A Moral Issue

[Astralinre]

 

My view is in tune with reality, his is 2000 years old. I beleive mine to have better relevance as a practical method rather than an ideological one. Of we are talking ideolgies i would probably be communist. However human nature makes that impossible in my opinions and my views based on Mill's harm principle is a good balance between individual and state. Again my views are subjective and therefore not absolute truth just my personal thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First bold: Why do your views of valid justification matter if morals are subjective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second bold: So why should we make laws based on your personal thoughts rather than theirs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

Astra, it probably has something to do with the fact that his morals come from a 6,000 year old book that may very well be fiction, and ours come from our own personal common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yea, I'd say ours are pretty much better...Unless you're planning on getting your morals from Harry Potter or something anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, assuming subjective morality, as Satenza does, and as I am doing for the sake of discussion, why does it matter where their morals come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think that whether or not something is "up-to-date" is a valid justification for morals. Other people believe that it isn't. If morals are subjective, why does your opinion matter more than theirs?

[Astralinre]

Oops, I hit quote instead of edit. :oops:

[Satenza]

There subjective but the relevance to our times is a lot less than mine. My opinion doesn't matter more than there's i take mine to be more valid than theres because it's based on society at present and not 2,000 years ago.

[Astralinre]

There subjective but the relevance to our times is a lot less than mine. My opinion doesn't matter more than there's i take mine to be more valid than theres because it's based on society at present and not 2,000 years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why must relevance to our current society be a justification for morals? Why do you insist on forcing your personal views of justification on others? If morals are subjective, their justifications are just as valid as yours regardless of what they're based on, or how old that base is.

[Tigra00]

Because other people are stupid. "Other people" also believe that blacks are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe women are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe that homosexuals are lesser beings who apparently spread AIDS, which is predominantly a HETEROSEXUAL disease, not a homosexual one. Don't believe me? Go look up the numbers in Africa. I'd wager that 99% of all cases there were gotten through heterosexual intercourse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, yea..."Other people" are wrong. The people who are right are the people who can sit down and say "You know what? Those two gay guys aren't bothering me. They're living their life as they please and that doesn't hurt me. Infact, good for them!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT : "Eww, those disgusting pigs need to get out of my sight! They're going straight to Hell!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, you and I both know that is the reaction of religious people as a whole. Of course you'll argue and say "Nay, we wish for them to be saved and have a better life!" well good for you. You're still using that to cover your bigotry towards them. Perhaps they don't want - nay, they don't NEED - to conform to "your" views, aye?

[Astralinre]

Because other people are stupid. "Other people" also believe that blacks are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe women are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe that homosexuals are lesser beings who apparently spread AIDS, which is predominantly a HETEROSEXUAL disease, not a homosexual one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say so? Why should we listen to you?

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

No such thing. If all morals are subjective, as Satenza assumes, and as I am assuming for the sake of talking with him, then there is no absolute evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there is, you're taking this to a way too theoretical level. Killing somebody is an absolute evil, because nobody WANTS to be killed. There is not a single person in the world who wants to be murdered, other than probably a few hundred mentally unstable people. Then yes, the 6 billion other people are right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stealing is an absolute evil. Why? Stealing is prohibited in every single country because every single country contains humans. Humans don't like having their items stolen. No human wants to be stolen from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not an absolute evil, not even an evil. Why? Some people are born gay, and they can't do anything about it. Homosexuality is not prohibited in most societies, and some countries offer them the option of legal marriage (South Africa, Canada, The Netherlands to name a few)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why isn't being gay prohibited, like murdering or stealing? Why do some governments even endorse it? It is not a direct threat to anything in society. They work. They eat. They produce. They can adopt children. They are not a source of evil, like a robber or a murderer. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a historical example, in Greece, it was even normal to be gay. Still, in Greece, it was not normal to be a murderer or robber. They were still punished, gay people were not. Common sense alone, let alone any discussion of morals dictates homosexuality cannot be rationally proven 'evil'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example

 

 

 

---------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm for abortion, because I support the woman's right to choose. However, a person such as Locke who disagrees with me has a higher moral stance. Why? I theoretically support the killing of a living being. Locke, on the other hand, disagrees and says the child should have the right to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's an example of moral superiority; My belief in that sense would cause more evil than the opposing belief; Hence my belief is not fully rational. It's just practical in today's world, but it's evil nonetheless.

[Astralinre]

 

 

 

 

No such thing. If all morals are subjective, as Satenza assumes, and as I am assuming for the sake of talking with him, then there is no absolute evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there is, you're taking this to a way too theoretical level. Killing somebody is an absolute evil, because nobody WANTS to be killed. There is not a single person in the world who wants to be murdered, other than probably a few hundred mentally unstable people. Then yes, the 6 billion other people are right. Morals come from what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stealing is an absolute evil. Why? Stealing is prohibited in every single country because every single country contains humans. Humans don't like having their items stolen. No human wants to be stolen from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not an absolute evil, not even an evil. Why? Some people are born gay, and they can't do anything about it. Homosexuality is not prohibited in most societies, and some countries offer them the option of legal marriage (South Africa, Canada, The Netherlands to name a few)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why isn't being gay prohibited, like murdering or stealing? Why do some governments even endorse it? It is not a direct threat to anything in society. They work. They eat. They produce. They can adopt children. They are not a source of evil, like a robber or a murderer. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are affirming that there is at least one absolute moral, which takes the discussion to a whole nother level. Satenza is saying that there are no absolute morals, yet is trying to justify imposing his morality on others. You are affirming at least one absolute moral, and the belief that if nobody in the world wants a certain thing to happen to them, that is a moral evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are proposing a principle of absolute morality based on what people want. Satenza is doing no such thing, therefore the two discussions are entirely different. In your system, murder and theft are absolutely wrong, while there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. In Satenza's system, there is no absolute wrong, yet he wants to impose his view of what is wrong on everybody else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we are going to assume absolute morals, the discussion shifts to discovering which system is really true. If you'd like to discuss the merits of your system of morality and why it is absolute, I'd be glad to do so with you. Since you're proposing the system, would you mind writing out your reasons for believing that "what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong" is the absolute system of morality?

[BlueLancer]

would you mind writing out your reasons for believing that "what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong" is the absolute system of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you write your reasons for disagreeing with such a system?

[Astralinre]

 

would you mind writing out your reasons for believing that "what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong" is the absolute system of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you write your reasons for disagreeing with such a system?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said I disagreed with it. In fact, I agree with it to some extent. I'd just like to see your reasons for agreeing with it. After all, if it is absolute, it ought to make logical sense, shouldn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we want to know truly whether or not it is a valid system of absolute morality, let's look at it on its own merits.

[Tigra00]

 

Because other people are stupid. "Other people" also believe that blacks are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe women are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe that homosexuals are lesser beings who apparently spread AIDS, which is predominantly a HETEROSEXUAL disease, not a homosexual one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say so? Why should we listen to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already told you why.

[Astralinre]

 

 

Because other people are stupid. "Other people" also believe that blacks are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe women are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe that homosexuals are lesser beings who apparently spread AIDS, which is predominantly a HETEROSEXUAL disease, not a homosexual one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say so? Why should we listen to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already told you why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say we should listen to you? Apart from that, I don't recall you saying any other reason. Since I missed it, would you please repeat it in terms that are more clear?

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

Because other people are stupid. "Other people" also believe that blacks are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe women are lesser beings. "Other people" also believe that homosexuals are lesser beings who apparently spread AIDS, which is predominantly a HETEROSEXUAL disease, not a homosexual one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say so? Why should we listen to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already told you why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you say we should listen to you? Apart from that, I don't recall you saying any other reason. Since I missed it, would you please repeat it in terms that are more clear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOUR BELIEFS ARE FROM A BOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ours are from our hearts in knowing what's right. Homosexuality may not be "normal" in the sense that they can't reproduce that way, but we know not to condemn them and shun then and not give them equal rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THAT is what makes us better than you. It is what makes our morals better than yours. Our morals transcend yours.

[Adam007]

This debate won't go anywhere unless we decide to refocus it. It's painful to even read because one side's trying to defend a specific issue, but the other side is on a whole different philosophical and theoretical level. And you can't argue practical morals against theoretical morals. Let's just try to target one issue, not both at once. It's just making us go in circles. Yes, we know you guys see a loophole in that people who don't set their morals by the bible don't have absolute values, but again, that's looking at things way too theoretically. Practically, we can have our own morals. They don't have to be all scientific hard fact, with absolute good and all of that. Morals are people's opinions of what is good and bad, and we're just trying to argue whether or not homosexual relationships are good for society, neutral, or bad, without going on all of these theoretical tangents.

[Astralinre]

YOUR BELIEFS ARE FROM A BOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ours are from our hearts in knowing what's right. Homosexuality may not be "normal" in the sense that they can't reproduce that way, but we know not to condemn them and shun then and not give them equal rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THAT is what makes us better than you. It is what makes our morals better than yours. Our morals transcend yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not stop talking about homosexuality when we are talking about systems of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not back up your statements with logic instead making insults and emotional appeals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not deal with my logic instead of insulting me and my beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world should I continue this discussion with you unless you are willing to deal with my logic instead of attacking me?

[Tigra00]

 

YOUR BELIEFS ARE FROM A BOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ours are from our hearts in knowing what's right. Homosexuality may not be "normal" in the sense that they can't reproduce that way, but we know not to condemn them and shun then and not give them equal rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THAT is what makes us better than you. It is what makes our morals better than yours. Our morals transcend yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not stop talking about homosexuality when we are talking about systems of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not back up your statements with logic instead making insults and emotional appeals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not deal with my logic instead of insulting me and my beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world should I continue this discussion with you unless you are willing to deal with my logic instead of attacking me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.) Homosexuality is an example of 'morals'. Thus the usage.

 

 

 

2.) All my statements are VERY logical. You fail to see the logic because you are blinded by the God bubble. You can't see it my way because if you do for a second, you'd be straying off God's path, fearing he'd send you straight to Hell. That's not my fault. What is not logical about not hating homosexuals and saying that they hurt NOONE? What's illogical is you saying the opposite.

 

 

 

3.) Don't deal with it then. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Christian stop spreading his hate.

[Astralinre]

1.) Homosexuality is an example of 'morals'. Thus the usage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's fine to use an example, but an example does no good in a philosophical discussion if it ignores the scope of that discussion. We are discussing moral systems, and you continue to ignore that discussion and use the example of homosexuality within one moral system, which I have questioned, and neither you nor Satenza have defended fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.) All my statements are VERY logical. You fail to see the logic because you are blinded by the God bubble. You can't see it my way because if you do for a second, you'd be straying off God's path, fearing he'd send you straight to Hell. That's not my fault. What is not logical about not hating homosexuals and saying that they hurt NOONE? What's illogical is you saying the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me your refutation of my logic. Show me where you have done anything but make emotional appeals and personal insults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.) Don't deal with it then. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Christian stop spreading his hate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When have I spread hate? When have I said anything about hating homosexuals? Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop making personal attacks.

[Tigra00]

 

1.) Homosexuality is an example of 'morals'. Thus the usage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's fine to use an example, but an example does no good in a philosophical discussion if it ignores the scope of that discussion. We are discussing moral systems, and you continue to ignore that discussion and use the example of homosexuality within one moral system, which I have questioned, and neither you nor Satenza have defended fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.) All my statements are VERY logical. You fail to see the logic because you are blinded by the God bubble. You can't see it my way because if you do for a second, you'd be straying off God's path, fearing he'd send you straight to Hell. That's not my fault. What is not logical about not hating homosexuals and saying that they hurt NOONE? What's illogical is you saying the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me your refutation of my logic. Show me where you have done anything but make emotional appeals and personal insults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.) Don't deal with it then. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Christian stop spreading his hate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When have I spread hate? When have I said anything about hating homosexuals? Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop making personal attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You arguing against us in itself is an attack on homosexuality. We're saying it's cool and hurts noone and you're sitting here talking about "moral systems" when noone gives a damn. Your morals suck. There, I addressed the system. It just sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I like personal attacks. They're funny. I have to fight stupidity with something, and I can't fight it with brain-power because your average Christian skull is 4 inches thick with Titanium plating. So I just go for mocking you and pointing out how hate-filled your religion is. Not necessarily you, but your religion.

[Astralinre]

You arguing against us in itself is an attack on homosexuality. We're saying it's cool and hurts noone and you're sitting here talking about "moral systems" when noone gives a damn. Your morals suck. There, I addressed the system. It just sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I like personal attacks. They're funny. I have to fight stupidity with something, and I can't fight it with brain-power because your average Christian skull is 4 inches thick with Titanium plating. So I just go for mocking you and pointing out how hate-filled your religion is. Not necessarily you, but your religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember to stick to personal insults the next time we have a discussion, rather than look at basic philosophical assumptions and their logical outworkings.

[Rebdragon]

Morals are not subjective. There IS a basic moral law of the universe, "Truth" if you will, and it's just that our interpretations of what "Truth" really is is the reason that it appears subjective. Basically, if Truth was put into a pie chart, much of what we know would exist outside of the chart, while what we do know would be a VERY small slice of the pie that is Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, this means that some people have bigger slices than other people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and Tigra, I think everyone stopped caring about your completely hidebound hate of all things religion a long time ago. Get over yourself and learn a thing or two about religion.

[Satenza]

You can't present opinion as fact, everything even self evident truths can be questioned.

[Astralinre]

Morals are not subjective. There IS a basic moral law of the universe, "Truth" if you will, and it's just that our interpretations of what "Truth" really is is the reason that it appears subjective. Basically, if Truth was put into a pie chart, much of what we know would exist outside of the chart, while what we do know would be a VERY small slice of the pie that is Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, this means that some people have bigger slices than other people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree entirely. However, for the sake of discussion, I was assuming Satenza's moral theory and looking at its logical outworkings. Once we enter the realm of absolute morals, our discussion becomes entirely different. Rather than fight over who gets to force their opinion, we begin to look at the absolutes we do know, and try to apply them both to practical situations, and to the things we don't know for sure.

[Rebdragon]

You can't present opinion as fact, everything even self evident truths can be questioned.

 

 

 

Exactly... no human understands what Truth is. No one ever will, it's impossible. If you're post was referring to me, then I guess you could say that I "strongly believe" that Truth exists, though there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind.

[Satenza]

I beleive in justified true beleif but Gettier even shows that is isn't always 100% correct. You did present that it was fact Reb which is what i meant.

[Rebdragon]

I've got a link for anyone who thinks that morals are completely subjective, and that there isn't a complete "moral law" to the universe-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/features/ ... -emoto.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an extract of a book I recently read, "The Hidden Messages in Water". Quite an interesting read. There's very much more than just discussion of morals there too :wink: . In fact, the objectivity of a natural law of morals is merely something that stems from the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: You guys'll love this link, pics and other info about the study:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.hado.net/watercrystals/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are some pics of the water crystals during the study, there's plenty of other pieces of info throughout the site :P .