henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:52 pm
...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.
Can someone point me to Pete's response?
-----
Pete, you posted...
...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.
Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
You have to wonder what "objective" could possibly mean in any context related to morals, since they involve emotional valuation.
I wonder if any ANY context that an objective position is nothing more than a consensus; what is in effect inter-subjectivity.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:26 pm
Here's a definition... Special Pleading
Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.
I'm glad you mention Special Pleading, because your entire assertion that morals could be objective is wholly special pleading.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Right. There's a difference.
1. "my opinion" means "just Pete thinks so."
2. "a matter of opinion" means "some undefined group thinks so."
3. "a matter of majority opinion" means "the biggest group thinks so."
But since numbers are not relevant to questions of right and wrong, except they indicate somebody's subjective opinion, and all of it is just subjective anyway, #1, 2 and 3 are all equally morally weighty...which is to say, not weighty or morally significant at all. What Pete approves, what some group approves and what the majority approves tell us absolutely zero about the moral standing of a particular action or situation.
That is, according to Peter.
Zero is a great democratic force. It makes everything the same -- because "nothing."
Numbers give weight in these cases, but democracy does not give you objectivity.
And that is where YOU fail.
And as objective would have to be atemporal, for most of your opinions about so-called objective moral positions, you only get case #2, since historically slavery has been morally justifiable for most of history and for most people.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Right. There's a difference.
1. "my opinion" means "just Pete thinks so."
2. "a matter of opinion" means "some undefined group thinks so."
3. "a matter of majority opinion" means "the biggest group thinks so."
But since numbers are not relevant to questions of right and wrong, except they indicate somebody's subjective opinion, and all of it is just subjective anyway, #1, 2 and 3 are all equally morally weighty...which is to say, not weighty or morally significant at all. What Pete approves, what some group approves and what the majority approves tell us absolutely zero about the moral standing of a particular action or situation.
That is, according to Peter.
Zero is a great democratic force. It makes everything the same -- because "nothing."
We agree that numbers have no bearing on questions of moral rightness and wrongness. So an action is not in fact morally right or wrong just because one person thinks it is - or some, or many, or most people, or even everybody. And that's why Henry's question misfires.
But your mistake is to insist that an action must in fact be morally right or wrong, independent from opinion. And you have no evidence or sound argument to justify that claim. You just assert it, and then wheel on your invented god (fallaciously) to account for it.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:38 pm
...since historically slavery has been morally justifiable for most of history and for most people.
Oh, Sculpy.
You never get anything right.
You think slavery is "morally justifiable"?
Nah, you can't mean that...you just misspoke again.
We can count on you for the comedy, if nothing else.
Objectivity, idiot.
It does not matter what I think about slavery.
It only matters that you see the error of your ways.
Slavery has been morally justified and perfectly legal all over the world until the early 19thC.
Countries one after the other made it illegal until Mauritania in 1981 was the last country to do so.
So, since the dawn of time until quite recently slavery was the norm. There simply is no case for an objective claim about slavery being immoral.
Last edited by Sculptor on Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:52 pm
...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.
Can someone point me to Pete's response?
-----
Pete, you posted...
...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.
Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.
-----
Pete, you posted...
...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.
Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?
That would be the moral thing to do in Joe's society.
DO you have a problem with that?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:51 pm
...your mistake is to insist that an action must in fact be morally right or wrong, independent from opinion. And you have no evidence or sound argument to justify that claim.
You won't accept any.
Two statements:
Peter does not believe in God.
Peter does not have any criteria that would ever allow him to believe in God.
Does it surprise anyone that these two statements are both true?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:52 pm
It does not matter what I think about slavery.
Well, thank the Lord that's true.
Slavery is perfectly natural. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule...
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?
That would be the moral thing to do in Joe's society.
DO you have a problem with that?
I'm one of those atavistic moral objectivists, so -- yeah -- I have a rather large problem with that.
Slavery is inevitable, deserved, and endorsed by god.
The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 pm
Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.
-----
Pete, you posted...
...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.
Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?
If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?
Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.
Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?
What? Have a think about what I've been saying. That morality is subjective does NOT mean that moral rightness and wrongness are a matter of majority opinion.
