Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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.

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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:29 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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."

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:38 pm ...since historically slavery has been morally justifiable for most of history and for most people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:29 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:48 pm

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.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:53 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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?

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.

• Peter does not believe in God.

• Peter does not have any criteria that would ever allow him to believe in God.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:52 pm It does not matter what I think about slavery.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:01 pm

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.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:53 pm

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?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:53 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:13 pm

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?