Marriage For Everyone!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you then. Maybe some clarification is in order. You said, I "accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society." By "moral law" and "views of society" I take the former as the right thing to do and the latter as what individuals may believe is the right thing to do. To me the two are not necessarily the same thing. People can be mistaken. So if 100% of the people were mistaken about what is moral, that would NOT make it moral. Society can have views which are just plain immoral (slavery for example). I don't expect that moral laws should change to accommodate what society views as moral simply on the basis that society views it as the case. I believe that there are common sense moral judgments which can be discerned and sometimes some people can be wrong. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement?

EDIT: That is why I disagreed with the statement that "moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society." Therefore I denied that I accept the statement.

You are crazy. If 100% of the population consider action X to be the correct moral action, then it is the correct moral action for that population.
Where the fuck do you think morality comes from? From the ether?

Is this to say that a person can never be incorrect or mistaken about a moral belief? So for example if I grew up in a society that told me from birth that slavery was "natural", "right" and ordained by the gods and 100% of the population considered this to be correct, I would be morally correct to believe that? Is moral truth simply whatever everyone agrees to?

EDIT: To answer your last question: I don't know where morality comes from. But it seems to me that we often discover it through engaging others and learning from them over time.

Slavery has been part of human society from at least 10,000 bp - 1800ce. Moral law relates to the conditions that pertain in the cultural and historical context that they occur.
Are you really trying to pretend that they were morally wrong for thousands of years? ~Of necessity that means you are morally wrong about most of your moral beliefs given a long enough time for human culture to make your views out of date.
If this seems absurd, then it is. But it is only so if you think that morality refers to universal and absolute principles.
Morality is about what fits, not what is about right and wrong (paradoxically).

"What is good is that which pleaseth man, Evil is that which pleaseth him not: Thomas Hobbes.

How do you feel about people suffering in Syria; about refugees; about illegal immigration?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are crazy. If 100% of the population consider action X to be the correct moral action, then it is the correct moral action for that population.
Where the fuck do you think morality comes from? From the ether?

I can't for the life of me see how morality could be definable in any other way. Thomas Jefferson said that all men were created equal but what he meant was that only all men like HIM were created equal. White,wealthy, aristocratic, slaveholding men with substantial holdings in land. Not black people or indigenous people or women or poor people or indeed any ordinary shitkickers like you and me. Was Jefferson an immoral man? I couldn't say because I didn't personally know the bloke but from what I've read of him he was just the opposite. Would he be an immoral man if he were to express these same views in today's social milieu. Too bloody right he would be.

In my experience people who think morality complies with absolute and universal rules tend to be exactly the same people who end up enforcing others to live their lives in ways they'd rather not. This is usually done in the name of religion, and leads to oppression and suffering.

[Gary Childress]

Slavery has been part of human society from at least 10,000 bp - 1800ce. Moral law relates to the conditions that pertain in the cultural and historical context that they occur.
Are you really trying to pretend that they were morally wrong for thousands of years? ~Of necessity that means you are morally wrong about most of your moral beliefs given a long enough time for human culture to make your views out of date.
If this seems absurd, then it is. But it is only so if you think that morality refers to universal and absolute principles.
Morality is about what fits, not what is about right and wrong (paradoxically).

"What is good is that which pleaseth man, Evil is that which pleaseth him not: Thomas Hobbes.

OK. So we all may know at least 3 things from your wise guidance:

1. My metaethical beliefs are messed up.

2. Slavery was morally right in its day.

3. Morality is not about right and wrong.

I will grant that #1 is probably correct. Since you would much rather engage me than Melchior, is there anything else you would like to either add or subtract from the list?

How do you feel about people suffering in Syria; about refugees; about illegal immigration?

I feel very badly for them.

[Obvious Leo]

As far as I'm concerned it's always the navel-gazing ethicists who give philosophy such a bad name in the wider community and subjects such as this don't help. Stories of right and wrong and good and evil are stories for the nuns to tell to children and for the priests to tell to adults with the minds of children. It assumes some sort of omnipotent moral accountant continuously assessing our deeds and allocating them a score either on the debit or credit side of the ledger.

What a crock of shit and what a spineless way to live a life. The notion of the examined life implies that we are all morally culpable for our own actions which means if you want to know who gets to judge the morality or otherwise of your behaviour you need look no further than the nearest mirror. You are utterly alone in the privacy of your own mind and thus the final and only arbiter of good and evil is YOU. What is or is not socially acceptable is an entirely different question and a continuously movable feast.

[Obvious Leo]

To translate this into English for those who missed the point.

If you reckon same-sex marriage is wrong then don't marry somebody of the same sex.

[Gary Childress]

As far as I'm concerned it's always the navel-gazing ethicists who give philosophy such a bad name in the wider community and subjects such as this don't help.

What is a "navel-gazing ethicist"?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Slavery has been part of human society from at least 10,000 bp - 1800ce. Moral law relates to the conditions that pertain in the cultural and historical context that they occur.
Are you really trying to pretend that they were morally wrong for thousands of years? ~Of necessity that means you are morally wrong about most of your moral beliefs given a long enough time for human culture to make your views out of date.
If this seems absurd, then it is. But it is only so if you think that morality refers to universal and absolute principles.
Morality is about what fits, not what is about right and wrong (paradoxically).

"What is good is that which pleaseth man, Evil is that which pleaseth him not: Thomas Hobbes.

OK. So we all may know at least 3 things from your wise guidance:

1. My metaethical beliefs are messed up.

2. Slavery was morally right in its day.

3. Morality is not about right and wrong.

I will grant that #1 is probably correct. Since you would much rather engage me than Melchior, is there anything else you would like to either add or subtract from the list?

How do you feel about people suffering in Syria; about refugees; about illegal immigration?

I feel very badly for them.

Do you think you have a moral responsibility to them? If not why not.

About the points 1) I just don't think you know where your beliefs derive from, but they seem to be a little unimaginatively chauvanistic; Point 2) well, duh, yes; Point 3) Actually its all about right and wrong, but Your right and your wrong is not absolute or uncontexted, nor are they incontestable. There is no right and wrong regardless of opinion. This is not rocket science. In fact it is not science at all.

[Obvious Leo]

What is a "navel-gazing ethicist"?

It's probably not the sort of question you should ask of a logician but I would say all of them.

[Obvious Leo]

The great Australian contrarian Peter Singer has a nice take on ethics in the modern world. If I see my neighbour's kid drowning in his swimming pool I must jump in and fish him out, even if it means ruining my new suit. However if the same kid drowns by falling off a capsized boat full of asylum seekers it's not my problem. So much for ethics.

[Gary Childress]

Do you think you have a moral responsibility to them? If not why not.

Before we venture down the "rabbit hole" again, what do you mean by "moral responsibility to them?" Do I think the US under the Bush Administration was wrong to invade Iraq (which may have set off a lot of this)? Yes. Do I believe in drone attacks? Absolutely not. Would I welcome at least some of the refugees from all the terrible wars and upheavals into the US to help them establish new lives and give them some reprieve form their troubles? Absolutely. I would want someone to do the same for me if I were in such a situation. Will I vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Absolutely not either of them. Does that satisfy your curiosity or must we "gaze at our navels" again (assuming that is what Leo means by "navel gazing")?

[Gary Childress]

What is a "navel-gazing ethicist"?

It's probably not the sort of question you should ask of a logician but I would say all of them.

All ethicists are "navel-gazers"? What exactly is "navel-gazing"? And after that is answered I assume my next question might be what is wrong with it?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Do you think you have a moral responsibility to them? If not why not.

Before we venture down the "rabbit hole" again, what do you mean by "moral responsibility to them?" Do I think the US under the Bush Administration was wrong to invade Iraq (which may have set off a lot of this)? Yes. Do I believe in drone attacks? Absolutely not. Would I welcome at least some of the refugees from all the terrible wars and upheavals into the US to help them establish new lives and give them some reprieve form their troubles? Absolutely. I would want someone to do the same for me if I were in such a situation. Will I vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Absolutely not either of them. Does that satisfy your curiosity or must we "gaze at our navels" again (assuming that is what Leo means by "navel gazing")?

I glad to hear that your moral stance is at odds with your country. And it seems that I am in agreement with you on these matters. US interference in various countries of the ME, and its indiscriminate and uncritical support of Israel have contributed to the cauldron of conflict and strife suffered across the board.

How would Bernie Sanders appeal to you as Pres?

Dominion, slavery and war have always been at the heart of moral rectitude. The Greeks, especially Aristotle believed that war ought to be waged against the weak and those who would not submit to be governed. War was the moral duty of the strong and was morally correct and even natural.
Aristotle believed exactly as you do , that there were things that were right and wrong regardless of the cultural, personal and historical context.
You hold a dangerous opinion.

[Obvious Leo]

What is a "navel-gazing ethicist"?

It's probably not the sort of question you should ask of a logician but I would say all of them.

All ethicists are "navel-gazers"? What exactly is "navel-gazing"? And after that is answered I assume my next question might be what is wrong with it?

Navel-gazing is a pejorative term applied to persons who engage in long-winded arguments on subjects which are of no interest to anybody. Navel-gazers also often write lengthy scholarly dissertations on the meanings of words which nobody ever bothers to read. In my country such people are also often referred to as "wankers". Please note that this is merely a general observation, Gary, and I was not specifically intending it to apply to you. At this stage I'm still reserving judgement on this point on the off-chance that you might yet say something pertinent.

[Gary Childress]

At this stage I'm still reserving judgement on this point on the off-chance that you might yet say something pertinent.

Gee, thanks.

[Obvious Leo]

At this stage I'm still reserving judgement on this point on the off-chance that you might yet say something pertinent.

Gee, thanks.

My pleasure