ISIS!

[luke viia]

Limpy, I get ya, just that there are no "attitudes" about the right answer in math, that's why I loled, but at least we understand each other!

[awepittance]

this dude Nafeez Ahmed is wearing a tin foil top hat, what a loony fucking muslim extremist apologist!

How the West Created the Islamic State

by NAFEEZ AHMED

Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS
nafeez ahmed

[LimpyLoo]

Limpy, I get ya, just that there are no "attitudes" about the right answer in math, that's why I loled, but at least we understand each other!

 

yeah sorry math was a bad analogy

 

 

okay, take evolution

the fact that 50% of america doesn't believe in evolution

obviously doesn't affect its true-ness

 

now, whether morality is objective is an empirical matter

(like the true-ness of evolution)

that is not contingent on people's attitudes about it

 

so i was just saying that differing moral attitudes tells us nothing

about the relative-ness or objective-ness

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

[Guest Barung]

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

calm your jimmies, I never talked about islam, i pretty much explained my point on how a state should be founded on laic laws (in response to the sharia argument, in which I agree with what caze said) and that religion should be always separated from politics, if it had not been for these deliberations in times such as the age of enlightment, or even earlier during the reinassance humanism, we would still kill/torture/deport people that didn't fit in a specific religious context, whether they were catholics, huguenots or moors. Also you presume a little bit too much, and your sarcasm is not on point, if you want to genuinely get your point out that's not gonna help

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

 

 

Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours: (a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person. (b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

 

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

 

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality. Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

 

 

 

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

 

 

 

 

 

in this sense, i am indeed a moral objectivist

 

 

(taken from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html)

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

 

 

Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours: (a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person. (b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

 

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

 

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality. Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

 

 

 

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

 

 

 

 

 

in this sense, i am indeed a moral objectivist

 

 

(taken from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html)

 

 

 

LOL come on Limpy a dispute over whether the earth is flat or not is not a moral dispute.

 

What is your moral stance on eating dog?

What is your moral stance on killing?

[cwmbrancity]

if i kill the dog but eat it, it'd be ok as long as it wasnt MY pet, cos i'd be quite upset eating my own dog, but the rest of y'all's critters? fuck those guys,,,,,hypocrisy rules

 

roasted would be best, cos he's getting on a bit now, tenderize that muscle, serve with a good Pauillac to send the wee fucker off in proper style

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

 

 

Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours: (a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person. (b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

 

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

 

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality. Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

 

 

 

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

 

 

 

 

 

in this sense, i am indeed a moral objectivist

 

 

(taken from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html)

 

 

 

LOL come on Limpy a dispute over whether the earth is flat or not is not a moral dispute.

 

What is your moral stance on eating dog?

What is your moral stance on killing?

 

 

1) define for me what a moral objectivist is, if you don't think I am one

 

2) my understanding is that a moral objectivist is someone who thinks there are indeed right and wrong answers to moral questions. In that sense, the flat earth analogy is perfect. I think there are right and wrong answers to "what shape is the earth?" regardless of whether we know the answer, or can even know the answer, and independent of people's opinions on what shape the earth is.

 

you missed the point of the flat-earth thing in what i posted...it wasn't saying that yes, there are indeed correct answers to moral question (as there are in "what shape is the earth?"), but rather that moral objectivists think there are correct answers to moral questions, and thus their position is comparable to the "what shape is the earth?" question 500 years ago.

 

3) i am against killing and eating animals...however, in trolley-esque problems (e.g. kill a dog to save 10 people from starving?) i am not a rigid deontologist (but hey, moral quandaries never have completely-satisfactory solutions...should i let the 10 people starve to death?)

 

i am strongly against killing...but once again, i can think of moral dilemmas where--given two morally-unpleasant options--killing may be the less-morally-unpleasant one...e.g. the crying baby/nazis moral dilemma has no good solution

 

(p.s. if you're gonna criticize me for my proposed solution to a moral dilemma, then you must propose a solution yourself)

[goDel]

Wait, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist arguing that moral dilemmas exist that have no good solution? I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a good/correct solution regardless of what people think, by definition?

[LimpyLoo]

Wait, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist arguing that moral dilemmas exist that have no good solution? I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a good/correct solution regardless of what people think, by definition?

 

just because i think there are correct answers doesn't mean i know all the answers

and it doesn't mean that every question is easy

or every answer is perfectly-satisfactory

 

the one does not preclude the other

[goDel]

 

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

 

calm your jimmies, I never talked about islam, i pretty much explained my point on how a state should be founded on laic laws (in response to the sharia argument, in which I agree with what caze said) and that religion should be always separated from politics, if it had not been for these deliberations in times such as the age of enlightment, or even earlier during the reinassance humanism, we would still kill/torture/deport people that didn't fit in a specific religious context, whether they were catholics, huguenots or moors. Also you presume a little bit too much, and your sarcasm is not on point, if you want to genuinely get your point out that's not gonna help

It's interesting you bring the Enlightenment to the table. Because I'm seriously wondering what actually changed in the religious beliefs of people at the time. As far as I can tell, most supporters of enlightenment were still very religious. And long after the Enlightenment took place, many people still had firm religious beliefs. Imo, the change in beliefs that had impact had more to do with values such as freedom and equality. And as such had more to do with how people and nations were governed than whether or not religion dictated what was right or wrong. So, even though there was a separation of religion and politics, religion still played an important role in defining what was right or wrong.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be too strange of an idea that religious beliefs in itself didn't change drastically during the enlightenment. Notions like god, heaven and hell still played important parts in the mindset of most people. The important change, was change wrt governments and powerstructures in society, not the religious beliefs itself, if you ask me. Consider for instance the ways Descartes incorporated religious beliefs in his thinking. If anything, the Enlightenment gave people freedom to be religious in the way they saw fit. But even this is debatable, as the various churches had still much to say about the "true word of God".

In a way one could argue that the enlightenment was a necessary change in tolerance between different churches after a long period of wars between them. The wars had to stop at some point, and enlightenment was the excuse to create some peace. Perhaps the real driving forces were way more economic. But even though the wars had stopped, tensions between say the roman catholics and the protestants still remained long after.

If there are parallells in what is currently taking place in the middle east, I would argue , for the billionth time, that change will come in types of government and not necessarily in terms of religious beliefs.

 

I've got no idea why I typed all this, btw.

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

 

 

Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours: (a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person. (b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

 

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

 

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality. Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

 

 

 

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

 

 

 

 

 

in this sense, i am indeed a moral objectivist

 

 

(taken from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html)

 

 

 

LOL come on Limpy a dispute over whether the earth is flat or not is not a moral dispute.

 

What is your moral stance on eating dog?

What is your moral stance on killing?

 

 

1) define for me what a moral objectivist is, if you don't think I am one

 

2) my understanding is that a moral objectivist is someone who thinks there are indeed right and wrong answers to moral questions. In that sense, the flat earth analogy is perfect. I think there are right and wrong answers to "what shape is the earth?" regardless of whether we know the answer, or can even know the answer, and independent of people's opinions on what shape the earth is.

 

you missed the point of the flat-earth thing in what i posted...it wasn't saying that yes, there are indeed correct answers to moral question (as there are in "what shape is the earth?"), but rather that moral objectivists think there are correct answers to moral questions, and thus their position is comparable to the "what shape is the earth?" question 500 years ago.

 

3) i am against killing and eating animals...however, in trolley-esque problems (e.g. kill a dog to save 10 people from starving?) i am not a rigid deontologist (but hey, moral quandaries never have completely-satisfactory solutions...should i let the 10 people starve to death?)

 

i am strongly against killing...but once again, i can think of moral dilemmas where--given two morally-unpleasant options--killing may be the less-morally-unpleasant one...e.g. the crying baby/nazis moral dilemma has no good solution

 

(p.s. if you're gonna criticize me for my proposed solution to a moral dilemma, then you must propose a solution yourself)

 

 

1) I said you weren't a moral absolutist. Which is how you defined yourself earlier.

 

2) And as a moral relativist, I think that moral questions do not have a right or wrong solution. Because morals are not measurable. The dimensions of the earth are clearly measurable (and no, Sam Harris' theory of what makes a happy life is not a real measurement, people derive pleasure from many situations and exhibit similar neurological responses).

 

3) So in that situation, framed as it is by the socio-economic template of people starving, your moral position has changed. Ergo relativism. I take it you're vegan?

 

4) Because my position is relative to the situation (this is not a genocide, this is a power grab), in the context of ISIS and middle east relations, killing is not the moral dilemma for me. The dilemma in this situation for me is, do ISIS' actions in the region substantially destabilize the economy to a level that intervention is warranted. The answer for me is yes, intervention is warranted. I've already offered a rough outline of my solution - fund and train groups who will stabilize the region so that development assistance can be put in place. This obviously requires bookending by substantial military assistance on the frontend and development aid on the backend. This development aid needs to be implemented taking into account everything we've learned about development from the tragic mistakes in Africa. It would be highly collaborative, with expertise and assistance provided in sectors local people prioritize.

[goDel]

 

Wait, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist arguing that moral dilemmas exist that have no good solution? I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a good/correct solution regardless of what people think, by definition?

 

just because i think there are correct answers doesn't mean i know all the answers

and it doesn't mean that every question is easy

or every answer is perfectly-satisfactory

 

the one does not preclude the other

Wait2, are you implying that moral dilemma's can have multiple correct answers? As a moral objectivist you should surely assume there's only one correct answer, right? Just like there's only one physical reality? Or are we entering some kind of greyish area where multiple physical realities can coexist (like quantum realities if you will), and the correct answer to a moral dilemma depends on the measurement itself? Does moral objectivism entail some equivalent of einsteins relativity theory, or a set of heisenberg uncertainty relationships?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

 

 

Wasn't going to reply but can't hold my tongue.

Moral Relativism - means precisely that there are different ways of viewing what is considered acceptable or normative in different societies. This viewing is often informed by the socio-economic framework that an individual is socialised in. Correct is a useless term when it comes to describing moral attitudes.

 

And by the way, you are not a moral absolutist.

 

 

Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours: (a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person. (b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

 

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

 

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality. Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

 

 

 

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

 

 

 

 

 

in this sense, i am indeed a moral objectivist

 

 

(taken from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html)

 

 

 

LOL come on Limpy a dispute over whether the earth is flat or not is not a moral dispute.

 

What is your moral stance on eating dog?

What is your moral stance on killing?

 

 

1) define for me what a moral objectivist is, if you don't think I am one

 

2) my understanding is that a moral objectivist is someone who thinks there are indeed right and wrong answers to moral questions. In that sense, the flat earth analogy is perfect. I think there are right and wrong answers to "what shape is the earth?" regardless of whether we know the answer, or can even know the answer, and independent of people's opinions on what shape the earth is.

 

you missed the point of the flat-earth thing in what i posted...it wasn't saying that yes, there are indeed correct answers to moral question (as there are in "what shape is the earth?"), but rather that moral objectivists think there are correct answers to moral questions, and thus their position is comparable to the "what shape is the earth?" question 500 years ago.

 

3) i am against killing and eating animals...however, in trolley-esque problems (e.g. kill a dog to save 10 people from starving?) i am not a rigid deontologist (but hey, moral quandaries never have completely-satisfactory solutions...should i let the 10 people starve to death?)

 

i am strongly against killing...but once again, i can think of moral dilemmas where--given two morally-unpleasant options--killing may be the less-morally-unpleasant one...e.g. the crying baby/nazis moral dilemma has no good solution

 

(p.s. if you're gonna criticize me for my proposed solution to a moral dilemma, then you must propose a solution yourself)

 

 

1) I said you weren't a moral absolutist. Which is how you defined yourself earlier.

 

2) And as a moral relativist, I think that moral questions do not have a right or wrong solution. Because morals are not measurable. The dimensions of the earth are clearly measurable (and no, Sam Harris' theory of what makes a happy life is not a real measurement, people derive pleasure from many situations and exhibit similar neurological responses).

 

3) So in that situation, framed as it is by the socio-economic template of people starving, your moral position has changed. Ergo relativism. I take it you're vegan?

 

4) Because my position is relative to the situation (this is not a genocide, this is a power grab), in the context of ISIS and middle east relations, killing is not the moral dilemma for me. The dilemma in this situation for me is, do ISIS' actions in the region substantially destabilize the economy to a level that intervention is warranted. The answer for me is yes, intervention is warranted. I've already offered a rough outline of my solution - fund and train groups who will stabilize the region so that development assistance can be put in place. This obviously requires bookending by substantial military assistance on the frontend and development aid on the backend. This development aid needs to be implemented taking into account everything we've learned about development from the tragic mistakes in Africa. It would be highly collaborative, with expertise and assistance provided in sectors local people prioritize.

 

 

1) i don't think i ever said i was a moral absolutist

(nor, if i did, did i mean to)

i simply stated my opposition to moral relativism

 

2) Sam Harris' position doesn't require that everyone enjoy/want/need/etc the same things

 

3) my position hasn't changed. i already said i'm not a rigid deontologist...and besides that's not moral relativism

and my diet is about 90% vegan

 

4) if ISIS was actually helping the economy, would you then want them to be allowed to stand?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Wait, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist arguing that moral dilemmas exist that have no good solution? I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a good/correct solution regardless of what people think, by definition?

just because i think there are correct answers doesn't mean i know all the answers

and it doesn't mean that every question is easy

or every answer is perfectly-satisfactory

 

the one does not preclude the other

Wait2, are you implying that moral dilemma's can have multiple correct answers? As a moral objectivist you should surely assume there's only one correct answer, right?

 

 

huh?

I was just saying "answers" (plural) in general

not to one given dilemma

[goDel]

Still though, the objectivists connection to physical reality is a tricky one. As it might just suggest that a moral objectivist hasn't got a real grasp about how physical reality even works. I could also introduce some kind of schrodingers cat, if you like? Meow?

 

Edit: never thought i needed to translate a dutch miauw into its english counterpart ;D

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

1) I said you weren't a moral absolutist. Which is how you defined yourself earlier.

 

2) And as a moral relativist, I think that moral questions do not have a right or wrong solution. Because morals are not measurable. The dimensions of the earth are clearly measurable (and no, Sam Harris' theory of what makes a happy life is not a real measurement, people derive pleasure from many situations and exhibit similar neurological responses).

 

3) So in that situation, framed as it is by the socio-economic template of people starving, your moral position has changed. Ergo relativism. I take it you're vegan?

 

4) Because my position is relative to the situation (this is not a genocide, this is a power grab), in the context of ISIS and middle east relations, killing is not the moral dilemma for me. The dilemma in this situation for me is, do ISIS' actions in the region substantially destabilize the economy to a level that intervention is warranted. The answer for me is yes, intervention is warranted. I've already offered a rough outline of my solution - fund and train groups who will stabilize the region so that development assistance can be put in place. This obviously requires bookending by substantial military assistance on the frontend and development aid on the backend. This development aid needs to be implemented taking into account everything we've learned about development from the tragic mistakes in Africa. It would be highly collaborative, with expertise and assistance provided in sectors local people prioritize.

 

 

1) i don't think i ever said i was a moral absolutist

(nor, if i did, did i mean to)

i simply stated my opposition to moral relativism

 

2) Sam Harris' position doesn't require that everyone enjoy/want/need/etc the same things

 

3) my position hasn't changed. i already said i'm not a rigid deontologist...and besides that's not moral relativism

and my diet is about 90% vegan

 

4) if ISIS was actually helping the economy, would you then want them to be allowed to stand?

 

 

1) You did earlier in this thread.

2) So would Harris say that happiness is relative to an individual?

3) Of course it's moral relativism - your moral outlook on the killing and eating of a dog changes relative to the situation.

4) If they were, then yes. Once people reach a certain level of economic affluence, they start to demand more from their government. We've spent decades trying to "fix" problems in various countries around the world - and what we've found, is that people in their own locales do the best at fixing the problems on their own once they've had some help in establishing good infrastructure and institutions.

 

I want you to read this next bit very carefully. Nowhere in this thread, or on this board, have I said that ISIS isn't a complete fucking mess that needs to be eradicated. This is not however because they are Muslim (or at least an extreme interpretation of what it means to be a Muslim). It's because their actions are not conducive to running a well-functioning and stable society.

In the end though, they won't last. They don't have the supply chains or manufacturing necessary to maintain their military primacy in the region. Their blitzkrieg style smash and grab tactics will actually be their undoing, as they expand too rapidly.

 

Anyhow, have to do some actual work now, then by the time I get home and have had dinner and put my little one to bed, I won't be arsed to revisit this. So knock yourself out. I'll read it tomorrow.

[LimpyLoo]

Still though, the objectivists connection to physical reality is a tricky one. As it might just suggest the a moral objectivist hasn't got a real grasp about how physical reality even works. I could also introduce some kind of schrodingers cat, if you like? Miauw?

 

the parallel to physical reality is merely metaphorical

quantum physics doesn't actually pose a problem to moral objectivism

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

1) I said you weren't a moral absolutist. Which is how you defined yourself earlier.

 

2) And as a moral relativist, I think that moral questions do not have a right or wrong solution. Because morals are not measurable. The dimensions of the earth are clearly measurable (and no, Sam Harris' theory of what makes a happy life is not a real measurement, people derive pleasure from many situations and exhibit similar neurological responses).

 

3) So in that situation, framed as it is by the socio-economic template of people starving, your moral position has changed. Ergo relativism. I take it you're vegan?

 

4) Because my position is relative to the situation (this is not a genocide, this is a power grab), in the context of ISIS and middle east relations, killing is not the moral dilemma for me. The dilemma in this situation for me is, do ISIS' actions in the region substantially destabilize the economy to a level that intervention is warranted. The answer for me is yes, intervention is warranted. I've already offered a rough outline of my solution - fund and train groups who will stabilize the region so that development assistance can be put in place. This obviously requires bookending by substantial military assistance on the frontend and development aid on the backend. This development aid needs to be implemented taking into account everything we've learned about development from the tragic mistakes in Africa. It would be highly collaborative, with expertise and assistance provided in sectors local people prioritize.

 

 

1) i don't think i ever said i was a moral absolutist

(nor, if i did, did i mean to)

i simply stated my opposition to moral relativism

 

2) Sam Harris' position doesn't require that everyone enjoy/want/need/etc the same things

 

3) my position hasn't changed. i already said i'm not a rigid deontologist...and besides that's not moral relativism

and my diet is about 90% vegan

 

4) if ISIS was actually helping the economy, would you then want them to be allowed to stand?

 

 

1) You did earlier in this thread.

2) So would Harris say that happiness is relative to an individual?

3) Of course it's moral relativism - your moral outlook on the killing and eating of a dog changes relative to the situation.

4) If they were, then yes. Once people reach a certain level of economic affluence, they start to demand more from their government. We've spent decades trying to "fix" problems in various countries around the world - and what we've found, is that people in their own locales do the best at fixing the problems on their own once they've had some help in establishing good infrastructure and institutions.

 

I want you to read this next bit very carefully. Nowhere in this thread, or on this board, have I said that ISIS isn't a complete fucking mess that needs to be eradicated. This is not however because they are Muslim (or at least an extreme interpretation of what it means to be a Muslim). It's because their actions are not conducive to running a well-functioning and stable society.

In the end though, they won't last. They don't have the supply chains or manufacturing necessary to maintain their military primacy in the region. Their blitzkrieg style smash and grab tactics will actually be their undoing, as they expand too rapidly.

 

Anyhow, have to do some actual work now, then by the time I get home and have had dinner and put my little one to bed, I won't be arsed to revisit this. So knock yourself out. I'll read it tomorrow.

 

 

3) that is absurd...so if i think that killing a baby for no reason is wrong, but i think that killing a baby would stop, say, the entire earth from being destroyed (killing the baby anway) might not be wrong...i'm a moral relativist?

or killing a dog for sport is wrong, but killing it to prevent 10 people from starving may not be...is moral relativism?

 

that is not moral relativism...they are two distinct scenarios, each of which i maintain have correct moral answers

it's not like i think the answers depend on what culture is making them

or what historical period

i think whatever the answer is is correct for everyone for all time

acknowledging the details of the moral question is not moral relativism...it's deontology

i am not a deontologist (not rigidly, at least)

 

4) i know you're not a fan of ISIS...i'm just trying to get to the core of what people think should be done and why

[goDel]

And what about chaos theory? In order to find the correct answer to some moral dilemma, even a perfect representation of the entire set of conditions of a moral dilemma at some point in time cannot lead to the correct answer at a later point in time, as reality has already changed in unpredictable ways.

Or how about adding a completeness theorem stating that it's logically impossible to have a complete set of conditions for any moral dilemma such that the correct answer is guarenteed?

 

You havent given an answer to my question whether a moral objectivist believes there's only one correct answer to a moral dilemma (by definition perhaps). I'm still interested. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but the whole notion of moral objectivism is still quite astounding to me. Must be my misunderstanding.

[LimpyLoo]

And what about chaos theory? In order to find the correct answer to some moral dilemma, even a perfect representation of the entire set of conditions of a moral dilemma at some point in time cannot lead to the correct answer at a later point in time, as reality has already changed in unpredictable ways.

Or how about adding a completeness theorem stating that it's logically impossible to have a complete set of conditions for any moral dilemma such that the correct answer is guarenteed?

 

You havent given an answer to my question whether a moral objectivist believes there's only one correct answer to a moral dilemma (by definition perhaps). I'm still interested. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but the whole notion of moral objectivism is still quite astounding to me. Must be my misunderstanding.

 

whether there are correct answers is not contingent on whether we can find them.

 

How many cockroaches are in my apartment right now? I have no idea, but there certainly is a right answer.

(i DO know that the answer is not zero )

[goDel]

Lol

 

But it is in the context of quantum reality. The correct answer is influenced by the measurement itself. Or, as a metaphor, by the person who tries to answer the moral dilemma. (Moral objectivism might be a pretty contradictory notion)

 

Also, what if you could create a moral dilemma where, if you take all conditions into account, there is no correct answer. And if you had a correct answer, it could be proven that the set of conditions was incomplete? Wouldn't that be the death of moral objectivism?

[LimpyLoo]

Lol

 

But it is in the context of quantum reality. The correct answer is influenced by the measurement itself. Or, as a metaphor, by the person who tries to answer the moral dilemma. (Moral objectivism might be a pretty contradictory notion)

 

Also, what if you could create a moral dilemma where, if you take all conditions into account, there is no correct answer. And if you had a correct answer, it could be proven that the set of conditions was incomplete? Wouldn't that be the death of moral objectivism?

 

i can think of moral dilemmas where there are two equivalent solutions

but i think you would have to be more specific for me to really catch your drift

[luke viia]

its strange to me to see secular atheists arguing in favor of moral absolutism, when that is precisely the position most religions take...don't quite get it.