Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[xSilverPhinx]

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.).

[En_Route]

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?

[Stevil]

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?

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

Men 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?

[En_Route]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

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.

[En_Route]

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.

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.

[Tank]

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 

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

[jumbojak]

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

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

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

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.

[En_Route]

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.

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

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.

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.

[En_Route]

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.

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.

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?

[Stevil]

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

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

Case in point

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

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

[Tank]

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