techboy Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Danggit I hate when my typos are quoted! This is information you might have wanted to keep to yourself. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think you can't put forward a non-authortarian argument by which sociopaths shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets and do what they want. What do you think of an argument that echoes democratic morality principles I described earlier? It can go something like this: that would result in a kind of society which vast majority of people would find disagreeable. I think you essentially want an objective morality, where the objectivness coincides with your ideas of what should be moral. I am advancing ideas that I agree with. I find them convincing, I think I have good reasons for having them, and I do want them to succeed. Also, I am open to other ideas, and I am open to changing my mind. I see value in talking about this and trying to convince one another. If you want to call this "objective morality", then you have missed my point entirely. ---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 05:06 PM ---------- How is "opening the door" to the possibility of an argument from authority "conveying a false impression"? As far as I can tell, the only advocate of avoiding truth here would be you, when you suggest that we do so because it might have unpleasant consequences. I think framing issues of morality in terms of subjective vs. objective is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I am advancing ideas that I agree with. I find them convincing, I think I have good reasons for having them, and I do want them to succeed. Also, I am open to other ideas, and I am open to changing my mind. I see value in talking about this and trying to convince one another. If you want to call this "objective morality", then you have missed my point entirely. Are you willing to have every aspect of morality open for debate then? In that I mean are you willing to allow open debate on issues like pedophilia? If not then you are promoting at least at least a partially objective morality. ---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 05:10 PM ---------- I think framing issues of morality in terms of subjective vs. objective is misleading. Of course, because you want us to believe that all morality is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Are you willing to have every aspect of morality open for debate then? In that I mean are you willing to allow open debate on issues like pedophilia? If not then you are promoting at least at least a partially objective morality.---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 05:10 PM ---------- Of course, because you want us to believe that all morality is subjective. 1) I would require 1000 signatures for and against to get things started 2) The word "subjective" does not properly convey things that vast majority of humans have in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 1) I would require 1000 signatures for and against to get things started 1,000 that's it? Seriously with the internet if you can't find 1,000 people who will agree with something crazy then you're aren't even trying. 2) The word "subjective" does not properly convey things that vast majority of humans have in common. So you're fine supressing minority viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 1,000 that's it? Seriously with the internet if you can't find 1,000 people who will agree with something crazy then you're aren't even trying.So you're fine supressing minority viewpoints. I'm sure a democratic process can be devised which does not get bogged down in silliness. There's just not a lot of good reasons to endorse pedophilia. I am not sure on which basis you are concluding that I am suppressing minority viewpoints. Let's have a discussion, let's hear those minority viewpoints, their reasons, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I'm sure a democratic process can be devised which does not get bogged down in silliness. There's just not a lot of good reasons to endorse pedophilia. Based on your morality, yet there are pedophiles who believe quite strongly that it should be legal and moral. If their argument began to convince others of their cause then your mob rule morality would have o allow for it to be accepted an approved of as a moral act. I am not sure on which basis you are concluding that I am suppressing minority viewpoints. Let's have a discussion, let's hear those minority viewpoints, their reasons, etc. Your point indicated at there is a certain ambiguous core morality that the vast majority of humans have in common, if this is the bases for what you would conider as legitimate issues to be addressed then you are suppressing morality that you deem that the vast majority of humans agreed with...ergo suppression of minority viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Based on your morality, yet there are pedophiles who believe quite strongly that it should be legal and moral. If their argument began to convince others of their cause then your mob rule morality would have o allow for it to be accepted an approved of as a moral act.Your point indicated at there is a certain ambiguous core morality that the vast majority of humans have in common, if this is the bases for what you would conider as legitimate issues to be addressed then you are suppressing morality that you deem that the vast majority of humans agreed with...ergo suppression of minority viewpoints. I do not have to agree with policies of the majority. Alas, objective morality will not do much better against a mob of pedophiles. Do not kill do not steal are not ambiguous and we did not need them spelled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I do not have to agree with policies of the majority. Alas, objective morality will not do much better against a mob of pedophiles. The difference is that with an objective morality we don't have to pretend that their arguments are legitimate and worth entertaining. Do not kill do not steal are not ambiguous and we did not need them spelled out. Well that's fine, but the debates in your system won't surround those topics. What about a morality that says might is right and if you can't defend your life or your kingdom then you are not entitled to keep it? You say that's absurd but we see it often enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 What do you think of an argument that echoes democratic morality principles I described earlier? It can go something like this: that would result in a kind of society which vast majority of people would find disagreeable. That's what we do now. I don't see many people, and nobody here, arguing we should change it. And you have no problems with states where gay marriage is illegal. And for this audience, your OP makes no real sense. Are you actually proposing something new or interesting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 The difference is that with an objective morality we don't have to pretend that their arguments are legitimate and worth entertaining.Well that's fine, but the debates in your system won't surround those topics. What about a morality that says might is right and if you can't defend your life or your kingdom then you are not entitled to keep it? You say that's absurd but we see it often enough. I do not have to pretend that arguments of pedophiles are worth entertaining in morality any more than I have to pretend that arguments of communists or white supremacists are worth entertaining in politics. In practice, I am not offering a drascitally different approach to morality. Unless, of course, you want to argue for moral principles based on authority. ---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 07:09 PM ---------- That's what we do now. I don't see many people, and nobody here, arguing we should change it.And you have no problems with states where gay marriage is illegal. And for this audience, your OP makes no real sense. Are you actually proposing something new or interesting here? I do have a problem with discriminating against homosexuals, and I think taking away the "God wants it" argument will help us get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Gee, what do you consider a "right" like heterosexual marriage and then we'll all vote it away! Majority rules, right? Interracial marriage used to be outlawed in 16 states prior to Loving v. Virginia decision. The USSC struck those laws down because "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html The majority cannot legislate rights away, and the states that have done so with respect to same sex marriage have passed unConstitutional laws and state constitution amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I do have a problem with discriminating against homosexuals, and I think taking away the "God wants it" argument will help us get it right. But you haven't proposed away to take it away, unless you are going to propose taking the vote away from those people. You haven't proposed any (non-authoritative) argument that people that vote in such a manner are wrong, shouldn't vote in that manner, or shouldn't be allowed to vote. In fact, you've at least implied that you wouldn't do the last. You've proposed that US citizens keep doing what they've done for the last ~200 years or so that has resulted in the internement of Japanese citizens, segregation and discrimination based on race, gender and sexual preference (not so much segreation on the last one), and almost certainly the execution of innocent (of a crime that legally would have required a death sentence) American citizens, and on a global level who knows how much death, damage, and destruction. Did you really start a thread to say that we should keep doing what we have been doing with respect to morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 But you haven't proposed away to take it away, unless you are going to propose taking the vote away from those people.... In a democracy, you change things by trying to convince people. This thread is an example of trying to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 In a democracy, you change things by trying to convince people. This thread is an example of trying to do that. Convince people of what? People already get to vote based on their personal morality. Are you trying to convince other people that people that vote based on their religious beliefs shouldn't get to vote? Let me be clear. I think our political and legal system stink. I think the evidence for democracy in general as the "best of bad options" is at weak, ancedotal, and likely very biased, especially given the degree to which people believe it. And in general, I'd seriously consider supporting legislation that didn't allow people to vote that would say they'd support a "bad solution" to a problem unless there was substantial evidence that other options have been fully explored, which I think it is hard to argue has happened with respect to poltical systems. To end, I'll ask again. Is your point really that the US should keep doing what it has been doing? That you are happy with the current system? Why did you start this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Convince people of what?... Why did you start this thread? I think objective morality is authoritarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I do not have to pretend that arguments of pedophiles are worth entertaining in morality any more than I have to pretend that arguments of communists or white supremacists are worth entertaining in politics. Under a true democratic system of morality you would, especially if they won. But, you're not even arguing for what you say you're arguing for. In practice, I am not offering a drascitally different approach to morality. Unless, of course, you want to argue for moral principles based on authority. So basically this thread is a giant waste of time....got it. ---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 08:19 PM ---------- I think objective morality is authoritarian. It is...but you're not even arguing for a truly subjective morality, you believe in objective morality for certain issues, you just want a subjective morality in areas where the majority of people disagree with you, but under the system you've proposed you end up in the same place we are now. You want authoritarianism over pedophiles and white supremacists because you believe that on those issues there is an objective morality...and you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Do you all have such control over your sense of right and wrong that a morality by majority is even possible? I do not. If we decided that slavery was right, democratically, I'd continue to believe otherwise. I am comfortable believing that most people can easily be entirely wrong. What is right is not something up for debate in my mind as much as it is open to exploration. We can explore specific behaviors or actions that we think are wrong, right, or neutral and look at them from different perspectives seeking to test our beliefs. I feel we all do very little of this and spend more time looking at things simply, so the majority can follow along without losing interest. X is always bad, Y is always good. X can't be bad because it makes people feel good! Y must be bad because people hate it! Morality isn't simply a matter of practical solutions and individual empowerment. I often wonder about the significance of an individual within the greater concept of morality. Unlike Rand I believe morality is largely defined by altruism, and the idea of self sacrifice for greater good. It's fun to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I think objective morality is authoritarian. Does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Does it matter? When you're rejecting the external authority of an objective morality which you disagree with....like alexey.....then yes it does matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 When you're rejecting the external authority of an objective morality which you disagree with....like alexey.....then yes it does matter With respect to the morality, I don't think it matters. The moral code is there if he rejects it or not. I guess it might matter to the authority and him. But in terms of the US government, practical matters, or the objective moral code (if it exist), I don't think it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Under a true democratic system of morality you would, especially if they won. But, you're not even arguing for what you say you're arguing for.... It is...but you're not even arguing for a truly subjective morality, you believe in objective morality for certain issues, you just want a subjective morality in areas where the majority of people disagree with you, but under the system you've proposed you end up in the same place we are now. You want authoritarianism over pedophiles and white supremacists because you believe that on those issues there is an objective morality...and you're right. You could use the word "objective" to describe morality on which vast majority of people would agree, but I think that would be misleading. I will admit to a need for a bit of authoritarianism in setting up assumptions upon which our democratic system is based, aka truths which we hold to be self evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 You could use the word "objective" to describe morality on which vast majority of people would agree, but I think that would be misleading.[/qoute]If it unchanging even in parts then it is at least in part an objective morality. i.e. pedophilia is wrong no matter what, that is objective, if there is no room for even a discussion or possibility of certain things becoming ,oral then you are dealing with an objective morality. I will admit to a need for a bit of authoritarianism in setting up assumptions upon which our democratic system is based, aka truths which we hold to be self evident. You are also employing authoritarian objectism in the rejection of certain behaviors as being even possibly moral even if consensus of a democratic process would say otherwise. Our point is that mob rule is a bad way to determine morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Do you all have such control over your sense of right and wrong that a morality by majority is even possible? I do not. If we decided that slavery was right, democratically, I'd continue to believe otherwise. I am comfortable believing that most people can easily be entirely wrong. What is right is not something up for debate in my mind as much as it is open to exploration. We can explore specific behaviors or actions that we think are wrong, right, or neutral and look at them from different perspectives seeking to test our beliefs. I feel we all do very little of this and spend more time looking at things simply, so the majority can follow along without losing interest. X is always bad, Y is always good. X can't be bad because it makes people feel good! Y must be bad because people hate it! Morality isn't simply a matter of practical solutions and individual empowerment. I often wonder about the significance of an individual within the greater concept of morality. Unlike Rand I believe morality is largely defined by altruism, and the idea of self sacrifice for greater good. It's fun to think about. Great points! When the rubber hits the road, we are not democratically determining what is right but what we should do... and I object to authoritarian morality because it is not open to exploration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Great points! When the rubber hits the road, we are not democratically determining what is right but what we should do... and I object to authoritarian morality because it is not open to exploration. But you accept it at points with which you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.