Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Sure thing. But back to the point, why do you say that gay marriage is "ludicrous"? There must be some reason. Is it just funny looking to see two people of the same sex saying vows to each other? Or is there some danger in it that we should all be concerned about?

Ah the shock of the new. Odd things appear funny. After a while odd things become normal. Personally I'm still shocked that anyone would get married at all. If you love a person then making a contract with them with the government seems like a betrayal to me.
However, as I know some gay people, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against them marrying rather than keeping it for straight couples.
Have you asked yourself why you find it amusing? Or were you just reporting on Melchiors' derision?

I'm asking M to clarify why he thinks it's "ludicrous". As far as my own views on gay marriage I haven't really given it a great deal of deliberation. It seems perfectly fine to me prima facie, however, I could certainly be wrong.

Wrong how?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Ah the shock of the new. Odd things appear funny. After a while odd things become normal. Personally I'm still shocked that anyone would get married at all. If you love a person then making a contract with them with the government seems like a betrayal to me.
However, as I know some gay people, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against them marrying rather than keeping it for straight couples.
Have you asked yourself why you find it amusing? Or were you just reporting on Melchiors' derision?

I'm asking M to clarify why he thinks it's "ludicrous". As far as my own views on gay marriage I haven't really given it a great deal of deliberation. It seems perfectly fine to me prima facie, however, I could certainly be wrong.

Wrong how?

I don't know. Maybe we should ask Melchior. He seems to know everything.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Ah the shock of the new. Odd things appear funny. After a while odd things become normal. Personally I'm still shocked that anyone would get married at all. If you love a person then making a contract with them with the government seems like a betrayal to me.
However, as I know some gay people, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against them marrying rather than keeping it for straight couples.
Have you asked yourself why you find it amusing? Or were you just reporting on Melchiors' derision?

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I'm asking M to clarify why he thinks it's "ludicrous". As far as my own views on gay marriage I haven't really given it a great deal of deliberation. It seems perfectly fine to me prima facie, however, I could certainly be wrong.

Wrong how?

I don't know. Maybe we should ask Melchior. He seems to know everything.

Actually Gary, to my way of thinking, he seems to 'know' squat, while he professes to 'know' pretty much everything!

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I'm asking M to clarify why he thinks it's "ludicrous". As far as my own views on gay marriage I haven't really given it a great deal of deliberation. It seems perfectly fine to me prima facie, however, I could certainly be wrong.

Wrong how?

I don't know. Maybe we should ask Melchior. He seems to know everything.

As for Melchior - I'll not hold my breath.
But you? What is wrong with you?

When did you relinquish your right to hold moral opinions?
It's not a question of knowledge.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Wrong how?

I don't know. Maybe we should ask Melchior. He seems to know everything.

As for Melchior - I'll not hold my breath.
But you? What is wrong with you?

When did you relinquish your right to hold moral opinions?
It's not a question of knowledge.

I'm a Socratic. I don't believe in moral relativism. I tend to listen to what others have to say, including you. If Melchior can demonstrate that there is good reason to be opposed to gay marriage then I reserve my right to change my mind for the better. Does that mean I necessarily think there exists a good reason to be opposed to gay marriage? No. I challenge Melchior to give me one.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I don't know. Maybe we should ask Melchior. He seems to know everything.

As for Melchior - I'll not hold my breath.
But you? What is wrong with you?

When did you relinquish your right to hold moral opinions?
It's not a question of knowledge.

I'm a Socratic. I don't believe in moral relativism. I tend to listen to what others have to say, including you. If Melchior can demonstrate that there is good reason to be opposed to gay marriage then I reserve my right to change my mind for the better. Does that mean I necessarily think there exists a good reason to be opposed to gay marriage? No. I challenge Melchior to give me one.

You are fucking confused, you mean.
You are just a coward.

No, I'm rational. And since we both agree that gay marriage is perfectly fine, I see no reason for altercation at this point.

Gary Childress wrote:No, I'm rational. And since we both agree that gay marriage is perfectly fine, I see no reason for altercation at this point.

Hobbes is one of those types that lives for altercation, that is until you best him, then he'll put you on ignore, which may serve you well.

Gary Childress wrote:No, I'm rational. And since we both agree that gay marriage is perfectly fine, I see no reason for altercation at this point.

Then you are a moral relativist.
You accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society, as 100 years ago this idea was not even a possibility.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:No, I'm rational. And since we both agree that gay marriage is perfectly fine, I see no reason for altercation at this point.

Then you are a moral relativist.
You accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society, as 100 years ago this idea was not even a possibility.

I don't accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society. The views of society should be based on moral foundations.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:No, I'm rational. And since we both agree that gay marriage is perfectly fine, I see no reason for altercation at this point.

Then you are a moral relativist.
You accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society, as 100 years ago this idea was not even a possibility.

I don't accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society. The views of society should be based on moral foundations.

That is absurd - a relativist might just as well think that too. You have already abandoned your moral foundations, by accepting change.
Have you ever asked what these "foundations" are supposed to be; or what, they, themselves are based on?
By your own words you have undermined yourself.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Then you are a moral relativist.
You accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society, as 100 years ago this idea was not even a possibility.

I don't accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society. The views of society should be based on moral foundations.

That is absurd - a relativist might just as well think that too. You have already abandoned your moral foundations, by accepting change.
Have you ever asked what these "foundations" are supposed to be; or what, they, themselves are based on?
By your own words you have undermined yourself.

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.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: I don't accept that moral law has to change to accommodate the changing views of society. The views of society should be based on moral foundations.

That is absurd - a relativist might just as well think that too. You have already abandoned your moral foundations, by accepting change.
Have you ever asked what these "foundations" are supposed to be; or what, they, themselves are based on?
By your own words you have undermined yourself.

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?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is absurd - a relativist might just as well think that too. You have already abandoned your moral foundations, by accepting change.
Have you ever asked what these "foundations" are supposed to be; or what, they, themselves are based on?
By your own words you have undermined yourself.

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.