Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:16 pm
Then the same would be true of rape, pedophilia, torture, slavery and murder, all of which have not merely been practiced but celebrated and valorized for a long time by some culture, subculture or nation.

Yes, the same is true of any moral issue, at least in principle. Some -what might be called- serious moral issues do have more or less complete agreement within a particular social group, but, as you say, another culture could well have a different prevailing moral outlook. Moral right and wrong are only right and wrong in relation to an arbitrary rule.

That's not a logical conclusion.

The fact that people choose different answers doesn't rationalize the conclusion that there's no right answer. It only tells us that some people are confused. And we know that, if by no other means, simply by Aristotle's impartial Law of Non-Contradiction, so we don't even need a source of authority to tell us the truth of that.

If there are a billion possible different answers to the question, "What is 2+2?" (and in truth, there are an infinite number of such wrong answers), that doesn't mean there's no right answer.

Okay then, where is the "right" answer to the moral issue in the example I gave to be found?

Is it, or is it not, morally acceptable for a sexual relationship to take place between two people who are either not married, or of the same sex?

You know I can't accept God as the answer, but I don't suppose that will prevent you from insisting it is the answer.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:35 am The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

This is more like asking is ART comprised of chalk or cheese?

Morals are a set of opinions about what is right and wrong.

But the words subjective and objective are reference points about perspectives.

This renderes the entire thread meaningless

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:48 pm Okay then, where is the "right" answer to the moral issue in the example I gave to be found?

Do you really want to ask that question?

Is it, or is it not, morally acceptable for a sexual relationship to take place between two people who are either not married, or of the same sex?

Do you really want that answer, too?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:48 pm Okay then, where is the "right" answer to the moral issue in the example I gave to be found?

Do you really want to ask that question?

Is it, or is it not, morally acceptable for a sexual relationship to take place between two people who are either not married, or of the same sex?

Do you really want that answer, too?

No, I don't want the answer to the moral question, I want to know where the absolute, indisputable answer to it is to be found. It is my contention that there is no such answer, but I'm open to suggestions. That does not include any God nonsense.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm That does not include any God nonsense.

Especially the nonsense where God got Mary up the duff behind Joseph’s back while he was engaged to the poor lass.

Jesus Christ, God then realised that to save face and avert the total embarrassment of what can only be described as an absolute total fuck up, then had to explain to all and sundry about something he had on good authority, namely his knowledge about the sacred law of double standards where it’s one rule for him and to hell with the law breakers.

God spread the news about his sacred law of double standards by passing his holy righteous law as and through a process called shared genetics with his illegitimate child.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:26 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm That does not include any God nonsense.

Especially the nonsense where God got Mary up the duff behind Joseph’s back while he was engaged to the poor lass.

Actually, there is a theory that it was Joseph's best mate, Dave, who got Mary up the duff, but she wasn't going to admit that, was she?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:26 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm That does not include any God nonsense.

Especially the nonsense where God got Mary up the duff behind Joseph’s back while he was engaged to the poor lass.

Actually, there is a theory that it was Joseph's best mate, Dave, who got Mary up the duff, but she wasn't going to admit that, was she?

LoL

The convincing world of mary tales, where nonsense makes perfect sense.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm I want to know where the absolute, indisputable answer to it is to be found.

An answer doesn't have to be "indisputable" to be "absolute." Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:01 pm Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

Even numbers are odd.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:01 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm I want to know where the absolute, indisputable answer to it is to be found.

An answer doesn't have to be "indisputable" to be "absolute." Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

I'll settle for an answer that is verifiably true.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:01 pm Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

Even numbers are odd.

Yes, I've always thought number 8 is a bit strange, although I can't quite put my finger on why.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:28 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:01 pm Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

Even numbers are odd.

Yes, I've always thought number 8 is a bit strange, although I can't quite put my finger on why.

I’ve always thought the number 11 was magical.

Two odd lonely 1’s joined together wouldn’t be odd and lonely anymore, they’d be 2

1 & 1 = 11 or was it 2

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:48 pm Is it, or is it not, morally acceptable for a sexual relationship to take place between two people who are either not married, or of the same sex?

Yes. Everyone who thinks otherwise is an evil interfering monster.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:01 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:44 pm I want to know where the absolute, indisputable answer to it is to be found.

An answer doesn't have to be "indisputable" to be "absolute." Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

I'll settle for an answer that is verifiably true.

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:09 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:48 pm Is it, or is it not, morally acceptable for a sexual relationship to take place between two people who are either not married, or of the same sex?

Yes. Everyone who thinks otherwise is an evil interfering monster.

So you're a moral objectivist, then? Only a moral objectivist could say that anything is "evil," let alone that being an "interferer" made one a "monster."

What's the basis of your moral objectivism? Where did you find the precept written, "Thou shalt not even think to 'interfere with' the sexual pecadillos of others, else thou shalt be dubbed a 'monster'?"

Mind you, disagreeing with somebody else's view is pretty minor "interference," by any account.