21-05-2004 07:19									#91
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: An absolutely valid assertion is true without any prior assumptions.

Aren't all valid assertions, "absolute" or not, based on prior, correct assumptions? It seems to me absolute and valid are redundant. How can an absolutely valid opinion be invalid?

quote: Nothing prevents an intrinsic morality from being inconsistent.

Sure it does, by virtue of being "intrinsic", morality depends on a standard, not on personal whim. If murder is intrinsically immoral, then it cannot become moral just because my personal whim includes a fondness for the murderer.

quote: What are you getting at?

You said a racist's views were objectively moral just because the racist believed it. No, there are requirements for morality to be objective - one being consistency and the other being a logical basis. Moral relativism has no requirements...

quote: No. If I say that someone who practices slavery is immoral, that says absolutely nothing about what he believes. We're all individuals.

But someone is right and the other is wrong, either slavery is immoral or it isn't. How does the moral relativist reach a conclusion as to which position is valid?

quote: I can judge whether certain social interactions are good or not with my morality. That's all it's good for. There's nothing cosmic about it.

But that makes morality meaningless, you can say murder is immoral when you dislike the murderer but change your mind and support murder when you like the murderer. Objective morality says there is an intrinsic morality that requires consistency, murder is immoral regardless of whether or not we like the murderer.

	21-05-2004 07:21									#92
	Got spare money?

quote: If morality is intrinsic, it depends on a standard that applies to us all, not on personal whim.

Why?

quote: Do you believe your morality is invalid? Their ignorance of morality is not an indictment of moral objectivism..

I'm not indicting anything. I was again demonstrating people who probably believe in objective moralities that are hypocrites.

	21-05-2004 07:30									#93
	Support Apolyton

quote: Aren't all valid assertions, "absolute" or not, based on prior, correct assumptions? It seems to me absolute and valid are redundant. How can an absolutely valid opinion be invalid?

A valid opinion is one that isn't logically invalid, that is one that doesn't contradict itself.

As for the latter question, well one can be illogical in the construction of one's morality.

quote: Moral relativism has no requirements...

Neither does objectivism.

quote: Sure it does, by virtue of being "intrinsic", morality depends on a standard, not on personal whim. If murder is intrinsically immoral, then it cannot become moral just because my personal whim includes a fondness for the murderer.

Yes, that's true if "murder" (whatever that means) is intrinsically immoral. However, if I construct an intrinsic morality where's it immoral to killing everyone but Some Dude whom I don't like, that's not true.

And murder is a poor term to use. If you use it in the sense that it's an immoral killing (to me), it's always immoral to me. If you use it in the sense that it's an illegal killing, it may very well be moral to me.

quote: You said a racist's views were objectively moral just because the racist believed it. No, there are requirements for morality to be objective - one being consistency and the other being a logical basis. Moral relativism has no requirements...

I said that the racist believed his morals were objectively true. And you're making up those requirements.

quote: But someone is right and the other is wrong, either slavery is immoral or it isn't. How does the moral relativist reach a conclusion as to which position is valid?

My position.

quote: But that makes morality meaningless

It's not meaningless. It's how I live my life and interact with others and judge others. It's very useful.

	21-05-2004 07:31									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: That's no excuse -- you should have asked to have been born early enough so that you could have been alive then.

Had I been alive then my views wouldn't be different, but I suspect prisoners were treated much better in 1861. It wasn't until later in the war that Andersonville became a hellhole and that was largely Lincoln's fault. The South lacked the resources to field armies and properly take care of prisoners and I've read that Lincoln refused a requested prisoner exchange by the South that would have ended the suffering there. Maybe MtG knows more about what happened...

	21-05-2004 07:33									#95
	Got spare money?

Oy, don't turn this into a 15 quotes per post super-lengthy discussion on objective morality. Just agree to disagree (or form another thread.. Berz vs everyone else and then some) and discuss the... hypocrisy. After all, do you want to close off the debate for anyone else who wishes to talk about the two original statements? I purposely didn't bring up that it isn't moral relativity for that reason .

	21-05-2004 07:34									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, me neither. But I was weak when it came up into the open.

	21-05-2004 07:53									#97
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ye of weak willpower. Be strong and walk in the way of the Markos .

	21-05-2004 08:21									#98
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Why?

That's what "intrinsic" connotes.

quote: I'm not indicting anything. I was again demonstrating people who probably believe in objective moralities that are hypocrites.

What for? What is your goal here? You obviously think that pointing to a hypocrite who allegedly believes in moral objectivism is an indictment of moral objectivism. That is illogical... These people don't believe in objective morality, as you said, they are hypocrites.

quote: A valid opinion is one that isn't logically invalid, that is one that doesn't contradict itself.

And an absolutely valid opinion is the opposite?

quote: Neither does objectivism.

I've already pointed to two requirements - consistency and logic based. That's what "objectivism" implies, stepping outside of your personal biases and looking at the world from a scientific or rationally consistent POV. Jesus' Golden Rule embodies objectivist morality, it's based on logic and consistency. That's why murder or rape is immoral, intrinsically immoral...

quote: Yes, that's true if "murder" (whatever that means) is intrinsically immoral. However, if I construct an intrinsic morality where's it immoral to killing everyone but Some Dude whom I don't like, that's not true.

You cannot construct an "intrinsic" morality that says it is moral for you to murder Some Dude for that reason because whom you like or dislike is irrelevant to objective morality even though it is relevant to moral relativism. If murder is objectively/intrinsically immoral, it doesn't become moral because you have a fondness for the murderer or a dislike for the victim.

quote: And murder is a poor term to use. If you use it in the sense that it's an immoral killing (to me), it's always immoral to me. If you use it in the sense that it's an illegal killing, it may very well be moral to me.

How about rape? If an immoral killing is always immoral to you, is it moral if I say that killing is moral? Telling me it's moral to me and immoral to you is a dodge (not that you used that dodge yet), one of us is right and the other is wrong because there is an intrinsic morality, an objective morality and we can't both be right.

quote: I said that the racist believed his morals were objectively true. And you're making up those requirements.

And I asked why it matters what the racist thinks. What do you mean I'm making them up? Objectivity has a definition just as subjectivity and relativism... As you said, moral relativism denies any intrinsic morality while moral objectivism embraces this intrinsic morality. Did I make that up?

quote: My position.

Of course, yet you deny moral objectivism and embrace moral relativism while practicing the former. How can you say your position is the moral one when morality is relative? And why is your position the right position?

quote: It's not meaningless. It's how I live my life and interact with others and judge others. It's very useful.

But you can't judge others because morality is relative, their morality is also valid. That's what moral relativism means, morality relative to the one making the judgements. This is where moral relativists run into trouble, they argue there is no objective morality while claiming their morality is the correct one. And when they are asked to explain their thought process to obtain this morality they start citing the rationale used by objectivists. But because so many moral relativists are godless left wingers who can't stand the religious right who constantly preach an absolute morality based on their convenient interpretations of the Bible, moral relativists begin to despise the very process by which they arrived at their own morality. So much so they have to give that process a new name lest they be reminded they are also moral absolutists...

	21-05-2004 08:31									#99
	Tired of ads?

There's irony for ya, the moral "absolutists" who are religious (or at least feign to be religious) are in fact the moral relativists. While they claim slavery is immoral they can't logically explain why their biblical God not just condoned or endorsed slavery, but ordered it. They start inventing excuses instead. That's moral relativism,
when God commits immoral acts, they become moral because it's God committing the act. The real moral absolutist/objectivist says that God was wrong too...

	21-05-2004 08:36									#100
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Btw, it's becoming more and more obvious why so many Repubs and their media sycophants are trying to suppress the investigation into this abuse. It's because the trail leads to Rumsfeld and probably Cheney.

	21-05-2004 08:36									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nah, that's an easy one for them to weasel out of. God defines what is right and wrong, so he can't be wrong (as everything he does is de facto right, everything contrary to him is wrong). Should God's directives change, so does right and wrong. Ergo just because something is wrong today doesn't mean it was wrong back then, as God can change what is right as he sees fit.

So they just say God's plan for the world changed as time went on, rendering some previously right things wrong (like slavery), while rendering some previously wrong things right (like eating pork). Et voila, we have an easy means of justifying genocide, mass murder, slavery, torture, racism, sexism and homophobia... "God said to do it!"

Last edited by Boris Godunov on 21-05-2004 at 08:52

	21-05-2004 08:39									#102
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There goes Imran, complaining about a debate he lacks the stomach for I didn't start this debate, Imran.

	21-05-2004 08:41									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: While they claim slavery is immoral they can't logically explain why their biblical God not just condoned or endorsed slavery, but ordered it. They start inventing excuses instead. That's moral relativism,

Actually, it's hypocracy. Moral relativism just says their views are no more valid than anyone else's views, even if they are hypocritical (your example deals with one person or one group... moral relativity deals with people or groups with differing belief systems squaring off against each other).

Anyway, that's as far as I'm getting involved in this without a new thread (to not be seen myself as a hypocrite )... and even then I may not, if I don't feel the use.

	21-05-2004 08:42									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker There goes Imran, complaining about a debate he lacks the stomach for I didn't start this debate, Imran.

I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack .

And sure you started it. After all, it is tangentially based on your OP.

	21-05-2004 08:52									#105
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker By "allow" I mean consistent with. If morality is relative, then I'm allowed to condemn one crime while dismissing another based soley on my personal POV, not on any objective standard. For example, if objective morality says murder is immoral then I cannot condemn or dismiss murder when it suits my agenda. I must be consistent...

And according to relativism, there is no objective morality. Anything is consistent with it. Relativism isn't a moral philosophy; it's a philosophy of morality. Relativism makes no moral judgements.

	21-05-2004 08:55									#106
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker But hypocrisy is immoral because objective morality requires consistency, that's what distinguishes objective morality from relative morality.

Objective morality requires consistency no more than subjective does.

	21-05-2004 09:15									#107
	Tired of ads?

quote: I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack . And sure you started it. After all, it is tangentially based on your OP.

Kucinich started the debate on the nature of moral relativism, I merely referred to a certain behavior as moral relativism in my opening post. But if I did, you're complaining about me hijacking a thread I started? And since I didn't, complain about Kucinich and Ramo, it takes more than one person to debate (unless you're John Kerry) and they took issue with my opening post.

quote: And according to relativism, there is no objective morality. Anything is consistent with it. Relativism isn't a moral philosophy; it's a philosophy of morality. Relativism makes no moral judgements.

So how can you be a moral relativist and condemn slavery as immoral? I won't even touch that bit about it being a philosophy of morality as opposed to a moral philosophy.

quote: Objective morality requires consistency no more than subjective does.

Sure it does, objective morality is about an inherent or intrinsic morality, a "natural" morality that is based on obeservable principles as opposed to moral relativism which is subjective and relative to the POV of the eye of the beholder.

	21-05-2004 09:19									#108
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: But if I did, you're complaining about me hijacking a thread I started?

Yes. You don't own the thread .

quote: And since I didn't, complain about Kucinich and Ramo, it takes more than one person to debate (unless you're John Kerry) and they took issue with my opening post.

You helped and read my post again. I complained about all of you tossers . And seeing how your OP was incorrect, I can see them taking issue with it. Perhaps it should have been dropped in favor of another thread then.

	21-05-2004 09:20									#109
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker So how can you be a moral relativist and condemn slavery as immoral?

Real easily. It's against my personal morality. I really couldn't care less that it isn't "objective" - I'll still insist other people follow it

quote: I won't even touch that bit about it being a philosophy of morality as opposed to a moral philosophy.

My point was that it doesn't make any moral judgements - it talks about the properties of morality, it doesn't actually say what is moral and what is not. Because of this, it can be objectively true.

quote: Sure it does, objective morality is about an inherent or intrinsic morality, a "natural" morality that is based on obeservable principles as opposed to moral relativism which is subjective and relative to the POV of the eye of the beholder.

What observable principles? How the hell do you obseve morality?

	21-05-2004 09:24									#110
	Remove this text

quote: Moral relativism just says their views are no more valid than anyone else's views, even if they are hypocritical (your example deals with one person or one group...

That's what I've been saying, but Ramo says his POV that slavery is immoral is the right POV. So how can he be a moral relativist?

	21-05-2004 09:26									#111
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Easy. He acknowledges that there is no objective morality, but doesn't give a damn.

	21-05-2004 09:28									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Cause it's his own personal morality. But that doesn't mean it is more valid than anyone elses, even if he wants others to follow his (by using persuasion, saying you should follow mine, not saying mine is inherantly better or mine is the absolute truth, just I like mine better, perhaps you will too... and if all morality is equally valid, it doesn't matter if one gets subsumed by another).

Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 21-05-2004 at 09:38

	21-05-2004 09:40									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yes. You don't own the thread .

But the people who do own it allow us to hijack threads we start.

quote: You helped and read my post again. I complained about all of you tossers .

No, you complained about me hijacking this thread. If the thread is about my opening post, then debating terms used in my OP are fair game for debate. Hijacking a thread is changing the subject, not debating terms used to define the subject.

quote: And seeing how your OP was incorrect, I can see them taking issue with it. Perhaps it should have been dropped in favor of another thread then.

You can start one if you like, but we're apparently happy enough to debate here.

quote: Real easily. It's against my personal morality. I really couldn't care less that it isn't "objective" - I'll still insist other people follow it

But what good is your personal morality if you don't even know if it's right? If you say it is right, then you don't believe in moral relativism, as Imran says, moral relativism means no one's morality is more valid than anyone else's.

quote: What observable principles? How the hell do you obseve morality?

You don't observe morality (except in action), you observe the principles. Without adding a bunch of caveats to change the following example (as Imran has done in the past wrt the Golden Rule ), no one wants to be murdered. That is an observable principle. Therefore, murder violates a principle upon which objective morality is based. Murder is immoral, not because I don't want to be murdered or because of my "personal morality", but because no one wants to be murdered. This is what I call a "universal desire" and these universal desires are the basis for objectivist morality...

	21-05-2004 09:43									#114
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Easy. He acknowledges that there is no objective morality, but doesn't give a damn.

That makes no sense, his position runs counter to moral relativism yet he denies the existence of the very moral philosophy that he depends on to make his judgement.

	21-05-2004 09:43									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: But what good is your personal morality if you don't even know if it's right? If you say it is right, then you don't believe in moral relativism, as Imran says, moral relativism means no one's morality is more valid than anyone else's.

I don't have to know that it's right; I just decide to follow it anyways. Part of that, at least for me, is insisting that others follow it too

	21-05-2004 09:45									#116
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker You don't observe morality (except in action), you observe the principles. Without adding a bunch of caveats to change the following example (as Imran has done in the past wrt the Golden Rule ), no one wants to be murdered. That is an observable principle. Therefore, murder violates a principle upon which objective morality is based. Murder is immoral, not because I don't want to be murdered or because of my "personal morality", but because no one wants to be murdered. This is what I call a "universal desire" and these universal desires are the basis for objectivist morality...

Huh? Going from "no one wants to be murded" to "one ought not to murder people" requires that you assume "one ought not to do things no one wants". And why can't the objective morality be "kill all people wearing plaid shirts"?

	21-05-2004 09:46									#117
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: But what good is your personal morality if you don't even know if it's right?

It isn't. Haven't you ever changed your position before? I bet you thought you were right before you changed your position... and you thought you were right afterwards! Yours, mine, Kucinich's personal morality are all no good.. no one's is. That's my point. But you can STILL say it is right, because that's your own personal belief. To say moral relativity means you can't try to persuade others to your belief is just being ignorant of moral relativity.

Btw, on your no one wants to be murdered thing... no one wants to be hungry either. Universal desire, let's give them all food right? Isn't that basis for your so-called objective morality? Why not? Because you say so.

quote: No, you complained about me hijacking this thread.

I wonder why I bother when you won't even read my ****ing posts .

	21-05-2004 09:48									#118
	Support Apolyton

quote: I don't have to know that it's right; I just decide to follow it anyways. Part of that, at least for me, is insisting that others follow it too

Yikes, now I know why herds can ramble off a cliff, they follow a blind leader What if you're wrong and you are forcing others to behave immorally?

	21-05-2004 09:50									#119
	Got spare money?

quote: his position runs counter to moral relativism

No it doesn't. Moral relativism allows for people to have their pwn personal moralities and try to impose it on others. It just says that the morality that person A has is no more valid or absolute truth-like than the one person B has. And if person A asserts that it is, he is simply making it up for his own ends. In the end, moral relativism basically says your morality is just as good as this tosser who is saying you are violating some 'absolute morality'. After all, if he asserts him as absolute morality and someone else says they are absolute morality... who wins in the end? The one with the power to say his is the real absolute morality, that's who.

	21-05-2004 10:09									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kucinich -

quote: Huh? Going from "no one wants to be murded" to "one ought not to murder people" requires that you assume "one ought not to do things no one wants".

Of course, we're talking about morality - right and wrong. But how can the victim of murder do what they want if someone else murders them? They can't, so that's an illogical supposition.

quote: And why can't the objective morality be "kill all people wearing plaid shirts"?

Because there is no universal desire to murder people wearing plaid shirts much less murder people in general.

Imran -

quote: It isn't. Haven't you ever changed your position before? I bet you thought you were right before you changed your position... and you thought you were right afterwards!

Sure, and I was wrong before and right afterwards. Or I was right before and wrong afterwards, or maybe I was wrong then and wrong now if there are more than 2 possible positions. And?

quote: Yours, mine, Kucinich's personal morality are all no good.. no one's is. That's my point. But you can STILL say it is right, because that's your own personal belief. To say moral relativity means you can't try to persuade others to your belief is just being ignorant of moral relativity.

Who said we cannot try to convince others that our belief is the correct one? If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant at least back it up with something I actually said. Now, Ramo says slavery is immoral and he claims he is right. How do you explain that given your definition of moral relativism and Ramo's claim to be a moral relativist?

quote: Btw, on your no one wants to be murdered thing... no one wants to be hungry either. Universal desire, let's give them all food right? Isn't that basis for your so-called objective morality? Why not? Because you say so.

Can you wait for an answer before answering for me? Yes, objective morality does require us to give food to those who are hungry. If a hungry person showed up on my doorstep that's what I would do...

quote: I wonder why I bother when you won't even read my ****ing posts .

An apt description of the content of your posts, but are you now saying you didn't complain about me hijacking my own thread? Read this:

quote: I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack . And sure you started it. After all, it is tangentially based on your OP.