Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:45 pm
It happens with free will and determinism. If I point out problems with one position, most people assume I have the other position.

Sorry to butt in - but I just wanted to shout out for this salutary observation. Note to self.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:46 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:45 pm
It happens with free will and determinism. If I point out problems with one position, most people assume I have the other position.

Sorry to butt in - but I just wanted to shout out for this salutary observation. Note to self.

And just to be clear, I was extremely snarky with him for a variety of reasons. I think this pattern may have colored your response to me...once. But you were polite and didn't add a lot of assumptions about me and my brain in general. I don't think everyone who does this is shallow. I'm sure I've done it myself. Made the assumption or even unconsciously made the assumption and this colored my response. In fact, I remember doing this on another forum and being corrected.

My temper just wanted to generalize back at him in the same hysterical way he was generalizing about me.

I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

It's just a variation on the more direct question of; "does the Biblical God exist"?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

Agreed. I asked the question because moral realism and objectivism are amazingly persistent and tenacious absurdities that continue to plague us. 'Of course there are moral facts, and I/we know what they are.'

So the question isn't idiotic - just the answer: 'it's objective'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:12 pm 'Of course there are moral facts, and I/we know what they are.'

Well I still don't know what you mean by "moral facts". What would be a good example of a moral fact?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:28 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:12 pm 'Of course there are moral facts, and I/we know what they are.'

Well I still don't know what you mean by "moral facts". What would be a good example of a moral fact?

Well, there aren't any. That's the point. But take any moral assertion - such as 'abortion is morally wrong' - and objectivists claim such as assertion has truth value - true or false - because it's supposed to be a fact that abortion really is or isn't morally wrong. It's bonkers, of course. And dangerous.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:10 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

It's just a variation on the more direct question of; "does the Biblical God exist"?

No it is not.
Please don't balls up the thread.

I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm I find it very puzzling why this idiotic question comes up again and again ad nauseam.

Consider...

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private.
So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice.
Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

Agreed. I asked the question because moral realism and objectivism are amazingly persistent and tenacious absurdities that continue to plague us. 'Of course there are moral facts, and I/we know what they are.'

So the question isn't idiotic - just the answer: 'it's objective'.

I suppose I'm being over optimistic to think that a moral objectivist would dare attempt to answer this question.
But they are out there, lurking.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:13 pm No it is not.
Please don't balls up the thread.

Sorry.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:13 pm No it is not.
Please don't balls up the thread.

Sorry.

No worries. It's probably the best answer I'm gonna get.

deleted an incomplete post

Until very recently (historically) the penal system was being used to convict adult consulting men who chose to have sex with one another in private. So a few decades ago judges and juries were being asked to make their moral assessment on this issue and hand out discretionary sentences for the practice. Today it is perfectly legal and no one's business except the men involved.

So tell me please what exactly is the objective moral stance here?

As a man (any man, every man) is free and has an inalienable natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, the government was (is) wrong to prohibit consensual behavior between and among homosexuals.

What Joe and Stan consent to do together is nobody's business but theirs.

If Joe or Stan withdraws his consent, as the other has no claim on him, he can gather up his sundries and walk away. If his former partner attempts to waylay him, attempts to stop his exit, that partner is as wrong as the government was (and is).

take any moral assertion - such as 'abortion is morally wrong' - and objectivists claim such as assertion has truth value - true or false - because it's supposed to be a fact that abortion really is or isn't morally wrong. It's bonkers, of course. And dangerous.

As a person (any person, every person) is free and has an inalienable natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, takin' his life, outside of self-defense or defense of another, is unjust, is wrong.

If what a woman carries is a person then she has no claim on his life. takin' that life, outside of self-defense, is unjust, is wrong.

Now, pregnancy is unique in that one person (if it is a person) exists for a time inside another. While it's wrong to evict the indwelling person (if it is a person) who is the product of consensual sex, it's unreasonable to expect a rape victim carry the product of her violation.

I don't think it's unreasonable, however, to hold the woman, who consented to sex, morally accountable for the care of the person (if it is a person) she created and who is temporarily inside her, any more than it is to hold the mother of a six year old morally accountable for the care of her child.