06-04-2002 04:16									#61
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It is 'wrong' to kill because it undermines society, not because of any moral precept.

The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

	06-04-2002 04:16									#62
	Got spare money?

Please do a better job of convincing me of natural rights and universals. I truly want to believe. But telling me that natural rights are right and those who disagree are wrong isn't a good argument in my opinion.

I truly want something more substantial than the Nietzschian view that there is nothing other than power and strength. I think this is a very base view of the world. I'd hate for it to be correct. But logically I find it difficult to support some mystical, universal account for rights that exist whether or not anyone acknowledges or protects them.

	06-04-2002 04:20									#63
	Tired of ads?

Loinburger, Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "faggots have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

Imran labels that group the state, which is correct in the practical sense, in that if the state does not recognize your rights, you ain't got them. I label that group, society, of which the state is a representative. however, I'm arguing on a more abstract layer on this point.

	06-04-2002 04:22									#64
	Tired of ads?

quote: The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

Immoral to you perhaps... but someone that killed Hitler in 1933, while not wanting to be killed himself... many would say he was not immoral.

As you see... morals are relative... as Ozzy states... power is what exists in the world... all the morality comes from those who are the most powerful or have been the powerful in the past.

	06-04-2002 04:23									#65
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity, therefore unjustly killing another when one wishes not to be killed is inconsistent and thus immoral.

My definition of unjust may be different from yours.

	06-04-2002 04:25									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I label that group, society, of which the state is a representative. however, I'm arguing on a more abstract layer on this point.

Well yes, che, but then that state is a representative of the society... the state is still the ultimate giver and taker-away of rights. There still does need to be authority. The group really can't enfore morals, even in mob form, unless there is a state apparatus.

	06-04-2002 04:26									#67
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I agree.

	06-04-2002 04:28									#68
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui As you see... morals are relative... as Ozzy states... power is what exists in the world... all the morality comes from those who are the most powerful or have been the powerful in the past.

Those weren't my words, those were from Nietzsche. I truly don't want to believe in him and what he stands for. It seems to be a terrible conception of humanity. But I'm still trying to come up with something that makes more logical sense. So help me out all of you universalists.

	06-04-2002 04:29									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Please do a better job of convincing me of natural rights and universals. I truly want to believe. But telling me that natural rights are right and those who disagree are wrong isn't a good argument in my opinion.

Habermas doesn't argue for natural rights, but he argues for something pretty close to them. Read Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action if you're interested in breaking the Nietzsche habit.

quote: I truly want something more substantial than the Nietzschian view that there is nothing other than power and strength. I think this is a very base view of the world. I'd hate for it to be correct. But logically I find it difficult to support some mystical, universal account for rights that exist whether or not anyone acknowledges or protects them.

-Premise 1: Humans are social creatures--they communicate with one another.

-Premise 2: The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity between the participants in communication, particularly in argumentation (an argument without reciprocity is not an argument). Failure to presuppose some level of reciprocity results in failure to communicate, thus violating the first premise.

-Premise 3: Wickedness is not some mystical force that permeates the universe, but a term that humans have come up with to describe actions that cause moral indignation. It is an objective, not universal, term used to describe actions, specifically those actions taken by others that are intended to unjustifiably harm us.

-Premise 4: Humans do not wish others to be wicked to them, meaning that we do not wish to be unjustly killed, enslaved, or robbed.

-Conclusion: Humans therefore may not unjustifiably kill, enslave, or rob other humans. Failure to do so violates the presuppositions that are necessary for communication, thus performing actions unto others that one would call "wicked" when performed by others is inconsistent and immoral behavior.

	06-04-2002 04:33									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Immoral to you perhaps... but someone that killed Hitler in 1933, while not wanting to be killed himself... many would say he was not immoral.

That is because someone who killed Hitler in 1933 would have a reasonable justification for his actions. If Speer were to kill Floyd because they disagree then Speer's justification is unreasonable and killing Floyd would be immoral.

	06-04-2002 04:35									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Loinburger, Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "faggots have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

His lack of punishment wouldn't alter the fact that Phelps would be behaving inconsistently.

	06-04-2002 04:39									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Imran is correct when he says morals are relative. I could be Fred Phelps, and think "faggots have no right to live," and go kill them. Unless gay people have some group that will intervene upon their behalf or take revenge if they are killed anyways, there will be nothing to stop the moral Fred Phelp's of the world from trying to kill as many gays for God as they can.

How does this prove that morals are relative in any sense of the word?

	06-04-2002 04:40									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara My definition of unjust may be different from yours.

"unjust" is an objective term, so your definition must adhere (more or less) to the dictionary (i.e. "unjust" more or less equates to "unfair"). This is just like the terms "wicked" and "righteous," which must also more or less adhere to the dictionary.

Making up new oddball definitions for these words works about as well as making up new oddball definitions for any other words; if I said "from now on, when I say 'nation,' I'm really talking about a 'teacup,' and when I say 'teacup' I'm really talking about a 'nation'" then you'd all say something along the lines of "Go play in the street" and ignore me.

	06-04-2002 04:41									#74
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by loinburger -Premise 1: Humans are social creatures--they communicate with one another. -Premise 2: The act of communication presupposes some level of reciprocity between the participants in communication, particularly in argumentation (an argument without reciprocity is not an argument). Failure to presuppose some level of reciprocity results in failure to communicate, thus violating the first premise. -Premise 3: Wickedness is not some mystical force that permeates the universe, but a term that humans have come up with to describe actions that cause moral indignation. It is an objective, not universal, term used to describe actions, specifically those actions taken by others that are intended to unjustifiably harm us. -Premise 4: Humans do not wish others to be wicked to them, meaning that we do not wish to be unjustly killed, enslaved, or robbed. -Conclusion: Humans therefore may not unjustifiably kill, enslave, or rob other humans. Failure to do so violates the presuppositions that are necessary for communication, thus performing actions unto others that one would call "wicked" when performed by others is inconsistent and immoral behavior.

Firstly I don't see how "wickedness" is an objective term. It seems entirely relitive to me. The Palestinians would say the Israelis are wicked, the Israelis would say the Palestinians are wicked, and outsiders may say they are both "immoral and inconsistent".

Putting that aside, if one were to assume that there could be some objective standard for wickedness, then to follow your chain down to the conclusion the only result of doing wicked actions is to be labeled "inconsistent and immoral." Well, so what? I'm sure the Israelis and Palestinians would just laugh it off.

	06-04-2002 04:47									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by loinburger "unjust" is an objective term, so your definition must adhere (more or less) to the dictionary (i.e. "unjust" more or less equates to "unfair"). This is just like the terms "wicked" and "righteous," which must also more or less adhere to the dictionary. Making up new oddball definitions for these words works about as well as making up new oddball definitions for any other words; if I said "from now on, when I say 'nation,' I'm really talking about a 'teacup,' and when I say 'teacup' I'm really talking about a 'nation'" then you'd all say something along the lines of "Go play in the street" and ignore me.

The dictionary defines terms generally, it doesn't apply them to real world situations.

"Hey Hitler, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Jews isn't murder, they aren't really people."

"Hey Biggot, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Blacks isn't murder, they aren't really people."

"Hey Abortion Doctor, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Fetus' isn't murder, they aren't really people."


"Hey Israeli, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Palestinians started it, I'm just protecting myself."

"Hey Palestinian, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Israelis started it, I'm just protecting myself."

	06-04-2002 04:48									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Firstly I don't see how "wickedness" is an objective term. It seems entirely relitive to me. The Palestinians would say the Israelis are wicked, the Israelis would say the Palestinians are wicked, and outsiders may say they are both "immoral and inconsistent".

Look at the term "delicious," which is also objective. If I say "Broccoli is delicious, because I like how it tastes," then whether or not you agree with me about the taste of broccoli (you might despise the taste of broccoli) you would still have to agree that my statement is reasonable since I am correctly applying the term "delicious." On the other hand, if I say "Broken glass is delicious, because it cuts up my intestines," then I would be misapplying the term and you would be perfectly justified in saying that my statement was unreasonable.

There are disagreements over what is or is not "wicked," but there are varying degrees of reasonableness to the justifications that are offered. If someone says "That man is wicked because he killed my defenseless mother who was harming nobody," then they would be justifiably applying the term. If someone else says "That man is wicked for breaking my limbs when I attempted to rob him at gunpoint," then barring any further justification, we could all agree that the term "wicked" is being misapplied in this sentence.

quote: Putting that aside, if one were to assume that there could be some objective standard for wickedness, then to follow your chain down to the conclusion the only result of doing wicked actions is to be labeled "inconsistent and immoral." Well, so what? I'm sure the Israelis and Palestinians would just laugh it off.

Just because morality cannot always be enforced does not mean that it does not exist. If a man wrongly kills another man but escapes punishment, does his action cease to be wrong?

	06-04-2002 04:53									#77
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP "Hey Hitler, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Jews isn't murder, they aren't really people."

If this were the only justification given, then would you accept Hitler's explanation? I certainly wouldn't, and would still call him a murderer.

quote: "Hey Biggot, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Blacks isn't murder, they aren't really people."

See above.

quote: "Hey Abortion Doctor, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, killing Fetus' isn't murder, they aren't really people."

This is not the extent of the justification given. It is usually "No I'm not, killing embryos isn't murder, they aren't really people since they are not self-aware thinking beings." At least, that's the justification I usually use, unless I'm trying to be cute and come up with a biological justification.

quote: "Hey Israeli, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Palestinians started it, I'm just protecting myself." "Hey Palestinian, you are a murderer!" - "No I'm not, the Israelis started it, I'm just protecting myself."

If this was the extent of the arguments given, then we'd have to look at the historical record to see who was telling the truth.

	06-04-2002 04:54									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc How does this prove that morals are relative in any sense of the word?

Because in his moral system, gays are do not have any rights. Going further, in his moral system, it is just to kill gays because they are offensive to his version of God. It is immoral in his sytem to allow them to have the same rights as "normal" people.

His morals are different. Thank goodness they are not absolute or universal. The are relative to those who believe in them. And, they are evil, but that's my point a of view (and it's a better one).

	06-04-2002 04:57									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara And, they are evil, but that's my point a of view (and it's a better one).

And most would agree with your point of view, since your justification for your moral beliefs is more reasonable than his.

	06-04-2002 04:58									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Look at the term "delicious," which is also objective. If I say "Broccoli is delicious, because I like how it tastes," then whether or not you agree with me about the taste of broccoli (you might despise the taste of broccoli) you would still have to agree that my statement is reasonable since I am correctly applying the term "delicious."

No, I could think you are a stark raving looney, cuz everyone knows that broccoli sucks (actually, I love broccoli). The term may have a definate meaning, but the meaning can be applied subjectively, just like the terms just and unjust. Because you disagree with Fred Pehlp's definition of what is just or unjust vis a vis gay people, you say he is using the term incorrectly, when in fact he is. He's just applying it differently. Just and unjust can be subjectively applied, and thus have little actual meaning outside a group agreement on what is just and unjust. Which just takes us back to what OzzyKP, Imran, and I have been writing.

	06-04-2002 04:58									#81
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger If this were the only justification given, then would you accept Hitler's explanation? I certainly wouldn't, and would still call him a murderer. This is not the extent of the justification given. It is usually "No I'm not, killing embryos isn't murder, they aren't really people since they are not self-aware thinking beings." At least, that's the justification I usually use, unless I'm trying to be cute and come up with a biological justification.

Well I am certain Hitler and the Biggot had justifications for why Blacks or Jews weren't people, but that is what it came down to. They granted themselves "personhood" but not their victims. Irregardless of your justifications this is what you are doing now with embryos.

I don't intend to make a point about abortion, but I do intend to make a point about relitivism. Is your refusal to regard a fetus as a human worthy of life any different than Hitler's refusal to regard a Jew as a human worthy of life? (or Phelps refusal to regard a homosexual as a human worthy of life?)

	06-04-2002 05:01									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Because you disagree with Fred Pehlp's definition of what is just or unjust vis a vis gay people, you say he is using the term incorrectly, when in fact he is.

I'm not sure what you mean. "When in fact he is [using the term incorrectly," or "When in fact he is [using the term correctly]"?

	06-04-2002 05:01									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by loinburger And most would agree with your point of view, since your justification for your moral beliefs is more reasonable than his.

You only say that because you agree with me. From his standpoint, his viewpoint is reasonable. It think it is unreasonable because 1) I do not believe in God, 2) I don't think that a persons sexual orientation should have anything to do with their rights. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to go as far as me. Most would agree that my point of view that gays ought to be allowed to marry is unreasonable. For now, it is.

	06-04-2002 05:03									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I'm not sure what you mean. "When in fact he is [using the term incorrectly," or "When in fact he is [using the term correctly]"?

Exactly.

	06-04-2002 05:06									#85
	Put an end to popups!

Loin and Che, it is hard to see the reasonability of someone's views that are against what you and the majority of your associates believe. Sure all of us here in this forum can say that killing gays is wrong, all of us can say that killing Jews is wrong.

Which is why I introduced the abortion issue. There is certainly some split on this issue still. In my opinion those who support abortion are not much different than those who support killing gays, or jews, or blacks or anyone else. You support abortion. So there is certainly a difference of opinion.

So logically you must agree with me that things are relitive, or you must agree with me that abortion is wrong. Either way I win

	06-04-2002 05:06									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: That is because someone who killed Hitler in 1933 would have a reasonable justification for his actions. If Speer were to kill Floyd because they disagree then Speer's justification is unreasonable and killing Floyd would be immoral.

What if Speer thought it was moral... so that Apolyton would be spared Floyd's idiotic rambling?

He wouldn't think it immoral... and neither would some posters here .

There are NO absolute morals, none. Morals are different in different cultures and to different people. Every moral precept is relative.

	06-04-2002 05:09									#87
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Well I am certain Hitler and the Biggot had justifications for why Blacks or Jews weren't people, but that is what it came down to.

Then their justifications were unreasonable. They do not have the arbitrary power given to them to determine what is and what is not a human, since (unless they were completely off their rockers) they would not agree that others should have the same arbitrary power.

quote: Is your refusal to regard a fetus as a human worthy of life any different than Hitler's refusal to regard a Jew as a human worthy of life?

First off, I apply my justification to embryos, not fetuses. A fetus is a gray area in my book (it is unclear whether the fetus's primitive brain functions cause it to be a self-aware thinking being).

Secondly, the answer to your question (with the amendment given above) is "yes, my refusal to regard an embryo as a human worthy of life is different than Hitler's refusal to regard a Jew as a human worthy of life." The justifications that we use are different (his is completely unreasonable, as I stated above, and while not everybody might agree with my justification I can't see how they could justifiably label it as just as unreasonable as Hitler's), therefore our arguments cannot be equated.

	06-04-2002 05:11									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

His is unreasonable and yours is reasonable?

That sounds relative...

I bet a neo-Nazi would consider him to be reasonable and you not. Why are you right and not the neo-Nazi? What makes you better?

	06-04-2002 05:13									#89
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think you muddle things by appealing to Habermas, when in fact, you are appealing to Kant's Catagorical Imperative.

	06-04-2002 05:15									#90
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with che et al.

What is morality, but a set of assumptions upon which one's worldview is built? How can a set of assumptions be universally true?

Some peoples' morality may be tied to utilitarianism. Others may be tied to Randism. Others to Christianity. And so forth.

How is one moral system inherently superior to another?