Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[Ecurb Noselrub]

. . . 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.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.

[Recusant]

My 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.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

My 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.

[jumbojak]

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.

[En_Route]

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.

[jumbojak]

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.

[MadBomr101]

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

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.     

[Sandra Craft]

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.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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. 

[En_Route]

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.

[En_Route]

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. 

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

[Sandra Craft]

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

It's easy, that's my opinion.

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

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

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