Comments on Hellbound Alleee: The War on Relativism

Good Grief.Objective morality. :)Are there also ob...

2008-05-26T07:05:00.000-03:00

Good Grief.

Objective morality. :)

Are there also objective taste facts, fashion facts, beauty facts?

That would be a perfectly relevant post, grigsy, i...

2006-05-12T11:09:00.000-03:00

That would be a perfectly relevant post, grigsy, if we were promoting absolute anything.

But we're not.

Like Michael Shermer in the " Science of Good and ...

2006-05-12T10:28:00.000-03:00

Like Michael Shermer in the " Science of Good and Evil," I advocate a provisional ethic as the ethic rather than relativistic or absolute .This would be objective in that we can discern what is good or bad for people , other animals or the enviornment. In " I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist," the authors demonstrate the absurdity of relativism ,but their argument for absolute ethics is really for provisional one- one they wouldn't like,I assume. Of course, as with provisional science, there will be disagreements.

And the drooling continues.Is any opinion moral, S...

2006-05-05T10:56:00.000-03:00

And the drooling continues.

Is any opinion moral, Simon, or just the moral ones?

Morality is an opinion.

2006-05-05T07:06:00.000-03:00

Morality is an opinion.

I mean, you could deny that gravity is defined as ...

2006-04-28T20:42:00.000-03:00

I mean, you could deny that gravity is defined as the relationship between masses, too, and say that our decision to define gravity in this manner is arbitrary. But what you are ACTUALLY saying is that using the word 'gravity' as opposed to some other word is an arbitrary choice. The gravity is still there.

Peaker:I think its pretty simple. The fact that yo...

2006-04-28T20:38:00.000-03:00

Peaker:

I think its pretty simple. The fact that you and I are both concious beings, or more specifically, the fact that YOU are a concious being, means that I do not own you. This is a universal truth, I can't think your thoughts, you own them. You can't think my thoughts, I own them. Its observable, its testable in a lab, its a law of fucking nature.

Therefore if you assert ownership of me you are violating my nature. The word "moral" is a label applied to actions that are consistent with the basic nature of humans, and "immoral" actions would be those that violate that nature.

Basically, you are arguing that morality can't be defined that way... why not?

Aw crap! You've drawn me into another one. You mig...

2006-04-27T21:30:00.000-03:00

Aw crap! You've drawn me into another one. You might have noticed that I like to lighten the mood once in a while, but this is too serious for me to take lightly.

"I don't deny it, but I believe it is irrelevant and unprovable either way."

How is this not denying it?

You speak with forked tongue, it seems to me.

I believe that most people act from a standpoint of perceived self-interest. The difference is, that those of us who are not qualified to have an opinion but have one anyway, could tell the sociopath about the mistakes that they are making. The sociopath is incapable of agreeing. Talking about rapists in the context of morality is like mice trying to bell the cat. Could we possibly talk about the majority of human beings that are, for the greater part, sane?

When the Government takes over the job of law enforcement, they dis-empower us to execute justice. There are reasons to support this. In truth, if I caught a rapist in the act, I would not call 911, I would dispach that individual with no more concern than I would feel killing a cockroach. I have my reasons. I am also both prepared to live with the consequences, and unconcerned as to the opinions of others. Does this make me a potential murderer? Depends upon your definition. Am I a threat to you? Only if.... Is this an immoral position? Not from where I sit. The sanctity of human life is a convenient fiction.

I've completely lost patience and respect now.You ...

2006-04-23T16:37:00.000-03:00

I've completely lost patience and respect now.

You completely misunderstood everything I have said.

"If you wish not to be raped or more generally mistreated, you better not be mistreat others. If you do mistreat others, many others will do it too."

You wrote it. If you still don't get it, and you wrote it, then I'm not seeing any evidence for you having any sense.

That only makes sense if you accept the "golden rule" (which I do), which is that other people, being similar to you, will act like you. If you rape, they will rape too. If you mistreat, they will mistreat too. Thus, if you want a good society you must be good yourself.

If you reject the "golden rule" as you claim that you do because you seem to think it is not rational, then there is no reason for you to think that there is any connection whatsoever between what you do, and what others do. Your moral code CAN treat your own actions differently and arbitrarily from other people's actions.

Now, why shouldn't I come over and rape and kill you, or is that just "arbitrary?"

Because of the relativistic moral system that you hold. Just because a moral system is arbitrary and relative, does not make any better or worse than any other system, "absolute" or not.

I do not accept the golden rule, because it is not rational. People do not all want to be treated the same way.

Again, you misunderstood the golden rule. It merely says that since people are similar, they will act similarly. It does not mean "treat everyone the same", it means "if you mistreat others, it probably means that its likely that they, being similar to you, will mistreat you". It says there's a sort of "implicit connection" between what unrelated people do. To the thinking mind, it may seem like unexplained causality.

Since you can't see why I shouldn't rape you with a broken bottle, this is obvious.

I see why: Because of the relative moral system we both hold which says this is wrong.

The reason you insist that this means morality is not based on fact

I claim morality is relative and arbitrary, not that its "not based on fact". Moral judgement calls are based on the arbitrary goals defined, as well as the facts and analysis of consequences.

and only arbitrary acceptance is because you haven't read a fucking thing we've written or recorded, except this thread.

Give me any reference to a writing or a recording that can derive any "good moral behaviour" that is not based on an arbitrary goal. Please no link to irrelevant crucification talk this time.

If you can't see any earthly reason why you make decisions every day, things look grim for old peaker.

I see very earthy and simple reasons for my decisions. My morality is my guide, and just like yours and everyone else's, it is based on arbitrary goals, which are nonetheless my goals.

Morality is not what we're doing here, man. It's not about assholes sitting around thinking about what other people shouldn't do. It's what we do. And if you don't know why you're doing it save for your giving up your moral autonomy and submitting to a cultural belief

Again, you completely misunderstand my view: I oppose cultural morality guidelines, and I don't accept the morality of my culture and much of the morality of my state. I derive my own morality from the arbitrary goals I have. It is as autonomous as it can get.

It seems that you just have knee-jerk reactions based on partial understanding. Try to take the time to understand what I'm saying, don't assume my opinion.

I've completely lost patience and respect now."If ...

2006-04-23T08:45:00.000-03:00

I've completely lost patience and respect now.

"If you wish not to be raped or more generally mistreated, you better not be mistreat others. If you do mistreat others, many others will do it too."

You wrote it. If you still don't get it, and you wrote it, then I'm not seeing any evidence for you having any sense.

Now, why shouldn't I come over and rape and kill you, or is that just "arbitrary?"

I do not accept the golden rule, because it is not rational. People do not all want to be treated the same way. Since you can't see why I shouldn't rape you with a broken bottle, this is obvious. The reason you insist that this means morality is not based on fact, and only arbitrary acceptance is because you haven't read a fucking thing we've written or recorded, except this thread.

If you can't see any earthly reason why you make decisions every day, things look grim for old peaker. Morality is not what we're doing here, man. It's not about assholes sitting around thinking about what other people shouldn't do. It's what we do. And if you don't know why you're doing it save for your giving up your moral autonomy and submitting to a cultural belief , you're either a monk or a kid. You can't possibly think that you have any grounds for trying to convince anyone here of anything, can you? Because itIs all just made-up opinion anyway. If it's not based on fact, Peaker, I don't give a shit what you say, and nobody else should, either.

Because its obvious that we are all conscious indi...

2006-04-22T20:27:00.000-03:00

Because its obvious that we are all conscious individuals. Or do you deny this?

I don't deny it, but I believe it is irrelevant and unprovable either way. If both are conscious, they are similar in that regard, but why does this similarity mean anything to how Person A should treat Person B?

You are 100% wrong. Forcing rape upon a woman is to force the victim to perform an action. It also violates their ability to determine for themselves what they are to do. What are you trying to deny the existence of force or coercion? Please.

Bad choice of wording on my part.
I meant that I reject your premise that if person A violates person B he is "allowing" violation of himself in the process. There is no way you can link the two logically.

Sorry I didnt read about your golden rule. Theres too many comments here. How does your "golden rule" apply to a rape scenario? Do you think it is "wrong" to rape someone?

The "golden rule" means that all people are similar, and will act in similar ways. What you do is what many others will do. If you wish not to be raped or more generally mistreated, you better not be mistreat others. If you do mistreat others, many others will do it too.
I actually accept the golden rule (arbitrarily), and thus I believe that hurting other humans is in a way hurting me, and I believe in the protection of all humans. So what I consider moral is what helps humans' happiness, and vice versa.

What I meant was, because we are all conscious individuals, we all have the same sovereignty over our own selves, and to say that ones self-ownership can be violated is to say that all individuals can be violated,

Why, what if person A says "only person A's sovereignty mustn't be violated, other persons may be". How is that inconsistent or wrong, other than by your subjective judgement?

What I meant was, because we are all conscious ind...

2006-04-22T20:08:00.000-03:00

What I meant was, because we are all conscious individuals, we all have the same sovereignty over our own selves, and to say that ones self-ownership can be violated is to say that all individuals can be violated, including the individual making the claim of relativism or applying force to another.

Is it? Why are you assuming this similarity or ide...

2006-04-22T20:05:00.000-03:00

Is it? Why are you assuming this similarity or identity between that someone and that other?

Because its obvious that we are all conscious individuals. Or do you deny this?

If person A chooses to disregard person B, they are not performing any action on the behalf of person B, and not making any implicit admission of what person B can make.

You are 100% wrong. Forcing rape upon a woman is to force the victim to perform an action. It also violates their ability to determine for themselves what they are to do. What are you trying to deny the existence of force or coercion? Please.

This assumption of equivalence between all persons, is called "The Golden Rule" that I mentioned earlier.
You may accept or reject the golden rule, but this acceptance or rejection is purely arbitrary.

Sorry I didnt read about your golden rule. Theres too many comments here. How does your "golden rule" apply to a rape scenario? Do you think it is "wrong" to rape someone?

If someone chooses to disregard another, then they...

2006-04-22T19:47:00.000-03:00

If someone chooses to disregard another, then they are implicitly admitting that someone else can choose to disregard him, and in turn rape or kill him.

Is it? Why are you assuming this similarity or identity between that someone and that other?
If person A chooses to disregard person B, they are not performing any action on the behalf of person B, and not making any implicit admission of what person B can make.
This assumption of equivalence between all persons, is called "The Golden Rule" that I mentioned earlier.
You may accept or reject the golden rule, but this acceptance or rejection is purely arbitrary.

If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not a...

2006-04-22T19:43:00.000-03:00

If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women, and his only purpose is his own best interest, there is no objective moral reason for him not to rape or to think rape is immoral.

Your problem is in your proemise. You said: "If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women"

If someone chooses to disregard another, then they are implicitly admitting that someone else can choose to disregard him, and in turn rape or kill him. So, objectively, it is not within this mans best interests to violate the sovereignty of another. That is because you cannot logically state that it is valid to coerce or violate another person without agreeing that it is ok to be coerced or violated yourself.

"If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not ...

2006-04-22T19:37:00.000-03:00

"If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women, and his only purpose is his own best interest, there is no objective moral reason for him not to rape or to think rape is immoral."

And yet a dick will just as easily be stuffed in your mouth or anus, you stupid bitch.

This alone proves that you are a little kid who has no idea what he's talking about. Go back to momma.

Rape is forcibly penetrating a human. Can you purs...

2006-04-22T19:32:00.000-03:00

Rape is forcibly penetrating a human. Can you pursue your values in a society that condones rape?

No.

Rape will take away your freedom to pursue your values, and the values of those you care about. Being against rape has nothing to do with women.
Rape of whom? When the Nazis declared that rape of Jews is allowed, it didn't deprive the Non-Jewish Germans of freedom.
So what does this point have to do with it?

"There is no objective way to determine that killing a man is immoral, "

You're insane, or simply not creative. Or you give up your autonomy and you live in someone's cage.

You are assuming that because I think there is no objective way, I think there is no way at all. That's incorrect. I believe that killing a man is wrong, simply because I have an ultimate goal that contradicts it.

Let me explain this simply, as if I haven't already made a children's cartoon about it, located a couple of posts down:

Again--for the 56th or 104th or 212th time (I'm not counting)

Morality:
The study of causality as it relates to human a\behavior,

Morality is more than causality. It is also assigning a value of "goodness" to the consequences. Any such value is based on a set of arbitrary goals [you call them values], because there is no inherent "goodness".

How to Pursue Morality:

1. Identify the values
2.Identify, through fact, if the values are rational.

"values" are just goals. Goals are either "mid-goals" meant to achieve another goal, which eventually is meant to achieve an ultimate goal. The ultimate goals have no "purpose" of their own. They are just arbitrary goals. As such, they cannot be rational. Can you explain what your values are and why they are rational?

Any further comments should be made after listenin...

2006-04-22T19:05:00.000-03:00

Any further comments should be made after listening to the show we recorded today:

SHow 101: The War on Relativism

"agreement has nothing to do with it"What people t...

2006-04-22T18:53:00.000-03:00

"agreement has nothing to do with it"

What people think has nothing to do with whether something's moral, any more than popularity has anything to do with something being true. If you believe that, you're religious, and I have nothing more to say to you about this topic.

Rape is forcibly penetrating a human. Can you purs...

2006-04-22T18:46:00.000-03:00

Rape is forcibly penetrating a human. Can you pursue your values in a society that condones rape? Rape will take away your freedom to pursue your values, and the values of those you care about. Being against rape has nothing to do with women.

"There is no objective way to determine that killing a man is immoral, "

You're insane, or simply not creative. Or you give up your autonomy and you live in someone's cage.

Let me explain this simply, as if I haven't already made a children's cartoon about it, located a couple of posts down:

Again--for the 56th or 104th or 212th time (I'm not counting)

Morality:
The study of causality as it relates to human a\behavior,

How to Pursue Morality:

1. Identify the values
2.Identify, through fact, if the values are rational.
3. Determine if the values are being fulfilled by the action.

You have assumed I am talking about "the golden rules" or magical rules. I am not, as you can see by the definition above.

Question: are all moral judgements equal?

#1: Rape has nothing to do with women or gender.s/...

2006-04-22T18:25:00.000-03:00

#1: Rape has nothing to do with women or gender.
s/women/rape subjects

#2: You are assuming positions I have not asserted.

Please explain more specifically.

#3: Agreement has nothing to do with it.

Please be more specific?

I can rephrase the above:
Morals are a set of rules to follow in order to achieve the ultimate goals of their follower. The ultimate goals of a healthy human normally include his own survival, happiness, the survival and well-being of his close ones, and so on. Thus people deem things that achieve these goals as moral and others as immoral.

But it is important to notice that these ultimate goals above are in fact arbitrary, making morals arbitrary, and relative to these goals. You call these goals context, but it is a semantic difference, the morals are still relative.

These ultimate goals often don't seem arbitrary because so many of us humans share them. But the reason we share them is because of genetic/education similarity. Some people don't share these goals, and while you would call them immoral, their actions are in line with their goals and thus are moral in their perspective.

For example: There is no objective way to determine that killing a man is immoral, other than assuming some goal of life that contradicts it. This goal would by definition be arbitrary and not a necessity of a moral system.

#3: Agreement has nothing to do with it.

2006-04-22T18:08:00.000-03:00

#3: Agreement has nothing to do with it.

#1: Rape has nothing to do with women or gender.#2...

2006-04-22T18:07:00.000-03:00

#1: Rape has nothing to do with women or gender.
#2: You are assuming positions I have not asserted.

Another point:As harsh as it may sound, rape is on...

2006-04-22T17:56:00.000-03:00

Another point:
As harsh as it may sound, rape is only bad because all of us include women in the "moral group" we would like to protect and care for the best interests of.

If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women, and his only purpose is his own best interest, there is no objective moral reason for him not to rape or to think rape is immoral.

This is not to be taken as a justification of rape, obviously. My "moral group" includes women, like everyone else, and that means that for me it is moral to punish rapists, perhaps more thoroughly than the current common legal system.

You are wrong :-)I agree that fact and science sho...

2006-04-22T17:51:00.000-03:00

You are wrong :-)

I agree that fact and science should be used to judge the morality of things. But:

What you call contextualism is indeed moral relativism, because of the basic definition of what morality is.

You think there are values that are globally shared, and I challenge you to find any such value that _all_ humans would agree about. Also, I may include just myself in the "moral group" that I wish the best for. Thus it would become moral for me to force or kill others if it helps me.

If you assume the "golden rule" or others (thus requiring a definition of group, which itself would affect the judgement of morality), then some actions become moral or not.