-parent than a parent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect. So a society could decide that the optimum situation is to encourage young girls to stay in school, wait until marriage to have children, and then stay in that marriage in order to prevent split families.
The fact that society decides on a value system doesn't make it right. The Nazis decided upon a set of values that would be considered wrong by nearly everyone alive today.
If America decides that nuclear families are better than broken homes the authorities may be justified in discouraging behavior likely to lead to such a situation but that doesn't justify denying marriage equality.
You certainly could say that laws encouraging teenage girls to stay in school and wait until marriage to have children is beneficial to society. I would agree with you here, however this is no reason to descriminate against single mothers who decide to get married later in life which would descriminate against both the mother and the child by putting them at a disadvantage with regards to those members of society who did wait.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 05, 2012, 07:46:30 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 05, 2012, 07:39:01 PM
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?
Well once you accept morality is subjective, then presumably you don't label the genital- mutilators as wrong, but rather as espousing a moral code which you do not share. You can certainly stand over a subjective morality by an appeal to a set of underpinning values or principles; but it won't be possible to demonstrate that those values and principles represent universal truths.
Ecurb, I'm sorry. My reasoning was mistaken earlier and I apologise for that error. When I said you would need to show that traditional families are more beneficial to society I should have said you would need to show that non-traditional families are detrimental to society. I sincerely apologize. I was typing that post on the ferry and sent it without proofreading.
Now that I have had to reflect I hope you will allow me to present my case more clearly in saying that societal aims do not, in my view surpass what is right and wrong. Objective moral values are the values that reasonable people would give to each other if they did not know what their future place in society would be. The reason I consider them to be objective is because they do not depend upon the opinions of any individual.
When the idea is boiled down the result seems to say that it is wrong either to harm people, or to fail to help them. I know that I could be wrong in this view, and am open to alternatives, but I really think it is the case. Reasonable people would, I believe, decide that murder is wrong because it hurts the victims. Similarly denying people the right to marry hurts them by keeping them from receiving the same benefits as the rest of society.
Regarding the Cinderella Effect, after looking it up on wikipedia I see a large section relating to critisism of the idea. Not being well versed in evolutionary psychology I cannot comment further until I have done some more research, but it would still hurt single mothers ( and widows ) who desired to get married to provide a more stable environment for their children.
I'm kinda surprised Sweetdeath hasn't weighed in on this controversy. SD, anything to add ???
Quote from: jumbojak on August 06, 2012, 01:53:55 AM
Ecurb, I'm sorry. My reasoning was mistaken earlier and I apologise for that error. When I said you would need to show that traditional families are more beneficial to society I should have said you would need to show that non-traditional families are detrimental to society. I sincerely apologize. I was typing that post on the ferry and sent it without proofreading.
Now that I have had to reflect I hope you will allow me to present my case more clearly in saying that societal aims do not, in my view surpass what is right and wrong. Objective moral values are the values that reasonable people would give to each other if they did not know what their future place in society would be. The reason I consider them to be objective is because they do not depend upon the opinions of any individual.
When the idea is boiled down the result seems to say that it is wrong either to harm people, or to fail to help them. I know that I could be wrong in this view, and am open to alternatives, but I really think it is the case. Reasonable people would, I believe, decide that murder is wrong because it hurts the victims. Similarly denying people the right to marry hurts them by keeping them from receiving the same benefits as the rest of society.
Regarding the Cinderella Effect, after looking it up on wikipedia I see a large section relating to critisism of the idea. Not being well versed in evolutionary psychology I cannot comment further until I have done some more research, but it would still hurt single mothers ( and widows ) who desired to get married to provide a more stable environment for their children.
My only point about all this is that a society might decide, based on certain values, that promotion of biological nuclear families is the optimum situation, and tailor their laws for this. It doesn't have to be aimed against homosexuality or anyone else. It can be based on a rational process intended to promote a particular goal. They could decide that they want to minimize divorce and legal costs associated with it, split families, single parent homes, etc. They could treat heterosexual marriages with children better than other relationships to accomplish this goal. I don't think there would be anything objectively wrong about this, even though I think as an egalitarian society that would not be our goal.
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 12:53:15 AM
Well once you accept morality is subjective, then presumably you don't label the genital- mutilators as wrong, but rather as espousing a moral code which you do not share.
I can do both. I can acknowledge that they have a moral code I do not share and that as far as genital mutilation goes, their morality is wrong. I also recognize that there are probably a great many things about my moral code that they would consider wrong. There's nothing about the subjectiveness of morality that says you can't argue for the superiority of your own, at least on certain points if not over all.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 06, 2012, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 12:53:15 AM
Well once you accept morality is subjective, then presumably you don't label the genital- mutilators as wrong, but rather as espousing a moral code which you do not share.
I can do both. I can acknowledge that they have a moral code I do not share and that as far as genital mutilation goes, their morality is wrong. I also recognize that there are probably a great many things about my moral code that they would consider wrong. There's nothing about the subjectiveness of morality that says you can't argue for the superiority of your own, at least on certain points if not over all.
Yes, I've been meaning to say something along these lines. I also think it's just a matter of word choice. Someone might wear plaid parachute paints and I might utter "oh, that's so wrong". I don't mean that it's morally, objectively wrong in a real sense -- it's just easier to say than "Given the opinions I've gleamed from the modern fashion community, my social background, genetic makeup, and subconscious desires, I don't think this pant choice fits with the expected conventions of appealing attire." Technically, the second statement is more accurate, but "that's so wrong" sums up my impressions and
feelings much more succinctly.
I don't think it's safe to assume that everyone who uses the word "wrong" means it in an absolutist sense.
It's like the word "choice", you might not technically believe in free will, but you still probably have to use language that implies that you do. If someone asks you where you decided to go on vacation, you wouldn't say "we didn't decide anywhere -- through a sea of stimuli, values, and experiences we were inevitably programmed to select Jamaica as a destination. Can't wait!" No, you just say "Jamaica!" At least, any normal person would. :P
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 06, 2012, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 12:53:15 AM
Well once you accept morality is subjective, then presumably you don't label the genital- mutilators as wrong, but rather as espousing a moral code which you do not share.
I can do both. I can acknowledge that they have a moral code I do not share and that as far as genital mutilation goes, their morality is wrong. I also recognize that there are probably a great many things about my moral code that they would consider wrong. There's nothing about the subjectiveness of morality that says you can't argue for the superiority of your own, at least on certain points if not over all.
I am unsure how you can assert that your subjective morality is superior to someone else's subjective morality without reference to objective criteria.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 06, 2012, 01:45:55 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 06, 2012, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 12:53:15 AM
Well once you accept morality is subjective, then presumably you don't label the genital- mutilators as wrong, but rather as espousing a moral code which you do not share.
I can do both. I can acknowledge that they have a moral code I do not share and that as far as genital mutilation goes, their morality is wrong. I also recognize that there are probably a great many things about my moral code that they would consider wrong. There's nothing about the subjectiveness of morality that says you can't argue for the superiority of your own, at least on certain points if not over all.
Yes, I've been meaning to say something along these lines. I also think it's just a matter of word choice. Someone might wear plaid parachute paints and I might utter "oh, that's so wrong". I don't mean that it's morally, objectively wrong in a real sense -- it's just easier to say than "Given the opinions I've gleamed from the modern fashion community, my social background, genetic makeup, and subconscious desires, I don't think this pant choice fits with the expected conventions of appealing attire." Technically, the second statement is more accurate, but "that's so wrong" sums up my impressions and feelings much more succinctly.
I don't think it's safe to assume that everyone who uses the word "wrong" means it in an absolutist sense.
It's like the word "choice", you might not technically believe in free will, but you still probably have to use language that implies that you do. If someone asks you where you decided to go on vacation, you wouldn't say "we didn't decide anywhere -- through a sea of stimuli, values, and experiences we were inevitably programmed to select Jamaica as a destination. Can't wait!" No, you just say "Jamaica!" At least, any normal person would. :P
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 think you are also being unduly harsh on the wearers of plaid parachute pants as this is obviously a cry for help.
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 09:06:59 PM
I think you are also being unduly harsh on the wearers of plaid parachute pants as this is obviously a cry for help.
Let me interject with a "LOL" here. Carry on.
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
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.
QuoteWhen 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.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 06, 2012, 02:02:14 AM
I'm kinda surprised Sweetdeath hasn't weighed in on this controversy. SD, anything to add ???
I'm here, i've just been lurking. ;D
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. >:(
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 07, 2012, 03:19:14 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
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?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 07, 2012, 06:05:51 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 07, 2012, 03:19:14 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 06, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
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.
QuoteWhen 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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 07, 2012, 12:54:41 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 07, 2012, 06:05:51 AM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 02:22:33 PM
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.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 07, 2012, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 02:22:33 PM
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,
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 07, 2012, 12:54:41 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 07, 2012, 06:05:51 AM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 06:15:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 08, 2012, 01:36:46 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 06:15:07 PM
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...
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 08, 2012, 10:32:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 09, 2012, 01:41:29 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 09, 2012, 06:07:53 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
With culture or society being common between both parties. I don't see it as unreasonable to assume that people from the same educational and societal background share some of the more basic moral guidelines, if in the same situation (same goals, no large power asymmetry, etc.).
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 09, 2012, 01:41:29 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
So why is rape wrong?
Quote from: jumbojak on August 06, 2012, 01:53:55 AM
Reasonable people would, I believe, decide that murder is wrong because it hurts the victims.
It seems most atheists (at least the ones on this forum) don't think murder is wrong (in all cases), especially when the very loose "murder" term can be considered as applied willingly by a pregnant woman onto her unborn fetus. The fetus is human and it is alive, it is a person although at the very early stages of its life, thus it is an unwitting victum in an abortion.
Some people (myself included) would consider it appropriate to terminate the lives of serial rapists and murderers.
Does this mean we are not reasonable? Does this mean we ought to support a law against abortion, thus force our opinions onto these pregnant women, even though their potential abortion has no impact on us?
Quote from: jumbojak on August 06, 2012, 01:53:55 AM
Similarly denying people the right to marry hurts them by keeping them from receiving the same benefits as the rest of society.
For gay people it is like singling them out, on the one hand you have regular normal people getting married if they want to, on the other hand you have the "gays" having Civil Unions because the regular normal people don't want to include "gays" in their group.
If you take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a16. This is an attempt to document and protect what people consider as utmost important to the human species. Article 16
QuoteMen and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family
. It is disappointing that they haven't included gender or sexual orientation into the list of "without any limitation due to", one day I am sure it will be there. Gay people are humans aren't they? Shouldn't they have human rights bestowing the right to marry and to found a family?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 09, 2012, 06:07:53 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
I agree and you have to look at the context. Maybe on some matters it is easier to see that the proposition is meant to be universal and unqualified, such as the holocaust or ,as Jumbojak has just mooted, rape.
Quote from: En_Route on August 07, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
I think though there is a world of difference between saying this is wrong and saying this seems wrong to me.
The majority of the world are theists, they consider god's law to be morality and they consider god's morality to be universal and unchanging, in other words "objective". The dedicated theists spend a great deal of effort changing the way they think so that they can agree with what they are taught by their religious mentors.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Seeing a world where rape is wrong and always has been
Are you sure about that? There have been times where some people considered rape to be the right thing to do.
The authors of the old testament had their beloved Moses command his army to rape virgin girls.
I am sure that throughout real history there have been kings and rulers command that the people they have conquered be raped. I am not sure how accurate Braveheart was, but that was the situation depicted in that film.
There are many animal species that commit rape, even humans do it. Why? Because that is what animals do (not all, but some).
As a society we need to stop this because it is dangerous and we desire to live in a peaceful society.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
It is entirely possible to determine that an action is wrong
No it is not possible at all. You need a goal or a defining principle for which to judge an action against. Thus you can say X is wrong because it takes us away from goal Y or violates principle Z. But without these goals or principles the cosmos has no sense of right or wrong. So the problem is trying to get everyone to agree with a common set of goals or principles. At the moment most Christians think the goal is to be close to god, and for some that means stopping people from committing immoral gay sex. How can you debate a topic based on morality when the other person thinks god is perfect and all knowing and has laid out what is right and wrong? They will never listen to a mere human who disagrees with their god's morality.
Quote from: Stevil on August 09, 2012, 11:26:48 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Seeing a world where rape is wrong and always has been
Are you sure about that? There have been times where some people considered rape to be the right thing to do.
The authors of the old testament had their beloved Moses command his army to rape virgin girls.
I am sure that throughout real history there have been kings and rulers command that the people they have conquered be raped. I am not sure how accurate Braveheart was, but that was the situation depicted in that film.
There are many animal species that commit rape, even humans do it. Why? Because that is what animals do (not all, but some).
As a society we need to stop this because it is dangerous and we desire to live in a peaceful society.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
It is entirely possible to determine that an action is wrong
No it is not possible at all. You need a goal or a defining principle for which to judge an action against. Thus you can say X is wrong because it takes us away from goal Y or violates principle Z. But without these goals or principles the cosmos has no sense of right or wrong. So the problem is trying to get everyone to agree with a common set of goals or principles. At the moment most Christians think the goal is to be close to god, and for some that means stopping people from committing immoral gay sex. How can you debate a topic based on morality when the other person thinks god is perfect and all knowing and has laid out what is right and wrong? They will never listen to a mere human who disagrees with their god's morality.
Even if everyone in the world agreed on a common morality, this wouldn't give it an objective reality. Morality would remain a social construct not a brute fact.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 09, 2012, 01:41:29 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
So why is rape wrong?
Bend over and I'll demonstrate ;)
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 09, 2012, 01:41:29 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 12:11:55 AM
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.
So why is rape wrong?
Rape is wrong because reasonable people given the task of deciding what is right and wrong would decide that rape is wrong. This sort of reasoning would have to take place behind a 'veil of ignorance' but I believe that reasonable people converge on a particular set of values. Such reasoning does give us a set of values that are nearly universal
The same sort of reasoning can be applied to murder: reasonable people would decide that it is wrong to commit an unjustified homicide. We can argue until the cows come home about when homicide 'is' justified ( self defense comes to mind ) but that doesn't change the fact that killing another human without reason is universally rejected
As for Moses ordering the rape of women in the Old Testament, yes I think it was wrong. The fact that a society arbitrarily decides upon a set of values, does not mean that the society in question has good reasons for choosing those values. As for animals 'raping' one another I do not think that such a comparison is appropriate here
Were these animals capable of stepping back to examine their action's consequenses, then I think the argument could have some force. Perhaps I should have been clearer that it is the capacity for reason that gives humans the capacity for morality. The animals don't have such a capacity, just like toddlers don't have that sort of capacity.
When a toddler breaks a dish intentionally, they are incapable of understanding that their actions have consequenses ansd should be treated accordingly. When an adult breaks a dish, they are capable of grasping the consequenses, and if that dish belongs to someone else the adult in question has done something wrong.
Why? It is because reasonable people would decide that it is wrong to break other people's things. Let me be clear that I do not claim to know every actions moral significance. I merely think that there is a universal set of values which reasonable people would agree to. This is a subject that we have to continue working on as new situations arise.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 09, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
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.
It doesn't seem to be the case that very few people here subscribe to ideas of objective morality. Asserting that something is wrong by your measure may be of passing interest to others but forms no basis for rational debate. I'd add that to argue that someone is mistaken is not tantamount to questioning their intelligence.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 04:25:27 PM
It doesn't seem to be the case that very few people here subscribe to ideas of objective morality. Asserting that something is wrong by your measure may be of passing interest to others but forms no basis for rational debate. I'd add that to argue that someone is mistaken is not tantamount to questioning their intelligence.
For me an implication of subjective morality is you don't try for simple answers to problems. Much of the time matters are too complex and it's best to keep an open mind, not reach a conclusion, not unless you have too. I can reach a conclusion on female genital mutilation easy enough though.
QuoteSo how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
From high on your hobby horse you continually whack people with this, as if it's the latest thing. Perhaps it wouldn't bug me as much if you weren't so jolly keen to mock and condemn sixteen year old Asian girls as drug cheats.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 09, 2012, 05:19:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 04:25:27 PM
It doesn't seem to be the case that very few people here subscribe to ideas of objective morality. Asserting that something is wrong by your measure may be of passing interest to others but forms no basis for rational debate. I'd add that to argue that someone is mistaken is not tantamount to questioning their intelligence.
For me an implication of subjective morality is you don't try for simple answers to problems. Much of the time matters are too complex and it's best to keep an open mind, not reach a conclusion, not unless you have too. I can reach a conclusion on female genital mutilation easy enough though.
QuoteSo how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply something is self- evident, then I know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.
From high on your hobby horse you continually whack people with this, as if it's the latest thing. Perhaps it wouldn't bug me as much if you weren't so jolly keen to mock and condemn sixteen year old Asian girls as drug cheats.
I think you'll find that I neither mocked or condemned her. Gaming the system is after all part of the modern Olympic ideal. Why her age, gender or ethnicity are relevant for you, I've no idea. Are there only certain categories of people for whom it is allowable to raise questions over the authenticity of their performances?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 09, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
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
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
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.
Rape is wrong because the person being raped does not want to be raped.
Quote from: Tank on August 09, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on August 09, 2012, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 09, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
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.
This is all very deep and meaningful but what does any of it have to do with chicken? ::)
Why... Working for coin to be spent on chicken. That's wrong on SO many levels - the proper way is just recieving chicken.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on August 09, 2012, 09:24:32 PM
This is all very deep and meaningful but what does any of it have to do with chicken? ::)
We're getting there.
Quote from: Tank on August 09, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on August 09, 2012, 07:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 09, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
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
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 12:22:26 AM
Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.
Is abortion moral?
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 11:18:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 01:33:08 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 12:22:26 AM
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?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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?
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:08:29 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 11:18:37 PM
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.
Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality. If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not. Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 10, 2012, 02:36:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 11:18:37 PM
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.
Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality. If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not. Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.
Why is it that God is the only possible ground for objective morality? This seems like question begging to me. In order to make the argument work, you must define God as the source for objective morality, and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
How would you go about proving your system is true? That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
Which you can never do.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.
If God exists and if God created the universe, then it's all for him. He created it because it was in his nature to create it. Since it is all for him and it reflects his nature, it conforms to his nature to act in a manner that conforms to his nature (i.e.: obeying God, which is what God did when he created - he obeyed his own nature). Thus, even obeying God stems from his nature, and it is not a value outside of his nature.
Quote from: En_Route on August 10, 2012, 01:51:51 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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?
Because if people have a good reason to respect others, then they'll take it into consideration. I generally don't want to cause harm to those close to me, who I respect and or have sympathies for. Of course this excludes a number of people, but that's something else entirely.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 10, 2012, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
How would you go about proving your system is true? That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.
From a philosophical standpoint, and keep in mind I am a very amateurish philosopher, it seems like these values are logically neccesary. I could be arguing from incredulity here, but I cannot imagine any society which could operate on the principle, "You must murder." It would be like Nazis shooting other Nazis instead of saying hello to each other. I just do not see how such a society could function.
These conclusions seem inescapable among any life-form sufficently adapted, to be capable of reflecting on the consequenses of their actions. This leads me to think that our understanding of this standard has advanced along with civilization. I'm reaching here, but the patterns from world cultures seem to adhere to remarkably similar forms of values although they often seem to take a very primitive form
For example, the Bible indirectly outlaws rape in the Mosaic Law. However, it also defines rape in such a way as to only apply to Jewish women, and even then applied inhumane punishments to the victims. They were rational enough to relize that rape was wrong. They just were not rational enough to realize that their marriage practices amounted to rape.
This is a little shaky, I know but it does seem to be plausible at least, and it is at least as strong as any theistic account. Not to mention that this view is accesible to atheists and theists alike. You don't have to lack a belief in God to believe values can be determined this way. If I am correct that a system of objective values must be true whether anyone believes in it or not, then God would neccesarily follow this system.
I don't know how you can deem anything right or wrong using rationality and logic alone.
If a star goes supernova and destroys the planets orbiting it, billions of life forms may die. Does this mean that it was immoral for the star to go supernova?
If you answer that the star doesn't make moral choices, then I have to question how you think you can make any choice what-so-ever.
Your body moves because your muscles contract and relax, they contract and relax because of electric signals sent from the brain. The brain operates on electric signals.
All of this occurs because it has to. Everything obeys the physical laws of material existence. Gravity attracts, electro-magnetism can attract or repel. All of this is predictable and happens exactly how it should because the alternative is impossible.
Now when you make a choice, do you really think you can decide to have an electron go down one path in your brain as opposed to an alternative path? You can no more decide the path of an electron in your brain than you can decide the path of lightening as it travels from the sky into the ground. Everything obeys the unchanging laws of material existence. There is no magic aspect to you, no metaphysical aspect that is uncaused (by the laws of material existence) which can decide to cause anything in material existence to disobey the laws that must be obeyed.
You only think you make choices, your mind rationalises that which is inevitable and you tell yourself, "yeah, I made that happen, that was my decision", thus you think you are alive, conscious and able to make choices when really you are merely an observer. Just like the a star, you do what you do, because you have no choice, you must obey the laws of material existence.
Now how does morality have anything to do with that?
A star cannot be moral, neither can a rock or an atom, neither can you.
I can make choices, do it all the time.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here I am in this moment, the universe has made me through actions external to me and actions by a related earlier me. I'm me and I can make decisions, how I got here is irrelevant, whether a super being could have predicted everything I've done and will do is irrelevant, I did them. I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe. I am the thing the universe created which will make the decisions I will make. I own me, the universe may bump me on the head and change me and I'll do things differently.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 10, 2012, 09:49:32 AM
I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.
Then you are a god manipulating material existence with your supernatural power. That is magic!
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 10, 2012, 09:49:32 AM
I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.
Then you are a god manipulating material existence with your supernatural power. That is magic!
Naturally, Magic is my middle name.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 10, 2012, 02:36:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 09, 2012, 11:18:37 PM
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.
Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality. If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not. Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.
Why is it that God is the only possible ground for objective morality? This seems like question begging to me. In order to make the argument work, you must define God as the source for objective morality, and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.
You can never create a moral system that is true irrespective of whether any believes it or not. All you can do is pluck ideas out of the air and make assertions which are unverifiable and unprovable. The very notion that there is a golden moral standard by which we must all be judged may be no more than a kind of sublimated theism. Having ditched the transparent nonsense of God, there is a tendency to worship at the altar of ethical values which we use to give a sense of meaning, purpose and dignity to our lives as well as in some cases a sense of moral superiority over others who do not subscribe to our shiny principles.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 03:34:33 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 10, 2012, 01:51:51 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 10, 2012, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 09, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
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?
Because if people have a good reason to respect others, then they'll take it into consideration. I generally don't want to cause harm to those close to me, who I respect and or have sympathies for. Of course this excludes a number of people, but that's something else entirely.
That's a natural human inclination, but it doesn't provide any basis for arguing in favour of an objective morality.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 04:14:32 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 10, 2012, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on August 10, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.
How would you go about proving your system is true? That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.
From a philosophical standpoint, and keep in mind I am a very amateurish philosopher, it seems like these values are logically neccesary. I could be arguing from incredulity here, but I cannot imagine any society which could operate on the principle, "You must murder." It would be like Nazis shooting other Nazis instead of saying hello to each other. I just do not see how such a society could function.
These conclusions seem inescapable among any life-form sufficently adapted, to be capable of reflecting on the consequenses of their actions. This leads me to think that our understanding of this standard has advanced along with civilization. I'm reaching here, but the patterns from world cultures seem to adhere to remarkably similar forms of values although they often seem to take a very primitive form
For example, the Bible indirectly outlaws rape in the Mosaic Law. However, it also defines rape in such a way as to only apply to Jewish women, and even then applied inhumane punishments to the victims. They were rational enough to relize that rape was wrong. They just were not rational enough to realize that their marriage practices amounted to rape.
This is a little shaky, I know but it does seem to be plausible at least, and it is at least as strong as any theistic account. Not to mention that this view is accesible to atheists and theists alike. You don't have to lack a belief in God to believe values can be determined this way. If I am correct that a system of objective values must be true whether anyone believes in it or not, then God would neccesarily follow this system.
I think it is right that every society puts limits of some kind on when you can justifiably kill. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective but our predisposition to internalise moral rules don't make them "real" in the sense that they exist outside human thought processes.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 10, 2012, 09:49:32 AM
I can make choices, do it all the time.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here I am in this moment, the universe has made me through actions external to me and actions by a related earlier me. I'm me and I can make decisions, how I got here is irrelevant, whether a super being could have predicted everything I've done and will do is irrelevant, I did them. I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe. I am the thing the universe created which will make the decisions I will make. I own me, the universe may bump me on the head and change me and I'll do things differently.
All true. Though there is nobody to whom any ultimate responsibility for those choices can be assigned.
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
I don't know how you can deem anything right or wrong using rationality and logic alone.
If a star goes supernova and destroys the planets orbiting it, billions of life forms may die. Does this mean that it was immoral for the star to go supernova?
If you answer that the star doesn't make moral choices, then I have to question how you think you can make any choice what-so-ever.
Your body moves because your muscles contract and relax, they contract and relax because of electric signals sent from the brain. The brain operates on electric signals.
All of this occurs because it has to. Everything obeys the physical laws of material existence. Gravity attracts, electro-magnetism can attract or repel. All of this is predictable and happens exactly how it should because the alternative is impossible.
Now when you make a choice, do you really think you can decide to have an electron go down one path in your brain as opposed to an alternative path? You can no more decide the path of an electron in your brain than you can decide the path of lightening as it travels from the sky into the ground. Everything obeys the unchanging laws of material existence. There is no magic aspect to you, no metaphysical aspect that is uncaused (by the laws of material existence) which can decide to cause anything in material existence to disobey the laws that must be obeyed.
You only think you make choices, your mind rationalises that which is inevitable and you tell yourself, "yeah, I made that happen, that was my decision", thus you think you are alive, conscious and able to make choices when really you are merely an observer. Just like the a star, you do what you do, because you have no choice, you must obey the laws of material existence.
Now how does morality have anything to do with that?
A star cannot be moral, neither can a rock or an atom, neither can you.
I am not sure that that there may not be scope for quantum- style indeterminacy in human actions, but this dgoesn't really affect your analysis I guess. I am not so sure that your analysis necessarily implies that there could not be an objective morality although it refutes the idea of ultimate moral responsibility . I reject the notion of objective morality because to my mind it is an example of the classic error of reifying abstract ideas, as if what people cook up in their minds has any kind of objective reality outside their minds.
Quote from: En_Route on August 10, 2012, 12:06:20 PM
All true. Though there is nobody to whom any ultimate responsibility for those choices can be assigned.
Ultimate responsibility? That's a funny notion. With what that lays I don't know, the big bang, or whatever preceded it I suppose. It's not really useful for me to worry about that in day to day life. If a car part malfunctions remove it, same goes for people. I do think it wise though to consider why these things failed and perhaps prevent future failure. Nevertheless I can assign responsibility for hindering the smooth operation of a car or society to a timing belt or an antisocial human respectively.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 10, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 10, 2012, 12:06:20 PM
All true. Though there is nobody to whom any ultimate responsibility for those choices can be assigned.
Ultimate responsibility? That's a funny notion. With what that lays I don't know, the big bang, or whatever preceded it I suppose. It's not really useful for me to worry about that in day to day life. If a car part malfunctions remove it, same goes for people. I do think it wise though to consider why these things failed and perhaps prevent future failure. Nevertheless I can assign responsibility for hindering the smooth operation of a car or society to a timing belt or an antisocial human respectively.
It is a funny notion and once you see it such it is yet another pointer to the absurdity of a God who sentences some of his creation to eternal torment.
Quote from: Stevil on August 10, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
I don't know how you can deem anything right or wrong using rationality and logic alone.
If a star goes supernova and destroys the planets orbiting it, billions of life forms may die. Does this mean that it was immoral for the star to go supernova?
If you answer that the star doesn't make moral choices, then I have to question how you think you can make any choice what-so-ever.
Your body moves because your muscles contract and relax, they contract and relax because of electric signals sent from the brain. The brain operates on electric signals.
All of this occurs because it has to. Everything obeys the physical laws of material existence. Gravity attracts, electro-magnetism can attract or repel. All of this is predictable and happens exactly how it should because the alternative is impossible.
Now when you make a choice, do you really think you can decide to have an electron go down one path in your brain as opposed to an alternative path? You can no more decide the path of an electron in your brain than you can decide the path of lightening as it travels from the sky into the ground. Everything obeys the unchanging laws of material existence. There is no magic aspect to you, no metaphysical aspect that is uncaused (by the laws of material existence) which can decide to cause anything in material existence to disobey the laws that must be obeyed.
You only think you make choices, your mind rationalises that which is inevitable and you tell yourself, "yeah, I made that happen, that was my decision", thus you think you are alive, conscious and able to make choices when really you are merely an observer. Just like the a star, you do what you do, because you have no choice, you must obey the laws of material existence.
Now how does morality have anything to do with that?
A star cannot be moral, neither can a rock or an atom, neither can you.
An expolding star is incapable of rational reflection, in the same way a toddler is. Neither is capable of reasoning about their action, and in the case of the star, you do not even have access to a compatibilist free fill. Our capacity for reason is what grants us the capacity for morality.
aIt may be true that rational beings are totally deterministic ( although quantum uncertainty could show that this is not the case ) however this does not change the fact that we are presented with choices that we do make every day. Whether or not we could have made any other choice is irrelevant to the fact that we process input from our senses and decide what to do next.
And just because there is no materialistic principle which compels us to act morally does not mean it is impossible to do so. There is no materialistic principle which compels us to think rationally. We are free to contradict ourselves and and commit any number of logical fallacies, however an individual who does so is irrational. In the same way we are free to behave in a manner which is not in accordance with rational moral principles. When someone does that they are acting immorally.