Feminist says “absolutist” pro-choice stance harms preborn girls
We must be careful not to make a fetish of choice. If the technology allows and a woman wants a blue-eyed, blonde baby, do we support her because we are pro-choice?
While we must be vigilant about the “pro-lifer”-infested waters, we must be prepared to refine our pro-choice position; it must be circumscribed by context.
Approximately 60 million women are “missing” in India. The cultural reasons for this femicide do not magically disappear with migration.
A girl’s right to life has to be a basic tenet of any feminist position and cannot be compromised by an absolutist pro-choice narrative.
~ Pro-choice feminist Rahila Gupta, who seems to have stumbled upon the Catch-22 of the pro-choice position, The Guardian, October 8
[HT: JivinJehoshaphat; photo via aworldtowin.net]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Right on! I love tying the choice to kill crowd up in knots with the topic of gendercide :)
Pro deathers play God. They have their lives so they believe they can choose who lives or dies. Wrong!
From the The Guardian article: The only way that sex selection can be prevented without curtailing abortion rights is by banning all hospitals and clinics from telling parents about the sex of their prospective baby.
That’s right proabort “feminists”. Let’s take away the right of people to find out the gender of their child before birth but let’s not let our pretty little minds wander over to the concept of actually banning the killing of children.
Prolifers please insert your choice of swear words here.
Rahila Gupta may reedem feminism yet.
An excerpt:
“it seems irrational to support a system that allows women to abort girls in order to protect themselves from the fury of patriarchs.”
I am filled with anticipation how pro-aborts will respond? It will be wild and crazy ride though…
Interesting that she acknowledges sex-selection abortion as “femicide” but not abortion in general as infanticide.
So babies in the womb are only people if they happen to be aborted for gender? What makes gender a less worthy cause than, say, not wanting stretch marks?
This is a great indicator of success for human rights in the specific case of one group of relatively powerless people: the not-yet-born. As a group meeting protected class status, they need advocates, like Ms. Gupta, since they are handicapped in advocating for themselves.
Years ago, I saw this sex-selection abortion controversy coming. I commented that this movement would eventually emerge in the next few years. This was based on seeing the Almond and Edlund study on this abortion phenomenon being documented in the US (Almond D, Edlund L. Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 15;105(15):5681-2: “We document male-biased sex ratios among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean, and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. Census. This male bias is particularly evident for third children: If there was no previous son, sons outnumbered daughters by 50%.”
If a couple with this male preference has a daughter first, they may not abort; after all, they may intend to have 1-2 more kids, so there is a good chance yet for a son. However, if they get to that 3rd pregnancy and determine it is yet another female, they have the motivation to abort since it is not a male.
This is in the U.S. This tilted birth ratio, indicating that female gender is leading to gender-based abortion, has also been documented in BC, Canada, where there is a fair portion of Asian Americans, and in California as a function of the availability of boutique prenatal ultrasound businesses. These studies will continue to emerge, and the ‘mainstream’ will continue to ignore and minimize to the point of absurdity.
[Now, keep in mind that JS resident pro-choice commenter “Reality” has no faith in my abilities to read and understand a scientific study, so you may need to go look into this yourself instead of trusting what I say. Also, we might need to consult “Reality” to figure out how sex-selective abortion data in the U.S. should properly get spun so as to not reflect barbarism and misogyny.]
Hilary has also spoken clearly at the international level about how sex-selective abortion is not OK.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23clinton-t.html?_r=3&sq=hillary%20clinton&st=nyt&scp=6&pagewanted=all&#
If she runs for Prez, she will have to reconcile her abortion-with-no-fetters policy with her any-reason-except-gender-selection policy.
The next hot topic that will cause similar consternation for the pro-abortion forces is the topic of aborting humans for eugenic reasons, such as detection prenatally of cystic fibrosis. A person with CF meets the “personhood” definition of “Reality,” and is not handicapped as a person with Down Syndrome is. So, it will be more difficult to argue that the CF person is better off never seeing the light of day. The avg life expectancy for someone now born with CF, if they survive the womb, is over 35 years of age.
The disability rights movement has noticed that their community is the recipient of intentional disability-motivated abortions. Increasingly, they are not happy about this.
This reality will soon cross a line, and disability advocates will add more public outcry against abortion-for-any-reason-or-no-reason policies. The not-yet-born with disabilities do have something of an advocacy group already in place to speak for them.
The pro-choice forces have no answer to these two trends: trend against sex-selective abortion and trend against aborting due to prenatally detected disability. The rhetoric will have to rise to fever pitch to shout down the obvious.
Weirdest thing ever. So, it’s not okay to deliberately target a fetal female because she’s female… but if you abort a baby not knowing the gender, even if it’s a girl, that’s all right? Is it okay to target males, but if you find out you’re having a girl you should leave the “potential human” alone? This “logic” makes my head hurt.
Feminists do take small steps but since they are limited in how they view the human condition, I will say that Gupta is at least standing up to one aspect of this dilemma. I”l give her credit and let’s hope she prevails in this regard.
“A girl’s right to life has to be a basic tenet of any feminist position…”
Anything Ms Gupta asserts as “pro-choice” outside this article is going to come into conflict with her own statement here.
“We must be careful not to make a fetish of choice.”
That is what we have been saying, all along.
“While we must be vigilant about the “pro-lifer”-infested waters, we must be prepared to refine our pro-choice position…”
Yes. Thinking is very difficult when one must avoid large regions of truth, reason, and data.
For example, Rahila believes that gender-preference is a bad reason for choosing to kill a child. She believes that feminists should oppose gender-selection abortions, because little girls suffer the most. And we agree! Let us explore this common ground…..
Let us consider some other cases that present a “bad choice” for killing a child. Surely there are other cases of “bad choice.” Is there a compelling reason why gender-selection is the only choice that is possibly bad?
Oh dear! The water is already roiling with pro-life reasoning!
“…a basic tenet of any feminist position…”
Is this not just another branch in the tangled brambles that are the “feminist tenets” necessary to justify the unjustifiable?
Where is “basic tenet” to love one another?
To give of ones self for the other.
Feminists do take small steps but since they are limited in how they view the human condition, I will say that Gupta is at least standing up to one aspect of this dilemma. I”l give her credit and let’s hope she prevails in this regard
I will give her credit for not being a total tool of the pro-choice Left and, at least, showing a shred of humanity unlike other pro-choice “feminists” Ann Furedi and Sarah Ditum who both defended this horrific practice of sex-selective abortion. I know some pro-lifers prefer dealing with the more consistent, hard-line pro-choicers because they think they are being more honest. However, I find them to be frighteningly evil sociopaths who cannot be reasoned with.
The foot-in-the-door-phenomenon is an opening staring us in the face.
You read my mind Thomas, I think I’ll bring this up every time I have a discussion with a self-proclaimed feminist. If you can’t run through a brick wall dig under it.
That’s exactly it Chris. We can’t jump all over Gupta because she did not all of the sudden change gears 100 percent. Pro-life can work with the opening she provided and eventually expand. Don’t ever discount small steps as they always lead to leaps.
There’s hope with this one. She has broken free of the absolutist position, which is the necessary condition for healing the defect within her.
She’s thinking. Because she’s thinking and not absolutist, she can envision other possibilities. We need to storm Heaven with prayers for her.
“A girl’s right to life has to be a basic tenet of any feminist position”
Good. Now let’s follow this thought to it’s logical conclusion…
She’s thinking. Because she’s thinking and not absolutist, she can envision other possibilities. We need to storm Heaven with prayers for her.
Absolutely, and amen!!
(Greetings, Gerard! Good to see you again!)
Ms. Gupta, since inconvenience and finances are acceptable reasons to abort according the pro-choicers, what if having a boy is a burden because you only have pink clothes from your other children or because they eat more or … ?
The core of this problem is the fact that women are still not considered to be of equal value to men. It is still the case everywhere on the planet, to a greater or lesser extent. Everything else is an outcome of this.
That’s so simplistic Reality. Men are sent off to die in droves in battles, violence against men isn’t taken seriously at all, etc. I don’t see how that values men more than women. I’m not saying that sexism against women doesn’t exist, because it definitely, utterly does, but the male gender role isn’t “awesome person who is protected and loved”, most men who aren’t rich in most of the world are more “fodder for war machines” and “only good for providing work”. And women in these gender roles are “fodder for men to have sex with” and “only good for popping out babies”. There is a huge problem with female devaluation in many asian countries, but you have to look at the whole picture and see that the gender dichotomy isn’t going to be fixed by just focusing on sexism against women, gender roles are intertwined.
Reality,
The core of this problem is that humans are being killed out of fear or convenience or, in some cases, sheer malice.
But there is a valid point to be addressed that women are seen as inherently less valuable than men, in many circumstances. One of the most notable being that we are seen as “broken” or “problematic” or “diseased” when our bodies work as they are designed. (For example, I have had to state over and over and over at my workplace that my son or daughter is not a parasite. And people continue to defend their usage of the word). Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t try to “fix” women with birth control and abortion but allowed them to function as they are meant and to actually *gasp* learn about their bodies?
Asian countries aren’t the only places where female devaluation is a problem Jack. Pay rates, access to roles in society etc. happen everywhere. Yes men aren’t always treated with what we may consider justice, but women overall have it worse.
Birth control and abortion aren’t about trying to “fix” women. People, women, have learned about their bodies. Birth control and abortion stem from that.
“reality” believes that because women may not be considered of equal value to men, the feminists’ position of aborting girls is somehow justified. Did I get this right resident-philosopher Sir?
“Birth control and abortion aren’t about trying to “fix” women. People, women, have learned about their bodies. Birth control and abortion stem from that. “
So in your world “reality” a woman having unlimited intercourse without any consequences and convenience-driven use of birth control/abortion is directly derived from her learning about her body? Interesting smoke-screen justification.
No Thomas R., you have got it completely wrong. On two points.
I don’t think that you will ever be genuine about this “reality” but that is exactly the logic you follow as demonstrated by the premises you put forth.
Interesting smoke-screen justification. – what nonsense. I said that the use of birth control and abortion is derived from learning about the body. Did you not read that or did you not understand it? Your failure to comprehend does not color the logic.
Reality,
Most of the women I know who use birth control (as well as myself before I got off the poison) know far less about their bodies than I do about mine. I say this not out of pride but to make a point about just how HBC helps women to be educated about themselves. It’s thrown at high school students like, “Oh you have a body and impulses and desires? Here, this’ll fix it. Take these and come back in a year for more.”
And to those who are even a little impoverished? The attitude is honestly that we’re incapable of even understanding our birth control and what it does. 5 years ago, right after I had my son, I was told, “You should really try the Mirena IUD because you don’t have to pay for insertion and you won’t have to worry about taking your birth control at the same time every day.” If this were mentioned once or twice, I would understand, but over and over and over again doctors and nurses reminded me that the benefit of the IUD would be that I could stop worrying about what time to take my BC. So basically, “You’re clearly too poor and stupid to be able to take your birth control on time or to pay for it. This piece of plastic will fix things for you.” No discussion of risks, no mention of how the insertion actually works or what the cost for removal would be. I was given a pamphlet and told to hurry about making up my mind because I didn’t have much time.
You think that is about educating women on their bodies? Even a little? It’s about an offensive stereotype that poor women are incapable of learning or understanding even basic concepts. An offensive stereotype that is perpetuated by men AND women of the “elite” class which develops drugs like this all-the-while ignoring the fact that the original trials for HBC were a disaster and the drug was approved anyway.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_puertorico.html
“officials supported birth control as a form of population control in the hopes that it would stem Puerto Rico’s endemic poverty. ”
“ Pincus also knew that if he could demonstrate that the poor, uneducated, women of Puerto Rico could follow the Pill regimen, then women anywhere in the world could too.”
“17% of the women in the study complained of nausea, dizziness, headaches, stomach pain and vomiting. So serious and sustained were the reactions that Rice-Wray told Pincus that a 10-milligram dose of Enovid caused “too many side reactions to be generally acceptable.””
“Rock and Pincus quickly dismissed Rice-Wray’s conclusions.”
“ Although three women died while participating in the trials, no investigation was conducted to see if the Pill had caused the young women’s deaths. Confident in the safety of the Pill, Pincus and Rock took no action to assess the root cause of the side effects.”
“ The women had only been told that they were taking a drug that prevented pregnancy, not that this was a clinical trial, that the Pill was experimental or that there was a chance of potentially dangerous side effects. “
Reality, women are devalued all over the world to a greater or lesser extent, but I was thinking about this specific problem of gendered abortion, which is mostly an Asian phenomenon, I apologize for not being clearer.
I don’t believe that women always overall have it worse, especially in developed countries. Take, for example, street kids in the US. They liked to “study” us, for a lack of a better term. People would pay us to ask questions or to shadow us, I never knew where they were exactly from because I didn’t care, but it seems they were often reporters or government. I remember one research group in particular, that interviewed probably twenty of each gender. They asked us boys questions about what crimes we committed, what drugs we did, how we treated people who were and weren’t homeless or in the criminal lifestyle, etc. All questions focusing on what kind of perpetrators we were. They asked the girls questions about what crimes they were victimized by, what drugs or prostitution they were forced into, and how other people especially men treated them both homeless and criminal and not. None of us boys were evaluated for being victimized by sexual assault or forced prostitution or porn or forced into the drug trade (when I would say at a rough estimate probably 80% of us had been sexually assaulted either at home before we ran off or on the street, kids don’t run away for no reason and street children are horribly vulnerable to rape and sexual abuse). ALL the girls were asked about these things (the numbers for sexual assault were roughly equal to the boys, though the girls were more likely to have been forced into porn or prostitution there was not a negligible amount of boys who were forced as well, and girls were less likely to be forced into the drug trade). The girls weren’t even asked about crimes they might have committed. Us boys were prejudged as perpetrators, and the girls as victims. We were ALL children who had been badly exploited and abused, but only one gender was treated as victims needing help. And did you know that 7 out of 10 homeless people, even teenagers, are boys or men? People talk about the feminization of poverty, but the lower you go the more masculine true poverty in the US is. But people still almost exclusively focus on the 3 out of 10 homeless people who are women and girls.
The same kinda holds true for people who aren’t vulnerable homeless populations. 1 in 6 (or five by some studies, the numbers climb every year as men become more comfortable admitting to sexual assault) boys in the US are sexually abused before age 18, as compared to 1 in 5 (or 4 depending on the studies) girls. But only one gender has social and community support in the form of therapy groups, targeted approaches to reduce sexual abuse and encourage safe reporting and such. This is even worse for adult male victims. Even in places where men are just as likely or more likely to be assaulted, like the military and prison, the interventions (what little there are, no one cares about prison rape and the military is just now starting to work on their problem) are focused on females first and almost exclusively. Male victims are treated as an afterthought, which impedes healing and makes it much harder to find necessary resources, like support groups and financial help to receive therapy. It’s focused on women to the exclusion of men, because violence against males is not taken seriously or thought to be as prevalent or even as wrong as it is to assault a woman. Domestic violence against men is also pushed aside and ignored, even though it’s about as prevalent and male victims compromise a full third of murders caused by domestic violence. It’s still acceptable to make jokes about domestic violence committed against men, it’s not even controversial. We have movies like “40 Days and 40 Nights” and “Get him to the Greek” that play male rape for a laugh, and only the odd feminist group here and there had any issue with it.
You also have to look at the funding for diseases that affect females more than males, and see a wide gap in how women and men’s health is thought of. Men are three times more likely to commit suicide, they are less likely to seek treatment for all illnesses, especially mental healthcare. Prostate cancer doesn’t even receive a fraction of the funding that breast cancer does, even though it kills just as many men per year as breast cancer does women. That’s just a few examples, there are more if you want them or don’t believe this is a systemic issue.
Almost 80% of murder victims are men, men are twice as likely to be victims of aggravated assault, and are 60% of the time the victims of robberies and muggings. Violent crimes, excluding sexual violence and domestic violence, all have males as the victims the majority of the time. Men are more likely to abuse drugs, and more likely to be punished harsher for drug use in the prison system. Men and women who commit the same crimes are punished in much different ways, women are more likely to get their charges dropped to lesser crimes, receive much more lenient sentences, and are more likely to get their records expunged especially when it was a violent or drug crime.
People also talk about human trafficking as if it’s a crime that’s mostly perpetrated against women and girls, but there is a huge, almost completely ignored, amount of boys and men who are being trafficked. One in three children trafficked for sexual slavery are boys. Adult men are much less likely to be trafficked for sex, though it does happen, but they are much more likely to be trafficked for forced work, which includes being forced into heavy labor, working sixteen hour days with little food and often being beaten, and sometimes sexually assaulted. Some areas that have a problem with child prostitutes have up to 90% of the prostitutes being boys. There’s also entire cultures where pederasty is common while female children are sequestered and somewhat protected (though sexual assault still happens and is common in those areas). Afghanistan is a good example, where the sexual abuse and exploitation of young boys is so common that they have a name for it and it’s completely acceptable in the culture.
And that’s not even getting into war. In areas where child soldiers are common, they are predominately male and are often severely abused by the adults that “recruit” them. Most war casualties are, and have always been, men. Rape as a tool of war is seen as a crime perpetrated basically solely against women, but I’ve read several articles that have investigated and found that it is often used against POWs and defeated opponents as a weapon of degradation. One particularly horrifying article about the Congo I read, aid workers there estimate the amount of men raped as a tool of war as upwards of 80%, similar to the amount of women being raped. Men in these unstable and wartorn countries are often raised from birth ready to die. It’s horrifying for everyone involved.
I could go on, but it’s pretty useless. People simply don’t care about these inequalities and injustices. I wonder if it’s because men are more often the perpetrators of violence, that people equate the male victims with the male perpetrators and disregard these problems because of that. Or maybe because the leaders and wealthy in most countries tend to be male predominately, so maybe people have a type of “Apex Fallacy”, confusing the way that men at the top are favored with how life is at the bottom for the average boy or men. Whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be improving “Stop violence/sexism against women” is a rallying cry for most of us, but “stop violence/sexism against men” usually gets yawns or people saying “well, there might be some minor injustices but women are really the only ones badly off”. I doubt it’s ever going to change, it’s not like there are international advocacy groups targeting these problems.
Anyway, it’s not to take away from the serious problems facing women in the world, they are just as bad. I just don’t think that overall, it’s significantly worse, and I think we should tackle the inequalities facing everyone. I don’t think you can fix the problems facing women without working on the problems facing men.
Great post, Jack. You know that I work with special needs students, mostly EBD kids, some ADHD and autism/aspergers (and I really hate the labels, btw. and I don’t go out of my way to ask who is labeled what). All of us are special and all of us also have our gifts and issues (it is kids’ gifts that we need to be focused on and not their “labels”). I had a boy the other day tell me that he had Aspergers disease. I said, “Disease? Aspergers is not a disease. It is a gift.” He has been treated poorly by those around him because they don’t take the time to get to know him and then he in turn makes some bad choices. He is so bright but really thinks he is diseased.
The majority of kids who are labeled at the schools I work at are boys. There seems to be groups of adults in our schools who, consciously or not, do a lot to keep these boys down. I just want you to know that I recognize the problem you are describing above and that I am doing everything in my little corner of the world to fight against labeling that is used as a negative. I fight for these boys to be treated with the respect and love they deserve and stand up to those who I notice are being less than fair to them.
Thank you Prax. I think it’s seriously awesome that you treat the kids like they are a kid, not a label. My sister has complained to me that her daughter (who is severely disabled) is treated as all she is is the disability. As if it’s her whole personality. I’m glad you are trying to counteract that message that the special needs kids get all over.
And you’re right about the school system. Boy are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and autism at much higher rates than little girls. I don’t know how much of it is because it’s truly more prevalent in boys, and how much is people getting frustrated with normal little boy behavior (that really seems to be the case with some of those boys who are diagnosed with ADHD). It’s also true that boys are more likely to drop out of school and less likely to go to college. I’m really glad there are workers in the schools like you that are trying to make sure that the boys get the same attention and care that the girls are getting.
I always worry that when I talk about difficulties or disadvantages for men that people will take it as me saying that issues facing women aren’t important, I’m glad people can see that’s not what I’m saying. I’ve had feminists I’ve tried to point these things out to tell me I was just trying to hold onto my male privilege (???) because I refuse to say that men don’t face any significant problems. These are the same women who told me it was fine to focus on female rape victims to the exclusion of male rape victims (I think females should get plenty of focus, I just think male victims deserve some help too), because it was a “gendered” problem, therefor I guess rape is worse if you do it to women? I don’t know. I was confused but I was rather offended as well. So I’m glad when people don’t think I’m trying to take attention away from inequalities facing women, I think that helping men helps women too, and vice versa.
Abortion and the use of artificial contraception especially hormonal forms are about tricking and manipulating the body to achieve a non-pregnant state. I’ve known people who contracepted who were clueless. Couples learn a whole lot more about how their bodies function especially fertility cycles through natural family planning.
After that Jerry Sandusky trial I started reading about male rape and was shocked to see how common it is. In fact, I have read that some rapists specifically target boys/men because they know that they are far less likely to report a rape than girls/women because of the “shame” factor. Male-on-male rape is a huge global problem, but one few are willing to put the spotlight on. I think there are a few factors for this. Feminism has fought long and hard to get female rape victims the focus and resources they deserve. Nothing wrong with this, but there are some unfortunate “side effects” which have resulted with woman always being seen as a victim and a man always seen as the perpetuator never the victim. These ideas can be harmful to both sexes. Also, I have read that traditional male culture where the ideal male is supposed to be strong and invulnerable is a major impediment to helping male victims. For a man to admit he is a victim is to admit that he is weak “not a man” and especially a victim of sexual violence where his entire sexuality is now questioned. The end result is that most boys/men suffer in silence.
I see the discussion is now mainly focussed on boys…..
Reality, can you please clarify your position for me? In your opinion should it be legal for a mother to get ultrasounds and abort girls cause she would prefer having sons?
My position is that I’m sitting on a tall stool with my left leg cocked up against the edge of my work surface. While spending too long in this position can leave a red mark on my knee for a while it doesn’t appear to have a negative effect on the cloth of my trousers. I’m also aware that it isn’t a sensible position in a skeleto-muscular sense so I try to shift around a bit. Just prior to this position the one I was in was that of standing at the sink waiting for the teabag and water in my cup to do its thing. It didn’t take too long so I didn’t get too bored. I find I get more impatient waiting for the kettle to boil but you know what they say, ‘a watched kettle….’
In regards to your second question, isn’t it rather moot since y’all insisted that women have ultrasounds forced upon them? You’ve taken that one out of my hands.
The point that matters is why people want to abort female fetuses or kill them at birth when abortion isn’t available.
Do you have any ideas on how to address the problem truthseeker?
I wasn’t really looking for your opinion on the ultrasound so let me make the question more concise.
“In your opinion should it be legal for mothers to kill unborn girls cause they would prefer having sons? “
If you didn’t want my opinion on the ultrasound then why did you ask?
Quite frankly, there’s little point in making sex-selective abortions illegal. People can find plenty of ways around it. They can visit a different service provider, claim they don’t know, or care about, the gender of the fetus and simply don’t want to continue the pregnancy. Plus your lot would strive to find a way to twist things so that women couldn’t have an abortion for any other reason, no matter what it may be, because the fetus happens to be female.
Sex-selective infanticide around the world is probably a bigger problem than sex-selective abortions.
So the issue which needs to be addressed, the only one that will markedly reduce sex-selective abortions and infanticide, is the perceived value of women compared to men.
Do you have any contributions to help alleviate this dilemma truthseeker?
The first contribution would be to educate our younger generation that their path to value/empowerment is to make abortion illegal because abortion actually plays a huge role in diminishing the value of the lives of all women and children.
Oh, and you must really hate the female sex or have an extremely low view of them if you think it should be legal to selectively kill them.
Good luck with that.
Unwanted parenthood and enforced gestation doesn’t endow value or empowerment to women. It does for some men. That’s part of the problem.
you must really hate the female sex or have an extremely low view of them if you think it should be legal to selectively kill them – you appear to be confused. I explained why it is both pointless and risky to make it illegal. That doesn’t mean I think it’s a good concept.
It is those with the incubator mentality who either hate or have a low view of females.
You are saying that in your ‘reality’ people who want to protect girls lives by making it illegal to kill them have a lower view of the value of these women then those who would allow them to be killed. How do you liberals twist your minds enough that you argue allowing people the legal choice to selectively kill girls over boys is actually a way of showing your love and the value you place on female life? I expect that mentality from a black widow spider but not from a human.
And around and around and around we go…..
What a bunch of confusing mumbo-jumbo. Love how apparently pre-natal people are only people if they’re girls but not boys and how we can question parents’ selfish decisions ONLY if we can cry SEXIST or RACIST or whatever but not if they just don’t want to take care of a baby because it’s allegedly “not the right time.”
I need another cup of coffee.
Apparently, you can’t fix those who are determined not to see the truth. They’re clutching to their blinders and turning away their heads.
Reality says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Birth control and abortion aren’t about trying to “fix” women. People, women, have learned about their bodies. Birth control and abortion stem from that.
Birth control and abortion are new ways to abuse women by adding socially accepted sexual exploitation and the murder of their children to the list.
“I see the discussion is now mainly focussed on boys…..”
Only because people like you will never, ever admit that men face significant cultural and legal issues, especially in developed nations. It’s just like the people who come to “save” the street kids and completely ignored us boys. It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is, you want women to be the ones discriminated against in all circumstances for some reason.
“So the issue which needs to be addressed, the only one that will markedly reduce sex-selective abortions and infanticide, is the perceived value of women compared to men.”
Actually do agree with you here. Making sex selection illegal by itself doesn’t seem to do anything at all, India has even tried it. What they need to do is get rid of the idea that a girl is a financial liability. Since it’s patriarchal lineage, their boys stay and contribute to the family and the girls marry out and don’t contribute. And the male heir is expected to carry on the family name and all that garbage. So they kill off their girls for that reason mostly. I don’t know how they go about fixing that, I know western nations used to do dowries and have a similar set up but I don’t know how it changed. It needs to be fixed fast though, unbalanced gender has horrifying consequences if it’s more men than women, and it’s only gotten worse.
Terribly sorry for “hijacking” this thread for a moment… but an earlier thread seems to have been locked down, and I wanted to get a reply back to Reality. Please scroll past this, if you’re not interested!
=====
Reality,
With all due respect: you don’t seem to have a correct grasp of some of the canonical (philosophical) terms that have been used in this discussion:
objective: true (or false) “in general”–i.e. not dependent upon the views, the preferences, or even the knowledge and/or awareness of any subject (or group of subjects). Examples include the multiplication table (and most mathematics), the existence of gravity, etc.
subjective: dependent upon the views, opinions, etc., of subjects. Examples include “the best flavour of ice-cream”, the “best way to punish criminals for a particular crime”, etc.
intrinsic: pertaining entirely to the substance, or essence, of an object per se. Intrinsic characteristics include the fact that a circle has a radius, the fact that a human body has DNA which usually distinguishes it from those of the same species, etc. That which is intrinsic to an object cannot be changed without changing the entire essence of the object itself. (E.g. removing the radius of a circle removes the circle itself.)
extrinsic: not pertaining directly to the essence of the object per se. Examples include hair style, the type of education one might receive, the laws of a given nation, etc. That which is extrinsic to an object can be changed (with more or less difficulty) without changing the object’s essence itself. (E.g. changing the size of a circle does not make it a non-circle.)
a priori: that which is not dependent on empirical data (i.e. sense-data–data gathered with the five material senses) for its truth or falseness. Examples include the multiplication table (and most of mathematics), the laws of logic, etc.
a posteriori: that which depends on empirical data for its truth/falseness. Examples include the weight of a given object, the number of humans in a given room, the colour of an object, etc.
deduction: a type of logic in which conclusions are drawn (by set logical steps, according to strict logical rules) from a set of premises which are based on a set of definitions. Conclusions which are deduced from clear definitions and entirely true premises are 100% certain to be correct; and any successful deduction must be proven beyond all doubt whatsoever (i.e. it must be shown that all other possibilities are logically impossible/absurd). Examples include all classical proofs in mathematics.
induction: a type of logic which takes a small base of data (usually gathered by empirical means) and extrapolates, or “induces”, a conclusion based on patterns suggested by the data. Conclusions which are induced from *empirical* data are not 100% certain, but remain reasonable “best guesses”. Any successful induction must be proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt (i.e. where to doubt its conclusion would entail a violation of sane reason). Examples include a declaration, after a thorough examination of an empty room, that there are no penguins therein. (It’s remotely possible that the penguins have somehow gained the ability to travel at speeds which elude the human eye, etc., but no sane person entertains such a possibility, apart from a mental exercise or as a joke, etc.)
moral relativism: the belief that there are no objective (i.e. non-subject-dependent) standards for morality
All right? Now that these are clear, let me take a few key statements of yours:
1) “perhaps you need to stop alleging that I am nothing but a moral relativist then.”
2) “perhaps you’d better prove that I am a moral relativist first.”
3) “the fact that some of my morals don’t appeal to you and that I do not hold that there is any objective set does not equate to moral relativism.”
Now, compare those to these statements of yours:
1) “sure, Moral standards are entirely subjective.”
2) “I have quite clearly argued there is only one option, that there is not a set of objective moral standards.”
Given that the very definition of “moral relativism” is “belief that there are no objective moral standards”, you’ve done something curious, above: you’ve given an emphatic (and at least three-fold) denial that you are a moral relativist… and then you turn about and–with equal (if not greater) verve–declare boldly that there are no objective moral standards, and that moral standards are *entirely* subjective. That, in logical circles, is called a “contradiction.” In other words: you sound rather confused, and your position (i.e. claiming both opposing views at the same time), as it stands now, is provably false.
Beyond this, you seem to have missed my current objective (though I told it to you, repeatedly and without disguise): I am NOT currently trying to demonstrate the existence of a moral standard. (I’ll try after we settle this matter, if you like, though it’s a bit more tedious.) Rather, I am trying to show how your own position is logical nonsense and/or vacuous (depending on whether you try to have it both ways, or whether you fully embrace moral relativism in thought and deed). Your flat contradiction, above, has not helped your case at all.
You’ll need to decide, dear fellow: are you a moral relativist in toto, or are you not? And if you are not, you’ll need to give an account of which standards of yours are non-relative (i.e. objective).
I’ll be happy to answer your previous message point-by-point, later; but I’d rather not distract you from this key point, for the moment.
Quite frankly, there’s little point in making sex-selective abortions illegal
Sex-selection abortion bans are not completely worthless. Yes, they are largely symbolic, but when the law condemns an act it sends a powerful message to society at large. Also, women being pressured or coerced into a sex-selective abortion would know that she has the law on her side and would give her confidence to refuse. And bans would absolutely prevent advertising of sex selection. A few years ago the NYT had advertisements from abortion clinics directly appealing to Asians for the sole purpose of sex selection. They were taken out because of pressure, but I would like to make sure it never happens again.
Denise Marie, that only works in countries that don’t have an overall problem with sex selection. In the US an Asian woman who’s being pressured has the law on her side, in India it would be much more difficult. It’s been illegal for a while in India and hasn’t had the effect of lowering the rate of sex selection.
that only works in countries that don’t have an overall problem with sex selection. In the US an Asian woman who’s being pressured has the law on her side, in India it would be much more difficult. It’s been illegal for a while in India and hasn’t had the effect of lowering the rate of sex selection
Yes, India has such a problem with sex selection that symbolic laws are not going to have a tremendous impact. However, I feel it is important for India to keep the ban as it sends a message that sex selection abortion is not acceptable and can act as a deterrent even if in a small number of cases. I know there was a woman in India recently whose husband’s family was pressuring her to abort her twin girls. She refused and is now suing them. I don’t think you can underestimate how the first step in ending sex selective abortion of girls starts with a government condemning it. Also, I should have clarified that I was thinking more about sex selection bans in the West and how pro-choicers are always insisting that they are not needed. Sorry, but I should have been more precise in what I was talking about.
Oh, I see what you’re saying and I think you’re right. And I’m happy your friend managed to get away and keep her daughters, and that the sex selection law was helping her with that. I just think it’s not going to do enough, they need a real cultural change. I know feminist groups in India are starting to work on that, among other things. I think western organizations should assist them in doing so.
I just think it’s not going to do enough, they need a real cultural change
Yes, I agree with this. India needs MAJOR cultural change and the sooner the better.
Yes, and I’m glad that there are organizations for women over there that will help. I just really don’t want western organizations trying to run the show, that usually does more harm than good. They need to assist the local organizations, because the locals are the ones who understand their own culture, speak the language better including slang, and have the best idea how to appeal to their fellow citizens. I don’t think the west can force change from the outside, but we CAN provide monetary and other support to allow groups change their society from within. We just need to make sure we’re not “white savior complex” all over Asia with this issue like we unfortunately did with our aid to Africa in many areas.
And Reality how is female infanticide worse than female abortion? The stats on China appear to be around tens of thousands of baby girls being killed after birth, but a MILLION being killed before birth. The infanticide by itself isn’t enough to cause the gender gap to be as big as it is. Both the infanticide and abortion are the culprits and both just as bad as each other.
MaryRose, Jack, Del and Paladin through YOU speaks power!!! “reality” is being buried alive (so to speak of course).
Abortion does not make women equal to men because pregnancy does not make women unequal. Freud believed women had envy toward men’s anatomy, but anthropologically, I could make a better case that men have envied women their menstrual cycle and that’s why bloodletting is a common male ritual in many cultures.
If a man doesn’t want to parent a child, he simply abandons the child and/or mother. Historically, men have abandoned their children at a much higher rate than men have murdered their own children.
If women wanted to be(have as) equal(ly bad) as men, then abortion is still wrong: they should merely abandon their children.
I am adding You to my list above 9ek!!!
(*laugh*) Call me slow-witted, but I finally put together the “9ek = Ninek” connection! Hello Ninek/9ek; wonderful to see you again! :)
I also apologise to the math world for missing a vert obvious math/number pun…!
“vert” = “very” (*sigh*) The keyboard isn’t exactly my friend, today…
Hello Paladin.
I do know the difference between objective and subjective. That is why I reject the notion of there being a set of ‘objective moral standards’.
I also understand the concepts of the other terms you so helpfully provide definitions of. Many were core in some of the study I have undertaken or of those I have been involved with.
You have however, been overly simplistic in what you have produced for moral relativism.
Perhaps if you hadn’t applied the term moral relativism as a tool to repeatedly infer that my moral standards are easily pliable, poorly founded, subject to whim etc. while yours are not, I may have felt less inclined to start pushing back. Particularly given the inadequately narrow definition with which you applied it.
Despite all that, if I accept the information and definitions you have provided, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn. We are all moral relativists. We all formulate our moral standards by the same means, you just include a god as one of your inputs, all of which are subjective.
For you have still not come up with “there must be a set of objective moral standards because…” to any extent. And I don’t think that even winning an argument for god would guarantee proof of such.
No truthseeker, I’m saying that those who would impede access to abortion overall, and those who would hijack the criminalisation of sex selective abortion and twist it to use as a wedge against access to abortion overall have a lower view of the value of women.
Only because people like you will never, ever admit that men face significant cultural and legal issues, especially in developed nations – that’s BS Jack.
Abortion does not make women equal to men because pregnancy does not make women unequal. – no, but unfortunately there are those who use pregnancy, as well as other factors, to treat women as being of less value.
If women wanted to be(have as) equal(ly bad) as men, then abortion is still wrong: they should merely abandon their children. – completely ignoring the whole pregnancy and delivery part of course.
LOL, yes, there was a post on Jill’s blog about numbers, and I thought it would be funny to post as 9ek for that day, but I got to liking it.
Oh, and I love truthseeker’s 9:47! Because obviously the way we show our low opinion of female human beings is to allow them to live, and obviously abortionistas show us up by “loving them to death.”
”no, but unfortunately there are those who use pregnancy, as well as other factors, to treat women as being of less value.”
What a special day, I actually agree with reality that abortion advocates certainly do use pregnancy to convince women that it makes them of less value. There’s hope for you yet!!
“Only because people like you will never, ever admit that men face significant cultural and legal issues, especially in developed nations – that’s BS Jack.”
BS that males face significant cultural and legal issues or BS that you wouldn’t admit it? Because it’s not BS that the issues exist, it may be BS that you won’t admit it but you’ll certainly degrade the seriousness of it. I see it as a (probably unconscious) shaming tactic “men’s issues aren’t important because those that effect women predominately are more serious”.
“Abortion does not make women equal to men because pregnancy does not make women unequal. – no, but unfortunately there are those who use pregnancy, as well as other factors, to treat women as being of less value.”
Yes, but both sides do this. You can’t deny that there are pro-choicers who look down on pregnant women, those who choose to be housewives, those who do not abort when it might be financially easier to do. And there is this weird attitude that abortion access is the only way that women can be more successful in education and the workplace, instead of focusing on ways to make the workplace and education more accepting of single or working mothers. But yeah, there are some pro-lifers who have the “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” attitude, but they aren’t the majority imo and I think most of us disagree with them heartily.
And btw Reality, I don’t begrudge those who would rather focus on women’s issues mostly or exclusively, there definitely needs to be plenty of people focusing on women and their rights and needs and helping them. What I object to is those who do that while denying that men even have gender issues at all, or even actively impede those who would work on them. Those are the type of people I noticed as a street kid and they cause real damage, even if no one else finds it important.
Oh, and by reality’s faulty logic, men need female-looking breasts to be equal. Unfortunately many of the poor fellas have to wait until they’re middle aged.
Also ladies, according to reality’s faulty logic, the fact that you have to wait until old age to grow granny’s mustache, well that makes you less of a man. LOL!!!
Aw, you’ve failed at comprehension again. What a shame. It is factors such as forced gestation and denial of contraception which demonstrate who considers women of less value.
It’s BS to claim that I’m one of those people Jack.
What I object to is those who do that while denying that men even have gender issues at all, or even actively impede those who would work on them. – do you really think I fall into this category?
Faulty logic 9ek? Like thinking things need to be identical to be of equal value? Oh well.
“What I object to is those who do that while denying that men even have gender issues at all, or even actively impede those who would work on them. – do you really think I fall into this category?”
Nah, I don’t think you’d actively impede these things or outright deny they exist. I do think you’re somewhat (unconsciously?) dismissive about issues that affect males mostly, at times. I think it’s the way you qualify your statements “Yes men aren’t always treated with what we’d consider justice”, could you hedge a little bit more? I might just be exaggerating in my head a bit because of my personal experiences though, with otherwise really caring people who would dismiss and ignore the suffering of some people based on their gender. And no matter how many statistics and facts that the world is a little more complicated than “men in charge, women suffer”, people don’t seem to want to let go of some biases. And I really do believe ignoring men’s issues contributes to women’s issues, especially in the realm of domestic and sexual violence, and gender inequality.
I think it’s the way you qualify your statements “Yes men aren’t always treated with what we’d consider justice” – do I?
And I really do believe ignoring men’s issues contributes to women’s issues, especially in the realm of domestic and sexual violence, and gender inequality. – absolutely.
Forced gestation tmeister! abortionists more than adequately talk women into murdering their offspring all by themselves. PP “counselors” through using scare tactics have done their fare share…
“Faulty logic 9ek? Like thinking things need to be identical to be of equal value? Oh well.”
Wow, twice in one day, he shows a glimmer of hope! Yes, reality, thinking that a woman has to be able to legally kill her baby because men can’t be pregnant is absolutely faulty logic! I’m so proud of you!! Can you explain that to the other abortion fans in your life?
a woman has to be able to legally kill her baby because men can’t be pregnant – since that isn’t the applicable logic I think I’ll let you try to explain that one.
“I think it’s the way you qualify your statements “Yes men aren’t always treated with what we’d consider justice” – do I?”
Maybe a bit or I’m making it up accidentally because I’m sensitive on the topic. I just think that violence against men, especially when they’re kids, tends to lead to violence against women (and of course violence against men is wrong in itself). I don’t think a lot of people seem to pay attention to this and it frustrates me, though I’ve read some good articles by feminists that talk about the link between misogyny and the devaluation of women to abuse and hardship in the misogynists male’s early lives (of course that doesn’t mean all abused boys grow up to be misogynists and abusive, many are like me and would never hurt anyone, but there’s definitely a link because violence tends to be generational).
Like take the gendercide of women in these countries. It’s all countries that are very collectivist in nature, the individual isn’t important, the family is. They favor males because of this, because their son is the one who is going to make money for the family and carry on the family name, while their daughter is going to be married into another family and carry on THEIR name and her labor will go to that family. It’s all related, all these issues stem from people not being treated as important individuals with their own rights.
I hardly call a willing and consensual participant in sexual intercourse that leads to pregnancy forced gestation even when contraception is used. Saying yes to sex is tacit approval to what happens as a result.
Reality, I would like to know what you are tangibly doing to help young girls avoid being sexually and economically exploited in places where they are not equally valued. Or, are you just scolding and lecturing others?
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church (what radical feminists see as the great male heirarchal oppressive institution of women) has missionaries who rescue young Indian girls from being trafficked as cheap domestic servants and prostitutes. Furthermore, these missionaries provide them a home, education, skills, medical care, food, etc. This is just but one example. Which matters more in these girls’ lives 1) rhetoric, chastisement, hand wringing or 2) real action and assistance?
Hello, Reality,
Pardon me for the delay; weekend internet access is a bit spotty. I’ll try to drop a reply to you tomorrow, as time allows; I didn’t want you to think I was neglecting your reply!
Saying yes to sex is tacit approval to what happens as a result – no it’s not. That’s like claiming that saying yes to operating a motor vehicle is a tacit approval to dying in an auto accident.
Contributions in various ways to a small number of groups who work to support and promote equality for women and girls MoJoanne. Safe environments, education etc. How about you?
No problem Paladin.
(*sigh*) Apparently “tomorrow” was a bit optimistic! Ah, well…
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
I do know the difference between objective and subjective. That is why I reject the notion of there being a set of ‘objective moral standards’.
Hm. I agree that you’re attempting to reject them, at least; I’ll address the rest of that thought, in a moment.
I also understand the concepts of the other terms you so helpfully provide definitions of. Many were core in some of the study I have undertaken or of those I have been involved with.
All right. But your other comments show something of a serious misunderstanding (or deliberate avoidance) of these definitions and their implications. For example, you said:
‘induction’, ‘seems’. That’s not very objective now is it.
Induction is most certainly objective (though it is not extrinsic in its approach), since one needs to believe that the external world (and the data gathered by the senses) is both real and reliable, in order to make that sort of induction at all! You were apparently confused by the meanings of the two terms (“objective” and “induction”), or else you would not have claimed that an induction must necessarily be “non-objective”. That’s simply not the case at all. More examples exist, but that should do, for now.
You have however, been overly simplistic in what you have produced for moral relativism.
My dear fellow: words mean things. The phrase “moral relativism” means (check any good dictionary that you like) “the belief that there are no moral absolutes–that all moral judgments are ultimately relative and subject-dependent”–and you’ve confirmed that this is your belief, quite clearly. And yet, you turn about on several occasions and object to the idea that some of your beliefs are not “more important” than others! This could stem only from an avoidance of the true meaning and implications of the term “moral relativist”, on your part. If there are no objective moral standards, then all your talk about “some standards [e.g. resistance to rape] being more important than others [resistance to anchovies]]” is stuff and nonsense. You, yourself, *agreed* with me when I wrote that in a previous post:
[Paladin]
If there is no objective, immovable standard for morality, then it is nonsensical to speak of any moral view being “better” than another.
[Reality]
thank you.
I admit, this reaction baffled me! You were “thanking me” for refuting your claim that your moral standards “are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows”? You’re welcome, I’m sure… but that’s not usually the reaction of an opponent in a debate whose point has been trounced!
Don’t you see? If there is no objective standard, then all such talk of anyone’s preferences being more or less important than others (whether they concern morals or foodstuffs)–or more or less important than others of THEIR OWN–is nonsense! I can claim that my moral views are of greater importance than are my food preferences, since I believe in objective standards by which a moral gradient of a position can be compared; you, since you reject all objective moral standards, do not have that option (though you still, illogically, cling to the idea that you do). You, friend, live in a world where you have rejected all objective standards of weight (so to speak), and yet you insist on saying that some things in your world are weightier than others! That’s simply not possible, given your starting assumptions; paradoxically, if you want the freedom to judge between things, you must submit yourself to the inflexible, totalitarian rule of objectivity.
Perhaps if you hadn’t applied the term moral relativism as a tool to repeatedly infer that my moral standards are easily pliable, poorly founded, subject to whim etc. while yours are not, I may have felt less inclined to start pushing back.
And again: I did not do so in order to insult you (nor was that ever my intent). I was illustrating the fact that, when you discard objective moral standards, you render yourself absolutely helpless against accusations of that sort. It was an object lesson, not an insult. Without objectivity, all of your terms to which you objected will run effortlessly over you: “easily pliable” (how can you judge “more or less pliability” if you have no objective standard of “pliability”?), “poorly founded” (however would you know what is “well-founded”, without an objective ideal against which to compare it?), “subject to whim” (how would you tell a “whim” apart from an actual “principle” without ano objective standard of constancy?), and so on?
If you say that you “pushed back” because you felt irritated and insulted, then I reply (along with an apology for any offense) that you can only coherently defend yourself against such charges if you abandon the silly idea of moral relativism.
Particularly given the inadequately narrow definition with which you applied it.
Perhaps you could explain by what standard you judge it to be “too narrow”? Is that standard of width “objective”, do you think? And if not, why should anyone pay heed to it?
Despite all that, if I accept the information and definitions you have provided, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn. We are all moral relativists.
Oh, tosh! Have you still not discovered that it is your INTENT and BELIEF on which I’m focusing? If you (personally) BELIEVE that there are no objective moral standards, then YOU (personally) can no longer speak (unless you want to be incoherent) about “better” or “worse” or “stronger” or “weaker”, or even “right” and “wrong” (as opposed to “I prefer it” and “I don’t prefer it”). I (personally) am self-consistent in this regard, since I both believe in objective moral standards AND I allow myself to speak of “morally better” and/or “morally worse”, etc. You are not self-consistent, because you violate your own “non-objectivity” standard every time you try to make such a comparison (e.g. “my aversion to rape is of a higher order than is my aversion to anchovies”).
You might possibly (though wrongly) accuse me of being mistaken and/or deluded in my beliefs; but that would only be a guess (even by your standards), since you can prove nothing of the sort with any certitude. But a self-contradiction cannot possibly be true, REGARDLESS of the situation or subject-matter; and that is what you are carrying, friend. Which would a logical person prefer: the view of someone who (without further information) MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be wrong (i.e. my view, in the eyes of a skeptic with incomplete information), or the view of someone who’s CERTAINLY and PROVABLY wrong, no matter what the topic (i.e. your view, since it’s self-contradictory)? The mere fact that you BELIEVE in “moral relativism” sets you against yourself!
We all formulate our moral standards by the same means, you just include a god as one of your inputs,
Let’s assume, for the moment, that this is completely true (which it isn’t–but that’s a longer story). Don’t you see that the “manner of formulation” of a standard has no special bearing on the TRUTH or FALSITY of that standard? Consider two situations: one, in which we all formulate standards about non-existent realities, and two, in which we formulate standards about existent realities. Given only that we’ve formulated standards… how would you tell the difference? You couldn’t. It says nothing, one way or the other; it certainly doesn’t prove your next phrase (i.e. “all of which are subjective”). I may have formulated my mathematical abilities in a manner different from yours (or anyone else’s)–some may have used more rote memorization without “number sense”, etc.–but that says nothing about the reality of the numbers themselves. In fact, those who APPROACH mathematics with the idea that “all is relative” would be unable to do anything coherently with mathematics at all!
For you have still not come up with “there must be a set of objective moral standards because…” to any extent.
…and I’ve explained to you (here, yet again), that I did not set out to do that, yet. My current objective is to show that your position, which is self-contradictory, is CERTAINLY false (and is therefore less preferable, even to an honest agnostic); and I’m afraid you’ve made it rather easy… and the job is almost complete.
And I don’t think that even winning an argument for god would guarantee proof of such.
Yes, and no. To prove the objective, necessary existence of an Uncaused Cause (Which can be shown to be self-existent, unlimited, eternal, one [i.e. not a multiplicity of natures], and all-good) would lay the groundwork for a proof (by extrinsic means, provable beyond all reasonable doubt) that Christianity–and most specifically the teachings of the Catholic Church (I’m conversant with the teachings of many other Christian groups, but I cannot [nor have I any real right to] serve as a defender for them, save as a defender of Christianity in general)–is true. No, in the sense that anyone who’s willing to violate sane reason in order to escape implications which they regard as unpleasant/intolerable are still physically free to do so. (Think of someone who’s willing to deny that George Washington is the first U.S. President, simply because he/she despised him, and couldn’t abide the thought of him being so important. How would one “prove” Washington’s claim to the title “mathematically”? He’s dead, as are all the eye-witnesses! The rest–including all history books–could be a chain of hoaxes, in which future generations mindlessly and foolishly repeat the “lies” of the original “hoaxers”. How would you “prove” this untrue, beyond all doubt? And yet, anyone who DID hold such a position would be considered mad!)
That (proof for God’s existence, followed by a proof of the reliability of Church teaching) would set down the bedrock for all true objective moral standards. But we’re nowhere near there, yet; your own bridge is collapsing, friend, and you really do need to attend to that first, before you trouble yourself about what the Church has to offer.
(*sigh*) Apparently “tomorrow” was a bit optimistic! Ah, well…
never mind. I know it can be frustrating though
Induction is most certainly objective (though it is not extrinsic in its approach), since one needs to believe that the external world (and the data gathered by the senses) is both real and reliable, in order to make that sort of induction at all! – “believe”? “Senses both real and reliable”?
You were apparently confused by the meanings of the two terms (“objective” and “induction”), or else you would not have claimed that an induction must necessarily be “non-objective”. That’s simply not the case at all. – and yet you have said I do not know it with mathematical certainty (though that would be impossible, anyway); I know it approximately, by induction… since it seems universally true in all people I’ve ever met, and induction: a type of logic which takes a small base of data (usually gathered by empirical means) and extrapolates, or “induces”, a conclusion. (remembering what you said about assumptions in your logic algorithm)
My dear fellow: words mean things. – indeed. And more words mean more things. A simple dictionary definition of moral relitivism does not suffice.
And yet, you turn about on several occasions and object to the idea that some of your beliefs are not “more important” than others! – as is the case for everyone. I believe drug abuse is bad but I don’t think it’s as bad as serial rape. How about you?
This could stem only from an avoidance of the true meaning and implications of the term “moral relativist”, on your part. If there are no objective moral standards, then all your talk about “some standards [e.g. resistance to rape] being more important than others [resistance to anchovies]]” is stuff and nonsense. – you consider whether one likes anchovies or not to be a moral question! Seriously? I think morals are more important than taste, although that itself is subjective of course. How about you? And it does not imply that morals are any less subjective than taste either.
I admit, this reaction baffled me! You were “thanking me” for refuting your claim that your moral standards “are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows”? (assuming that you meant to write [your claim that your moral standards “are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than mine] – I didn’t make that claim. What I actually said was my standards of moral conduct are as ‘strong’ as yours, even if they differ and Perhaps they are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows. Because they are subjective and can only be judged subjectively. That’s why I agreed that it is nonsensical to speak of any moral view being ‘better’ than another.
You’re welcome, I’m sure… but that’s not usually the reaction of an opponent in a debate whose point has been trounced! – au contaire, you made my point for me.
Don’t you see? If there is no objective standard, then all such talk of anyone’s preferences being more or less important than others (whether they concern morals or foodstuffs)–or more or less important than others of THEIR OWN–is nonsense! – you classify morals on the same level of importance as taste? That’s not very supportive of morals being objective. Or do you think taste is also objective?
I can claim that my moral views are of greater importance than are my food preferences, – I’d hope they are. Can you tell the difference? Unless you still think food preference is a moral thing?
since I believe in objective standards by which a moral gradient of a position can be compared; – objective and on a gradient? I see. The fact that morals are more significant than food preferences does not indicate that morals are objective. Every now and then I’ll try a food I haven’t previously liked to see if my taste may have changed. I don’t do that for acts that I find immoral. Would you? Perhaps adultery ain’t that bad after all eh.
you, since you reject all objective moral standards, – I reject objective moral standards, not moral standards.
It was an object lesson, not an insult. Without objectivity, all of your terms to which you objected will run effortlessly over you: “easily pliable” (how can you judge “more or less pliability” if you have no objective standard of “pliability”?), “poorly founded” (however would you know what is “well-founded”, without an objective ideal against which to compare it?), “subject to whim” (how would you tell a “whim” apart from an actual “principle” without ano objective standard of constancy?), and so on? – and so. There is nothing which demonstrates that any one persons morals are more or less ‘pliable’, ‘poorly founded’ or based on a ‘whim’ than anyone elses. Your claim that yours must be less pliable, more well-founded and not based on a whim is based on your assertion that your morals are objective. Yet you fail to demonstrate such.
If you say that you “pushed back” because you felt irritated and insulted, then I reply (along with an apology for any offense) that you can only coherently defend yourself against such charges if you abandon the silly idea of moral relativism. – irritated, not insulted. I may have felt insulted if there were a grain of truth to what you were saying. So thank you Paladin but no apology is required. “Silly idea”?
Perhaps you could explain by what standard you judge it to be “too narrow”? Is that standard of width “objective”, do you think? – I don’t really mind if you find it objective or subjective. The fact is the issue of moral relativism is more complex than you have espoused.
Oh, tosh! Have you still not discovered that it is your INTENT and BELIEF on which I’m focusing? If you (personally) BELIEVE that there are no objective moral standards, then YOU (personally) can no longer speak (unless you want to be incoherent) about “better” or “worse” or “stronger” or “weaker”, or even “right” and “wrong” (as opposed to “I prefer it” and “I don’t prefer it”). I (personally) am self-consistent in this regard, since I both believe in objective moral standards AND I allow myself to speak of “morally better” and/or “morally worse”, etc. You are not self-consistent, because you violate your own “non-objectivity” standard every time you try to make such a comparison (e.g. “my aversion to rape is of a higher order than is my aversion to anchovies”). – your assertion that there are objective morals, that the ones you adhere to are ‘the’ objective morals, therefore you are entitled to speak of what is ‘morally better’ or ‘morally worse’ is the tosh. If I didn’t like anchovies (which I do) I could still eat one without considering myself immoral. Not so with rape. Is your aversion to rape no higher than your aversion to certain foods? You only claim self-consistency on the basis of the claim for objective morals, which is not demonstrated.
You might possibly (though wrongly) accuse me of being mistaken and/or deluded in my beliefs; but that would only be a guess (even by your standards), since you can prove nothing of the sort with any certitude. – that’d be the same for you then. I thought you were the one trying to prove something. Aren’t you supposed to be proving that my moral relativism is moral relativism because its not objectivism, or something? Your claim that you are able to steer this matter because you claim that there is a set of objective moral standards is fundamentally unfounded. You base your position on one massive assumption. One with which I massively disagree.
But a self-contradiction cannot possibly be true, REGARDLESS of the situation or subject-matter; and that is what you are carrying, friend. Which would a logical person prefer: the view of someone who (without further information) MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be wrong (i.e. my view, in the eyes of a skeptic with incomplete information), or the view of someone who’s CERTAINLY and PROVABLY wrong, no matter what the topic (i.e. your view, since it’s self-contradictory)? The mere fact that you BELIEVE in “moral relativism” sets you against yourself! – nice try. Your claim that you argue from a stronger position because you believe in objective morals doesn’t cut the mustard unless you can demonstrate that there are objective morals. You haven’t. Therefore you argue from the same position as myself.
We all formulate our moral standards by the same means, you just include a god as one of your inputs,
Let’s assume, for the moment, that this is completely true (which it isn’t–but that’s a longer story). – ( what, you don’t include god as one of your subjective inputs?)
Don’t you see that the “manner of formulation” of a standard has no special bearing on the TRUTH or FALSITY of that standard? – indeed. But the question is whose truth or falsity. Oh come on, you’re not gonna claim yours is the only truth are you.
Consider two situations: one, in which we all formulate standards about non-existent realities, and two, in which we formulate standards about existent realities. Given only that we’ve formulated standards… how would you tell the difference? You couldn’t. It says nothing, one way or the other; it certainly doesn’t prove your next phrase (i.e. “all of which are subjective”). – it proves exactly that. Our moral codes are formulated by subjective knowledge and experience. Anthropology and a brain.
I may have formulated my mathematical abilities in a manner …..with the idea that “all is relative” would be unable to do anything coherently with mathematics at all! – again you drag basic arithmetic into it as though it demonstrates that there are objective morals. It doesn’t.
…and I’ve explained to you (here, yet again), that I did not set out to do that, yet. My current objective is to show that your position, which is self-contradictory, is CERTAINLY false (and is therefore less preferable, even to an honest agnostic); and I’m afraid you’ve made it rather easy… and the job is almost complete. – my, you do have a vivid imagination. You have done nothing to show that my position is false, quite the opposite. Claiming that morals aren’t subjective because subjective isn’t objective does not amount to proving that morals are objective when the only argument that can be mounted is itself subjective. There is no objective argument or evidence that morals are objective, only subjective – your opinion. The fact that moral codes are clearly self-evidently subjective is however, objective. Perhaps you could argue that there is only one set of ‘right’ moral codes, but that wouldn’t succeed either.
And I don’t think that even winning an argument for god would guarantee proof of such. Think of someone who’s willing to deny that George Washington is the first U.S. President, simply because he/she despised him, and couldn’t abide the thought of him being so important. – to start with, your idea that atheism is predicated on a hatred of or a wish to deny the existence of god is facile. And it’s a rather poor comparison. Your god and a historical human. George wrote stuff down, god didn’t. George was observed and recorded by contemporaries, god wasn’t. No claims are made that George created all things. No one claims George performs miracles. No supernatural claims are laid at George’s feet. Anyone who claims that George speaks to them usually finds themselves institutionalised. Will your existence be denied in 200 years?
That (proof for God’s existence, followed by a proof of the reliability of Church teaching) would set down the bedrock for all true objective moral standards. – it may do for a set of ‘right’ moral codes, perhaps. Yet look at all the disagreements amongst groups both large and small within christianity. Whose ‘objective morals’, whose ‘right morals’ would be the right ones? Whose should be followed?
But we’re nowhere near there, yet; – that’s for sure.
your own bridge is collapsing, friend, and you really do need to attend to that first, – your dislike of my bridge does not amount to a lack of structural integrity within it. When will you start building yours?
before you trouble yourself about what the Church has to offer. – been there, done that, found it offers nothing, walked away.
You predicate your entire argument for objective morals on the basis that there are objective morals and thus your argument is objective rather than subjective without establishing the vaildity of that in any way. It’s all rather circular. It’s the same concept as the ‘god is real because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god’ argument. As I stated earlier “We all formulate our moral standards by the same means, you just include a god as one of your inputs, all of which are subjective.”
Reality,
For the moment (since time is being rather a task-master, at the moment), let me say this, since most of your objections revolve about this point:
I am self-consistent because, while I make moral value judgments (e.g. Is this more or less important, morally? Is this a moral issue at all? Etc.), I also *believe* that there are objective moral standards (and this point abstracts completely from the distinct question of “are there actually objective moral standards?”). If I were to adopt moral relativism, then I would be inconsistent whenever I appealed to any comparison of “better or worse” moral positions, “more or less important” moral issues, and the like… since objective standards are needed to make such a comparison.
Don’t you see? Your incessant comments about “Here, now… you’ve not yet proven objective moral standards!” is completely beside the point! If you claim to have a square circle, I don’t need to examine the alleged object for simultaneous radius and right angles, etc.; I know, beforehand, that your claim is nonsense. Just so, here: so long as you make the simultaneous claims that: (1) you are an absolute moral relativist, and (2) you believe that some issues are of greater moral concern than others (which would be impossible to claim, in a world without objective moral standards), then I do not need to examine either your claims or mine, any further: I know you must be mistaken.
Had you taken the path of the atheist forum members whom I referenced earlier, who agreed with me that their views on rape, etc., were no more or less morally significant than were their aversions to foods which they dislikes intensely, I would not charge you with contradiction; rather, I’d suggest that you would be on a steady path either toward solipsism or insanity. If you abandoned moral relativism and adopted a belief in an objective moral code (ANY objective moral code–whether of Christianity, or of Islam, or of Zoroastrianism, or what-have-you), you’d still have avoided such a contradiction. But you try to have it both ways–to discard all objective moral standards while still trying to make claims about thus-and-so views being more (or less) morally important, moral vs. immoral, etc.–and therein lies your problem.
At present, your objections about my lack of a proof for my own particular belief-system are premature; it’s a bit like a claimant of a square circle arguing that I do not yet have proof for my own circle!
Whoops…
Don’t you see? Your incessant comments about “Here, now… you’ve not yet proven objective moral standards!” is completely beside the point!
…should, of course, be:
Don’t you see? Your incessant comments about “Here, now… you’ve not yet proven objective moral standards!” ARE completely beside the point!
Back-and-forth editing isn’t always my friend… :)
“”reality:” – The fact is the issue of moral relativism is more complex than you have espoused.”
No “reality” for majority of us here it is rather simple a task. As a pro-abort you must justify all that is evil thus convoluting as much as possible. Circular logic does not help your endeavor.
Hello again, Reality,
Ah… a few more spare moments! Let’s see how much ground we can cover…
I do have to admit one thing, from the outset: as you actually like anchovies, I’ll have to concede that you’re a braver man than I! :) But I digress…
You wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Induction is most certainly objective (though it is not extrinsic in its approach), since one needs to believe that the external world (and the data gathered by the senses) is both real and reliable, in order to make that sort of induction at all!
[Reality]
“believe”? “Senses both real and reliable”?
(?) Yes, on both counts. Can you be a bit more specific about why you’re repeating those quips?
[Paladin]
You were apparently confused by the meanings of the two terms (“objective” and “induction”), or else you would not have claimed that an induction must necessarily be “non-objective”. That’s simply not the case at all.
[Reality]
and yet you have said “I do not know it with mathematical certainty (though that would be impossible, anyway); I know it approximately, by induction… since it seems universally true in all people I’ve ever met,” and “induction: a type of logic which takes a small base of data (usually gathered by empirical means) and extrapolates, or “induces”, a conclusion.” (remembering what you said about assumptions in your logic algorithm)
I think you’re missing something of the definition, again. Something need not be provable beyond ALL doubt (as is the case with math theorems) in order to be objective; it needs only to avoid being dependent on personal opinion, outlook, and the like. For example: the fact that there are currently no penguins in my classroom is an induced fact which is not dependent on my opinions or personal viewpoint; it’s a matter of simple observation (provable beyond all reasonable doubt–i.e. to deny it would entail a violation of right reason). Now, whether the absence of penguins was a *good* thing or not–THAT would be a subjective matter. More on that idea, in a bit.
[Paladin]
My dear fellow: words mean things.
[Reality]
indeed. And more words mean more things.
Not necessarily. “Circle” means something quite distinct; “square circle” means nothing at all. “Purpleness” means something (albeit a very abstract something); “rotating purpleness 90 degrees clock-wise” means nothing at all.
A simple dictionary definition of moral relitivism does not suffice.
And why not? Even if you’d like to add qualifiers (and you’d have to justify them–and not simply ask that I take them on faith), you’d need to START with the “simple dictionary definition”, yes? If the dictionary definition isn’t true at all, then anyone who uses the term at all would be speaking nonsense from the outset!
[Paladin]
And yet, you turn about on several occasions and object to the idea that some of your beliefs are not “more important” than others!
[Reality]
as is the case for everyone. I believe drug abuse is bad but I don’t think it’s as bad as serial rape. How about you?
You’ve not yet grasped my point. Personally, I’m quite thrilled at the fact that you recognise the differences between the gravity of certain crimes, and that you find those differences to be real and important; I’m simply pointing out that, to the extent you DO distinguish like that, you contradict either your first original claim that “there are no objective moral standards” or your second claim that “your moral codes are not simply preferences of the same order as tastes in food”. In other words: I think your character is quite better than is your logical case!
[Paladin]
This could stem only from an avoidance of the true meaning and implications of the term “moral relativist”, on your part. If there are no objective moral standards, then all your talk about “some standards [e.g. resistance to rape] being more important than others [resistance to anchovies]]” is stuff and nonsense.
[Reality]
you consider whether one likes anchovies or not to be a moral question! Seriously?
Not in the normal, canonical sense of the word, no. I consider moral issues to be of a completely different (and higher) order than are issues of mere personal taste (though even personal tastes and concomitant decisions have moral gradients–even if only infinitesimal ones). But then again: I never claimed that there were no objective moral standards.
I’m not quite sure what else I could say, to get you to comprehend what I’m saying! (And I don’t mean merely that “if he understood, he’d agree”; it’s quite possible to understand something fully and disagree… but your comments show that you haven’t even grasped my meaning, yet.) If you were to be a “length relativist” (i.e. believe that there are no objective standards for length), then you’d be forbidden (by your own belief-system) to say that “this item is two inches longer than that”, or even “this item is a certain, unknown amount longer than that”; because “longer” requires a reference to an objective, immovable standard of length (e.g. an inch, or a centimetre, or whatever fixed unit you like). Just so, with morality: if you reject all objective moral standards, then you have no business saying that one preference of yours is “more morally relevant” than another. An absolute hedonist (whose driving principles are “maximisation of pleasure” and “minimisation of pain”) might well consider the consumption of an unpleasant food to be “more immoral” than serial rape (if, for example, he hated the women in question, he enjoyed the sexual “rush” of each rape, and if he were the one raping, etc.). If you are a true moral relativist, then you would be forced to say that his moral code was not at all inferior to yours (even though you might “disagree” with it, or though it might not suit your particular tastes).
You might reply, “But I would be outraged with such a code!” And he would reply:
“Yes… just as I’d be outraged if I were tricked into eating anchovies!”
“But my reaction is much stronger against things I find immoral, than they would be against things I merely find unpleasant!”
“Yes, indeed; your personal tastes are tied to strong emotional passions, and they simply happen to run in the ‘no rape’ direction. Had you my upbringing, you would prefer rape to anchovies, I assure you… and your moral code would be none the worse for it!”
[Reality]
I think morals are more important than taste, although that itself is subjective of course. How about you? And it does not imply that morals are any less subjective than taste either.
So you admit that there is no qualitative difference between your morals and your food preferences? If both are utterly subjective, and both are (apparently) distinguished only by your personal tastes and the intensity fo your reaction for/against them, you’ve killed all hope of any qualitative difference.
Don’t you see? Even if you say, “But my moral code takes into consideration the good and the will of society–what will benefit the maximum number of people without harming anyone!”, I would point out that every last key word in your rebuttal–“good”, “will of society”, “benefit”, “harm”–is either completely devoid of meaning for you (since they require objective standards even for their raw meanings), or they’re simply appeals to personal taste–your personal taste (i.e. what “tastes” good to you, emotionally and/or physically), or the collective personal tastes of a group (i.e. “society”). There’s no use in talking about what’s “good” for society or for individuals, if you’ve destroyed all meaning of the word “good”! For a moral relativist, “good” means “what I happen to like”, on some level or another; there’s no other possible meaning.
[Paladin]
I admit, this reaction baffled me! You were “thanking me” for refuting your claim that your moral standards “are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows”?
[Reality]
(assuming that you meant to write [your claim that your moral standards “are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than mine]
I did; thank you!
I didn’t make that claim. What I actually said was my standards of moral conduct are as ‘strong’ as yours, even if they differ and Perhaps they are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows.
Fair enough. I should have written: “…your claim that your moral standards might perhaps be even stronger and better than mine…”
Because they are subjective and can only be judged subjectively.
By claiming that they are subjective, you completely remove all possibility that they can be “judged” at ALL, friend.
That’s why I agreed that it is nonsensical to speak of any moral view being ‘better’ than another.
Well… then do you not see that you cannot even say “perhaps”, in a case like that? If there is an objective moral standard which is merely unknown, then your statement would make some sense (i.e. “since we don’t yet know the objective moral standard, it might be the case that my code meets it better than does yours!”); but since you’ve utterly REJECTED ALL objective moral standards, you’ve placed yourself squarely in the camp of “better and worse are meaningless terms”. Your statement beginning with “perhaps” completely flew in the face of your main thesis.
[Paladin]
Don’t you see? If there is no objective standard, then all such talk of anyone’s preferences being more or less important than others (whether they concern morals or foodstuffs)–or more or less important than others of THEIR OWN–is nonsense!
[Reality]
you classify morals on the same level of importance as taste?
No. I claim that a moral relativist would have no choice but to accept them as being on “the same level” (whatever that would mean, given no standards). I, as an objectivist, am not under any such constraint… and if you’d like to escape that constraint in order to judge differences in moral gradients, you’ll need to embrace some sort of objective moral standard.
That’s not very supportive of morals being objective. Or do you think taste is also objective?
Again, no. See above.
[Paladin]
I can claim that my moral views are of greater importance than are my food preferences,
[Reality]
I’d hope they are.
Out of curiosity: WHY do you hope that? I’d understand such an answer from someone who believed in objective moral standards (including the standard which says “it is immoral to choose an issue of lesser moral imperative to the detriment of an issue with greater moral imperative”); but I’ve no clear idea how you could say such a thing, unless your instincts are not wholly relativistic (and may that be the case)!
Can you tell the difference? Unless you still think food preference is a moral thing?
We covered that already… but here’s a summary: so long as you reject all objective moral standards, you have no intellectual power to argue coherently for one thing being “more important, morally” than any other.
[Paladin]
since I believe in objective standards by which a moral gradient of a position can be compared;
[Reality]
objective and on a gradient? I see.
I don’t think you do. Suppose (just for the sake of argument) that an objective moral ideal exists–a “summum bonum”, against which all other moral things can be compared. That’s when other things can fill in on the gradient, or measured spectrum, of things which are nearer or farther from that absolute, unchanging, greatest good. Without that fixed standard, not even a gradient (either in the sense of a measure on a scale, or in the sense of a colour diffusing into another) can exist without objective standards; a blue-green gradient makes no sense if there’s no standard of “blueness” which could get less and less, while “greenness” increases. (“Increase and “decrease” require a standard by which they are measures, or else the terms are meaningless.)
Whoops! Duty calls! I’ll try to get to the other bits at first opportunity.
No “reality” for majority of us here it is rather simple a task. – perhaps you should be a little more hesitant about tarring the ‘majority’ here with the brush of simplicity Thomas “R.
As a pro-abort you must justify all that is evil thus convoluting as much as possible. – what evil?
Circular logic does not help your endeavor. – hence my avoidance of it.
I appreciate your time and effort Paladin.
Yes, on both counts. Can you be a bit more specific about why you’re repeating those quips? – they’re not ‘quips’. It’s because you’ve claimed that induction is objective yet you say that ‘one needs to believe’ and ‘data gathered by senses’, both of which are subjective.
Not necessarily. “Circle” means something quite distinct; “square circle” means nothing at all. “Purpleness” means something (albeit a very abstract something); “rotating purpleness 90 degrees clock-wise” means nothing at all. – indeed. But such doesn’t apply to everything now does it. Including moral relativism. There is more to it, and it does add meaning.
And why not? Even if you’d like to add qualifiers (and you’d have to justify them–and not simply ask that I take them on faith), you’d need to START with the “simple dictionary definition”, yes? If the dictionary definition isn’t true at all, then anyone who uses the term at all would be speaking nonsense from the outset! – no ‘qualifiers’, it’s the relevant scope and variables pertinent to it. If you wish to use moral relativism as a central part of your argument I would have thought you’d make yourself aware of it’s complexities.
You’ve not yet grasped my point. Personally, I’m quite thrilled at the fact that you recognise the differences between the gravity of certain crimes, and that you find those differences to be real and important; I’m simply pointing out that, to the extent you DO distinguish like that, you contradict either your first original claim that “there are no objective moral standards” or your second claim that “your moral codes are not simply preferences of the same order as tastes in food”. In other words: I think your character is quite better than is your logical case! – there is no contradiction. There are morals, these are subjective not objective. Tastes in food are not morals, they are tastes. They are also subjective. I find that morals are a higher order issue than food preferences, as apparently do you. Some may not, it’s subjective. It contributes nothing as to whether morals are objective or subjective.
if you reject all objective moral standards, then you have no business saying that one preference of yours is “more morally relevant” than another. – why? Some things are more morally relevant to me. Just like some things are more morally relevant than others to you. Certain things are ‘more morally relevant’ than others to us all.
An absolute hedonist (whose driving principles are “maximisation of pleasure” and “minimisation of pain”) might well consider the consumption of an unpleasant food to be “more immoral” than serial rape (if, for example, he hated the women in question, he enjoyed the sexual “rush” of each rape, and if he were the one raping, etc.). – I’d love to hear from these people who think food preference is a moral thing.
If you are a true moral relativist, then you would be forced to say that his moral code was not at all inferior to yours (even though you might “disagree” with it, or though it might not suit your particular tastes). – why? I judge his moral code subjectively, according to my own, just like you do. You and I demonstrate this behavior in regard to many things. Subjectively of course, I screw my nose up at his moral code. Because, as I’ve said, you are being overly simplistic in your application of moral relativism. The extent to which we like or dislike, approve of or disapprove of, the moral codes of others is not at all indicative of there being a set of objectiive moral codes. If anything, quite the opposite.
…………..Had you my upbringing, you would prefer rape to anchovies, I assure you… and your moral code would be none the worse for it!” – so you still think food preferences fall into the category of morals. Why?
So you admit that there is no qualitative difference between your morals and your food preferences? If both are utterly subjective, and both are (apparently) distinguished only by your personal tastes and the intensity fo your reaction for/against them, you’ve killed all hope of any qualitative difference. – rubbish (that qualitative equality appears to be your thing anyway). They are both subjective in and of themselves. That is quite distinct from the extent of qualitative difference between them. Which is itself subjective of course.
By claiming that they are subjective, you completely remove all possibility that they can be “judged” at ALL, friend. – which is what I’ve been saying. Hence my use of “who knows”.
- you think ‘perhaps’ is a definitive?
No. I claim that a moral relativist would have no choice but to accept them as being on “the same level” (whatever that would mean, given no standards). – that’s absurd. One is morals, the other is taste. Why do you keep confusing the two? The fact that both are subjective does not denote them as being equivalent.
I, as an objectivist, am not under any such constraint… and if you’d like to escape that constraint in order to judge differences in moral gradients, you’ll need to embrace some sort of objective moral standard. – the problem being that you are not an objectivist.
Out of curiosity: WHY do you hope that? I’d understand such an answer from someone who believed in objective moral standards (including the standard which says “it is immoral to choose an issue of lesser moral imperative to the detriment of an issue with greater moral imperative”); – because, like most people, I subjectively find that moral views are more important than food preferences. I’m sure that you can think of reasons why. Well, maybe you can’t, going by what you keep saying about food preferences being a moral thing.
but I’ve no clear idea how you could say such a thing, unless your instincts are not wholly relativistic (and may that be the case)! – that’s why you need to acknowledge that your application of the term moral relativism is rather lacking.
We covered that already… but here’s a summary: so long as you reject all objective moral standards, you have no intellectual power to argue coherently for one thing being “more important, morally” than any other. - some things are more important morally than others to me, just like they are for you, and everyone else. It’s all subjective.
Without that fixed standard, not even a gradient (either in the sense of a measure on a scale, or in the sense of a colour diffusing into another) can exist without objective standards – yes it can. Subjectively I can find one blue bluer than another and I align them on a gradient. It may not be the same as yours but there it is.
You launch your argument from a non-existent foundation Paladin.
You claim that I can’t argue against your assertion that there is a set of objective moral standards because I don’t agree that they exist therefore my argument can only be subjective.
Since the claim for the existence of a set of objective moral standards is of itself subjective, your argument is also subjective.
Unless and until the case for objective morals can be substantiated you argue from a position of assumption. That is also subjective.
Whether either side of an argument regarding the possibility of objective morals is objective or subjective is itself subjective.
As I have stated, the clear and repeated observation of people, societies, cultures and eras indisputably demonstrate the ever-changing landscape of morals. Attempting to claim the existence of a set of objective morals within this landscape, let alone define what those particular objective morals may be, is itself the path to insanity.
Let’s face it. You claim to have been ‘given’ a set of objective moral standards so that you can pretend to have a place of strength from which to assail the morals of those with whom you don’t agree.
I’m not going to get entrenched in this debate, but wanted to make a quick point.
Reality, you seem to feel that those of us who believe in moral objectivity and oppose th idea of moral relativism do so because it is somehow easier or seen as easier perhaps than accepting that a higher power does not divinely ordain good versus wrong. I assure you that this is not the case for those of us who have bothered to consider the state of the universe in any depth.
Rather, belief in an objective moral truth is somewhat of an additional burden. It necessitates constant consideration and reevaluation of how your feelings are affecting your belief. It requires a certain amount of faith which is -at the minimum- incredibly difficult to have. If, in fact, the concept of moral relativism were accurate, it would be irrelevant how much my feelings were affecting my morals. What would it matter? If there is no objective truth, then I can behave in whatever way I find most fulfilling, regardless of others’ opinions.
On the other hand, if there is in fact an objective moral standard, then I am obliged as an intelligent and capable human being to try my best to use observation, deductive reasoning, research, and in some cases blind faith to ferret out what is right and what is wrong, and to live according to those standards. Even though it is a great deal more difficult to research intently, or to simply have faith in something you do not understand, than it is to simply say “I see no active harm in this so why should I avoid doing it?” and go about as you would like.
I am not trying to say that moral relativism automatically devolves into immoral behavior. I am pointing out that it is a great deal easier to believe that I make my moral code and that I am at the mercy of my own conscience only than it is to believe that morals are firm and fast truths which I have an obligation to try to observe.
I hope that makes sense.
It mostly makes sense MaryRose.
I reject the notion of there being a set of ‘objective moral standards’ because there is no person, ‘place’, source or entity who/which can have constructed/defined/provided such a thing.
What we see as moral or immoral varies – to greater or lesser extents – between us as individuals, societies, cultures and places in time. The extent to which we see specific things as moral or immoral varies in this way also.
As I have said to Paladin, if there is such a thing, exactly what is it? What are the specific morals which are objective? Who knows? How would we know?
belief in an objective moral truth is somewhat of an additional burden. It necessitates constant consideration and reevaluation of how your feelings are affecting your belief. – that’s starting to sound like cognitive dissonance.
I am obliged as an intelligent and capable human being to try my best to use observation, deductive reasoning, research, and in some cases blind faith to ferret out what is right and what is wrong, and to live according to those standards. – I somewhat agree that this is how we come to formulate our morals. It’s subjective.
to simply say “I see no active harm in this so why should I avoid doing it?” and go about as you would like. – if there is in actuality no harm, how is it wrong or immoral. For those who ignore or fail to recognise that there is ‘active harm’ in an action, there are usually terms other than just ‘immoral’ assigned.
I am not trying to say that moral relativism automatically devolves into immoral behavior. – I’m glad to hear that.
I am pointing out that it is a great deal easier to believe that I make my moral code and that I am at the mercy of my own conscience only than it is to believe that morals are firm and fast truths which I have an obligation to try to observe. – both are the same.
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
It’s because you’ve claimed that induction is objective yet you say that ‘one needs to believe’ and ‘data gathered by senses’, both of which are subjective.
Not a bit of it. Do you presume that the Law of Gravity (for example) is “subjective”–or that the existence of gravity AT ALL is “subjective”–simply because the senses were required, in order to become aware of them? Do you suppose that having (presumably) ten fingers is “subjective”, simply because you required senses in order to count them? Friend, I think you’re using a very rare, privatised, idiomatic definition of “subjective”, if any of these are true… and the dictionary would not agree with you, I think.
[Paladin]
(Re: “more words mean more things”) Not necessarily. “Circle” means something quite distinct; “square circle” means nothing at all. “Purpleness” means something (albeit a very abstract something); “rotating purpleness 90 degrees clock-wise” means nothing at all.
[Reality]
indeed. But such doesn’t apply to everything now does it. Including moral relativism. There is more to it, and it does add meaning.
You have (ironically enough) not shown that, at all (i.e. you’ve not yet added any specific nuances to what YOU mean by “moral relativist”–you’ve only repeated what I already claimed: that you reject the idea of any and all objective moral absolutes). When you say that you are “someone who rejects all objective moral standards, but who considers moral issues to be more important than food tastes, and that ‘importance’ is not merely intensity of feeling”, you’re embracing the “square circle” realm of things, I’m afraid.
Perhaps this question might help cut to the chase: could you, as clearly as possible, articulate your own definition of “moral relativism” as you see it? I can’t do much without clarity of definition, on your part. More specifically, I’d like to hear WHY (i.e. on what basis) you consider moral issues to be more important than those of personal aversion to unpleasant tastes, pain, etc. And do try not to skirt the issue by saying “certainly–as soon as you define yours!”; since you’re using a definition removed from the canonical dictionary definition, it’s really not unreasonable for me to ask for you to explain your novel additions/spins to it.
there is no contradiction. There are morals, these are subjective not objective. Tastes in food are not morals, they are tastes. They are also subjective. I find that morals are a higher order issue than food preferences, as apparently do you. Some may not, it’s subjective. It contributes nothing as to whether morals are objective or subjective.
But again, you’re missing my main point. I do not object to you saying that you *categorise* morals in a different “group” than you would “tastes in food” (that’s simply common sense, and the use of a logical taxonomy). I *do* object, however, when you go further and try to use language which makes judgments in extent of value (e.g. morally “better”, “worse”, “more important”, etc.) Those words are utterly meaningless to one who has discarded all objective standards of moral value.
Some things are more morally relevant to me. Just like some things are more morally relevant than others to you. Certain things are ‘more morally relevant’ than others to us all.
Then let me try to ask my question in another way: what, exactly, do you MEAN when you say that something is “more morally relevant” to you, aside from a mere stronger emotional/physiological reaction (which would also be the case with a food you hate)? From what I’ve gathered so far, you seem to claim at least three things:
1) You find “moral things” (whatever that means, as per your esoteric definition, whatever that is) to be of greater importance than “non-moral things (such as taste for anchovies).
2) You distinguish “moral” from “non-moral” by simply putting the former in one mental box labelled “moral”, and other things in a second box labelled “non-moral”. (That’s not unreasonable, by the way.)
3) You still became indignant when I suggested that your collection of moral standards were no more or less weighty and stable than were your whims, or personal tastes about food or art or what-have-you.
It’s the “point #3” which runs afoul of your stated disbelief in any objective moral standards. Either you were being completely and utterly irrational (and without any basis in fact whatsoever) in your reaction to me (e.g. your indignation came upon you randomly, like a headache or a nervous fit), or else you are clinging to some standard to which you appeal when you complain about my comments to that effect. Otherwise, why should I not reply to you as I would to someone with a migraine, or as I could have done to those on the atheist forum: “I’m sorry to hear that–I hope you feel better soon!”? Would you not think that I was being sarcastic and unkind? And yet, in an utterly relativistic world, such a comment would not need sarcasm or unkindness at all, any more than would my similar comment to someone who was actually suffering a headache!
[Paladin]
An absolute hedonist (whose driving principles are “maximisation of pleasure” and “minimisation of pain”) might well consider the consumption of an unpleasant food to be “more immoral” than serial rape (if, for example, he hated the women in question, he enjoyed the sexual “rush” of each rape, and if he were the one raping, etc.).
[Reality]
I’d love to hear from these people who think food preference is a moral thing.
What, especially, would you like to hear from them? Morality is the science by which actions are categorised as “ought to do” (i.e. we satisfy an obligation when we do it, and we are remiss when we do not do it) and “ought not to do” (i.e. we satisfy an obligation when we do not do it, and we are remiss when we do it). If everything moral is simply “personal, subjective view” (as you suggest), then anyone who views “forcing myself to eat something I hate” as “immoral” (as they might also find “slitting my own throat” to be immoral) is as justified in his view as are you (who find serial rape to be “more immoral”, for some reason which the man in question can’t fathom). The fact that you happen to disagree with his standards is, according to you, quite immaterial.
[Paladin]
If you are a true moral relativist, then you would be forced to say that his moral code was not at all inferior to yours (even though you might “disagree” with it, or though it might not suit your particular tastes).
[Reality]
why? I judge his moral code subjectively, according to my own, just like you do.
I do not. (And yes, I know–I’ve repeated this interminably, have I not?–that I’ve not yet set down a case for my own objective standards; patience! One thing at a time!) The mere fact that I *believe* in objective moral standards allows me to be self-consistent in judging someone’s standards to be good or bad, noble or ignoble, in a way that utterly transcends, say, my distaste for anchovies (and I cannot stand them, for the record!) You, when you are indignant at the idea that I view your moral code as a mere extension of your other tastes (in food, art, music, softness of bed mattress, etc.), with no more or less importance than they have, are NOT self-consistent, since you complain without a basis for complaint.
so you still think food preferences fall into the category of morals. Why?
Not in the sense that you mean it. My point was that you, with your professed moral relativism, have kicked out from under yourself any possible basis for saying that food preferences are categorically different from moral codes. If you simply place “that which you consider moral” in one box, and “that which you consider tasty” in another box, in what way can you judge the importance of these boxes, even relative to one another, without the standard which you’ve discarded? Why does the mere presence of an item in the “morality box” give it any more importance? Why would this be any more or less “weighty” than categorising then by alphabetical order, rather than some phantom “moral or immoral” standard?
That addresses another point, as well. If I were to categorise all my thoughts alphabetically (by first letter of first significant descriptor word–“raisin” would go in the “r” box, and “anchovies” would go in the “a” box), I would not be indignant or insulted if you suggested that I found no different in “importance” between the two boxes… since I was using the same taxonomic algorithm to categorise them–yes? I might say something to the effect of “no, no… one starts with an ‘a’, and the other starts with an ‘r’!… but I would not react by saying “How dare you suggest that I treat “a” and “r” with the same gravity!” But you ARE indignant when I claimed (as an object lesson) that you viewed your “moral” essentially the same way that you viewed your tastes in food; you took my comment to be a slight against you, and not simply a neutral error involving categories… and this strongly indicates that you have some sort of (perhaps vague, ill-defined, and even unconscious) standard to which you appeal, when “ranking” the importance of one “box” over another.
[Paladin]
By claiming that they are subjective, you completely remove all possibility that they can be “judged” at ALL, friend.
[Reality]
which is what I’ve been saying.
Part of the time, anyway…
Hence my use of “who knows”.
My dear chap! Such a question, in the face of your stated axioms, would be as absurd as would be the statement: “Perhaps there might even be a whole number which is even and odd simultaneously; who knows?” I know, and anyone who’s clear on logical principles knows: the answer is “Nonsense! It’s impossible, and there’s no ‘perhaps’ about it!” You need to choose: if you believe that there are no objective moral standards, and if you agree (as you admit, and as you must admit, if you’re being logically coherent) that such a belief precludes all moral judgments about importance, etc., then you have no business making such a claim AT ALL. When you say “maybe [x]; who knows?”, you’re declaring that the probability of [x] is greater than zero… which flatly contradicts your own admission (and the logical necessity, given your axioms) that [x] is impossible!
Had you limited yourself to saying that “there might be an objective moral standard, but no one seems to know it, and it seems unlikely to me that anyone will ever present a real one”, then you’d be on safer (though still flawed) logical ground. But you’ve gone further; you’ve stated–repeatedly and clearly and forcefully–that NO SUCH STANDARDS EXIST. You are a moral atheist (or an a-moralist, if you like), not a moral agnostic… and that has implications into which you’ve crashed headlong, friend.
you think ‘perhaps’ is a definitive?
It’s most certainly a definitive declaration of nonzero probability, yes… or else the word means nothing at all.
[Paladin]
No. I claim that a moral relativist would have no choice but to accept them as being on “the same level” (whatever that would mean, given no standards).
[Reality]
that’s absurd. One is morals, the other is taste. Why do you keep confusing the two?
I do not confuse the two. I’m pointing out that, according to your own standards, you have at least two different collections of “tastes”: the “moral tastes”, and the “gastronomic/culinary tastes”… and that you have no logically coherent way of giving one any moral importance over the other.
The fact that both are subjective does not denote them as being equivalent.
It is not a “fact” that both are subjective; even your own standards require you to say merely that “you feel/opine that both are subjective”; and if even that statement is subjective, then you’ve no business using the word “fact” to describe it (or anything else, for that matter).
[Paladin]
I, as an objectivist, am not under any such constraint… and if you’d like to escape that constraint in order to judge differences in moral gradients, you’ll need to embrace some sort of objective moral standard.
[Reality]
the problem being that you are not an objectivist.
Come, friend! This is just silly! That statement of yours is as bizarre as would be the case where I say “I apologise”, and you say “no, you don’t!” You might possibly accuse me of apologising insincerely, but you cannot accuse me of not apologising, since the very act IS the apology (it’s what philosophical circles call an “argumentative performative”). Just so: the mere fact that I *believe* in objective standards for things makes me an objectivist, by definition. You might possibly argue that I am mistaken or deluded, but unless you’re accusing me of lying (and I hope you aren’t), you really can’t say that I am not an objectivist, any more securely than you could say that I secretly love anchovies.
[Paladin]
Out of curiosity: WHY do you hope that? I’d understand such an answer from someone who believed in objective moral standards (including the standard which says “it is immoral to choose an issue of lesser moral imperative to the detriment of an issue with greater moral imperative”);
[Reality]
because, like most people, I subjectively find that moral views are more important than food preferences. I’m sure that you can think of reasons why.
I can think of plenty of reasons why objectivists might think so; I can think of no reasons whatsoever (apart from mere personal taste) why utter moral relativists might think so. The only plausible explanation I’ve found is the idea that such relativists have not yet thought through the full implications of their position (as opposed to those on the atheist forum that I visited, who had).
Well, maybe you can’t, going by what you keep saying about food preferences being a moral thing.
See above.
[Paladin]
Without that fixed standard, not even a gradient (either in the sense of a measure on a scale, or in the sense of a colour diffusing into another) can exist without objective standards
[Reality]
yes it can. Subjectively I can find one blue bluer than another and I align them on a gradient. It may not be the same as yours but there it is.
And herein lies an example of why I see moral relativism leading to solipsism: if we take your statement here to be true and accurate, then there would not be any such colour as “blue” at all! If what you call “blue” is really “yellow” to me, or “burnt sienna”, or even no colour at all, and if we extent this principle from colours to all of the empirically-perceived universe, then there is no reliable overlap between your “universe” and mine, whatsoever (save only by accident, which we could never know for certain). You would be in your own universe of ideas, and no one else would be guaranteed to impact it, even by mere confirmable *existence*! Think this through.
You claim that I can’t argue against your assertion that there is a set of objective moral standards because I don’t agree that they exist therefore my argument can only be subjective.
That wasn’t my argument (though, if it were re-worded, it would have some good points to it). Rather, I was saying that you cannot have it both ways; you cannot (without logical incoherence) discard all moral standards, while still holding to the sentimental idea that some of your ideas are “in fact, more important”; you’d be trying to embrace what you knew to be a self-delusion, which is simply impossible, in the final case. Humans cannot embrace wholeheartedly and whole-mindedly what they know to be wrong; at best, they can myopically focus on the perceived good and try to ignore the evil.
Since the claim for the existence of a set of objective moral standards is of itself subjective, your argument is also subjective.
Surely you see how circular that argument is? It’s predicated on the idea that “the claim for the existence of a set of moral standards is subjective”–which is precisely what you’re seeking to prove to me.
Unless and until the case for objective morals can be substantiated you argue from a position of assumption. That is also subjective.
No; I argue from the position that your own position is internally inconsistent, and therefore impossible as a “reality” of any sort at all.
Whether either side of an argument regarding the possibility of objective morals is objective or subjective is itself subjective.
Then you have no business making that declaration (i.e. that this “is” the case), at all.
As I have stated, the clear and repeated observation of people, societies, cultures and eras indisputably demonstrate the ever-changing landscape of morals.
It does not do so even clearly, much less indisputably (and your term “landscape of morals”, though poetic and aesthetically fetching, is too painfully vague to define, or even describe, much of anything)… any more than the “ever-changing tides of revisionist history” actually change the details of George Washington’s life, for example. It means merely that, as the time distance between us and the actual events increases, the ability of humans to err and/or mislead about that event increases, as well. I do not say that all elements of human knowledge fall into this category (of “the passage of years increases the likelihood of error”); I merely deny your claim that morality certainly does fall into that category. Mere change in human views says nothing of great importance to the topic, at all.
Attempting to claim the existence of a set of objective morals within this landscape, let alone define what those particular objective morals may be, is itself the path to insanity.
My dear fellow: there’s nothing “insane” about pointing out a logical inconsistency in your own position, and stating that this will give you a difficulty quite detached from my own views altogether!
Let’s face it. You claim to have been ‘given’ a set of objective moral standards so that you can pretend to have a place of strength from which to assail the morals of those with whom you don’t agree.
I do not “pretend” anything of the sort, especially since I’ve never even made the attempt you describe. Again: the issue is with your internal inconsistency… which doesn’t touch my personal views on morality at all. Even were I not to exist, you would still have the problem; you’d merely have one less person to point them out to you. :)
[Paladin]
Think of someone who’s willing to deny that George Washington is the first U.S. President, simply because he/she despised him, and couldn’t abide the thought of him being so important.
[Reality]
to start with, your idea that atheism is predicated on a hatred of or a wish to deny the existence of god is facile.
That is not my idea, nor did I intend any such suggestion; the hypothetical reasons for denying Washington were just that–random hypotheticals. No one-to-one comparison was intended, on that point; I’m quite aware that many (perhaps even most) atheists are sincere and/or non-malicious in their views (I have many such people as friends, in fact).
And it’s a rather poor comparison. Your god and a historical human. George wrote stuff down, god didn’t.
Can you prove that such writings are actually those of Washington, and not written by someone else, perhaps well after the fact?
George was observed and recorded by contemporaries, god wasn’t.
And you know this… how? Did you interview these contemporaries? You’re taking the word of history books, without so much as a blink of an eye. (Mind you, I’m not *really* suggesting that you discard all trust in history altogether–my point is exactly the opposite–but for the purposes of this hypothetical, do consider what you can truly prove, and what you cannot.) And your statement is factually incorrect, as per the Christian account: since Jesus was God, and Jesus was observed by His contemporaries, it follows that God was observed by His contemporaries… at least insofar as Earth is concerned. (In eternity, the word “contemporaries” has no clear meaning.)
No claims are made that George created all things.
Why would that be at all necessary? It has been claimed (for example) that William Shakespeare never existed (and that his works were really those of Francis Bacon, under a pen-name); and no-one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that Shakespeare created all things.
No one claims George performs miracles. No supernatural claims are laid at George’s feet.
See above, re: Shakespeare. Do you really suppose that the only reasons for discounting someone’s existence are claims that the person did things which cannot normally be attributable to humans? Even logical atheists, who regard such as *sufficient* for discounting someone’s excistence, do not claim that these are NECESSARY for discounting someone’s existence! Jane Eyre was not portrayed as working any miracles, but we still consider her fictitious… yes?
Anyone who claims that George speaks to them usually finds themselves institutionalised.
Come, now! This is a simple appeal to the gallery. Unless you’re willing to assert that 100% of all institutionalisations in all of recorded history have been for bona-fide cases of insanity (and I do wonder how a relativist would discern that, by the way!), this proves nothing. Many of my Jewish ancestors were institutionalised at Der Fuhrer’s good pleasure in Germany, Austria and Poland, for reasons which transcend your stated reasons.
Will your existence be denied in 200 years?
I might; I might not. Who would be there to stop them?
My point is this: you trust history to be “real”–i.e. objective, beyond the mere opinions and fancies of individuals or groups. You believe that George Washington actually existed, in reality, and not simply in the minds and writings of select other persons; and yet, you have no way to prove it. You’re forced to take the matter on faith, simply because you find the history books reliable; the history books apparently “break through the walls of subjectivity” for you, simply because the subject matter suits your personal tastes (e.g. no references to gods or miracles or other such things). You believe something which has been proven only beyond all REASONABLE doubt–not beyond all doubt whatsoever.
Think this through, friend. If someone denied Washington’s existence on the mere fact that his entire story might possibly, remotely be the result of a massive forgery/deception campaign, you would not agree with them (and you would question their thinking, to put it mildly), yes? You accept the proof for his existence, simply because you trust the accounts.
The same can be said for Julius Caesar (to which there are no attributed miracles, by the way), though the accounts of his crossing of the Rubicon (for example) are very scarce (10 manuscripts, more or less, with none older than 1000 years after the fact)… and yet, the only reason you accept this dramatic story is the fact that the “history books” tell you so.
Now, compare this with your own views. You reject the idea of God (though the idea is not logically absurd), and you reject the Gospels, apparently on the main premise that you don’t find accounts of the miraculous (or anything else which cannot be proven by the empirical sciences, apparently) to your liking. There are hundreds of thousands of accounts of events which cannot be explained by the modern empirical sciences (e.g. medicine, etc.), and yet I think (correct me if I’m mistaken) you’d reject them solely because they claim to be miraculous… which suggests to me that you have your own prearranged programme of belief–your own “shibboleth”, so to speak–without which you will not even entertain your intellectual consent. In short: if it attributes anything to a supremely perfect, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., God, then you want nothing to do with it. Correct?
That’s a lot of quite interesting stuff Paladin. But my, what a tangled web you weave.
Whether morals are subjective or objective is the topic under debate. It is not the device, the means, the methodology by which the debate is conducted.
You claim that there are objective morals. I state that there are not, all morals are subjective.
You then claim that this means that your argument is mounted from an objective perspective while mine is mounted only from a subjective perspective. This is ludicrous. Our viewpoints differ, not the means by which we mount our arguments. Your claim for objective morals in no way makes your claim itself, or your argument for it, objective.
You have no basis from which to dispute my claim that Toyotas are better than Nissans because I have told you that Toyotas are better. Your claim that Nissans are better thus renders your viewpoint unsupportable. – see how it’s done?
You further claim that if morals are subjective they can be no more important than food preferences. The fact that morals and taste are both subjective does not bring them to a point of equivalent importance.
Perhaps you could tell the anti-gay action groups that their activities are no more significant than if they agitated for banning pepsi because they believe coke to be better? After all, both cases are subjective.
You subjectively choose where to live, in what form of accommodation you reside and what form of employment you undertake. Do you truly believe that these choices are of no more importance than which socks you choose to pull on in the morning?
I have mentioned the means by which morals are formulated subjectively, which basically amounts to anthropology and the capacity to think. We have seen examples of this in our own lifetime. I’ve also said to MaryRose that there is no source for objective morals. So if you wish to claim that there are objective morals, you’ll need to offer something in support of that claim.
But since I did find what you wrote so interesting –
The mere fact that I *believe* in objective moral standards allows me to be self-consistent in judging someone’s standards to be good or bad, noble or ignoble – seriously? Maybe on a subjective level.
Why does the mere presence of an item in the “morality box” give it any more importance? – impact.
“Perhaps there might even be a whole number which is even and odd simultaneously; who knows?” – now you’re mixing the objective with the subjective.
You are a moral atheist (or an a-moralist, if you like), not a moral agnostic… and that has implications into which you’ve crashed headlong, friend. – you have confused my stance that morals are subjective with an absence of morals. That’s rather slipshod of you Paladin. The fact that I find morals to be subjective doesn’t mean I don’t have any.
I’m pointing out that, according to your own standards, you have at least two different collections of “tastes”: the “moral tastes”, and the “gastronomic/culinary tastes”… and that you have no logically coherent way of giving one any moral importance over the other. – you think that culinary tastes have ‘moral importance’? Do you seriously think we bring no more effort, thought, conscience, to our morals than to what we put in our mouths? Morals aren’t predicated merely on taste. I find some (non-foodstuff) things in life distasteful without finding them immoral.
You might possibly argue that I am mistaken or deluded, but unless you’re accusing me of lying (and I hope you aren’t), you really can’t say that I am not an objectivist, any more securely than you could say that I secretly love anchovies. – fair comment. I’ll go with the mistaken and deluded cause for your claim then ;-)
I can think of plenty of reasons why objectivists might think so; I can think of no reasons whatsoever (apart from mere personal taste) why utter moral relativists might think so. – again, impact. Just because moral views are reached subjectively does not mean they are only based on ‘taste’.
if we extent this principle from colours to all of the empirically-perceived universe, then there is no reliable overlap between your “universe” and mine, whatsoever (save only by accident, which we could never know for certain). – that may be true, although you do tend to overplay some of these things. – You would be in your own universe of ideas, and no one else would be guaranteed to impact it, even by mere confirmable *existence*! – it may not be guaranteed but nor is it precluded.
Surely you see how circular that argument is? – and “my claim is objective because I’m claiming that something is objective” isn’t?
In regard to washington and god, bringing the same applications to bear finds washington quite likely and god not at all.
you don’t find accounts of the miraculous (or anything else which cannot be proven by the empirical sciences, apparently) to your liking. – what an odd thing to say. There are no miracles, just unobserved or undiscovered causes. It has nothing to do with what I like.
There are hundreds of thousands of accounts of events which cannot be explained by the modern empirical sciences (e.g. medicine, etc.), and yet I think (correct me if I’m mistaken) you’d reject them solely because they claim to be miraculous… – er, no. I reject the claim of ‘miracles’ as the cause, not the events themselves.
In short: if it attributes anything to a supremely perfect, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., God, then you want nothing to do with it. Correct? – incorrect. It is the claimed attributing I want nothing to do with, not ‘it’.
(*grumble*) All right… if two (count them, two!) computer crashes weren’t enough, then the e-mail reminder about your comment was buried under literally hundreds of pieces of e-mail detritus (read: spam), Reality! Terribly sorry about the delay! I should count my blessings that the thread is still open…
(I will, of course, make up for the delay with a great deal of verbiage–my apologies in advance, to your eyeballs, and to the eye-muscles of all who read it!)
Anyway… you wrote, in reply to my comment:
Whether morals are subjective or objective is the topic under debate.
That is so.
It is not the device, the means, the methodology by which the debate is conducted.
(??) Friend, that makes little sense! If one does not (as a separate example) believe in any absolutes (or absolute truth/falsity) whatsoever, then one can make no decisive claims whatsoever; one needs to believe in absolute truth in order to deny it (which is why the statement “there is no absolute truth” is a self-contradiction–if that statement itself is not certainly true, then it is useless).
You claim that there are objective morals.
I do, but (I say again) that is not my current argument’s thrust.
I state that there are not, all morals are subjective.
You do. And yet, you were indignant when I suggested that your morals had no more or less importance than do your aversions to hated foods, etc. That indicates two different thought processes, running in opposite directions, both contained within your head!
Our viewpoints differ, not the means by which we mount our arguments.
Yes, and no. No, they do not differ insofar as you choose to try to use logic to defend your position (as I attempt likewise). Yes, insofar as you still cling to the idea that your morals are somehow “more important, morally” than are your tastes in food, clothing, etc. Your subsequent efforts to quality that idea–by saying that they are merely “more important TO YOU”–does nothing helpful, since that (while interesting) does not make any categorical distinction between morals and tastes; you’re saying only that you “feel” differently about them, and that one feeling is stronger than the other. I could just as easily (and with just as much–or little–basis) say that my aversion to anchovies is “in an utterly different category than is my aversion to brussel sprouts” (when what I really would mean is “my aversion to anchovies is unutterably stronger”). If you seek to make any claims AT ALL about “importance” (and not mere intensity of emotion/reaction–which you share with all people who experience disgust at the idea of eating worms, insects, or what-have-you), then you’ll need to accept some sort of immovable standard by which you can compare the importance of two things. If you still imagine that you can compare [x] to [y] without some standard that is beyond both of them, then you really haven’t thought this matter through (and you haven’t quite grasped that facet of logic, yet).
Your claim for objective morals in no way makes your claim itself, or your argument for it, objective.
:) Not to make a play on words, but: I never claimed that claim about claims! I never asserted (or assumed) that I can “create objectivity by fiat”. And have you missed the plain fact (which I’ve repeated to you, at least five times) that I’m not yet trying to prove objective moral standards? Rather, I’m trying to show you that your own system is fatally flawed (by being internally inconsistent); that fact doesn’t need any positive defense of my own position (which, again, is much longer and a bit tedious, and I’ll address it after this matter is settled, if you still wish) in order to be effective.
You have no basis from which to dispute my claim that Toyotas are better than Nissans because I have told you that Toyotas are better.
Of course not. But I can certainly dispute your simultaneous claim that “there is no such thing as ‘better’ and ‘worse’ in cars” (apart from mere personal tastes–an idea which you don’t seem to like or accept).
Your claim that Nissans are better thus renders your viewpoint unsupportable. – see how it’s done?
My dear fellow: please show me, anywhere in these past discussions, where I ever claimed that “my raw claim makes it so”. I did, in fact, repeatedly (at least six times, now) tell you that I’m avoiding any current effort to prove “moral objectivity” whatsoever! Did you miss them, perhaps? I can say it again, if you think it’d help you to remember at last… :)
You further claim that if morals are subjective they can be no more important than food preferences.
Almost. I claim that, in such a case, the very idea of “importance” is meaningless, and that you (who deny such objective standards) are powerless to defend yourself (in any coherent logical manner) against such a claim as you describe.
The fact that morals and taste are both subjective does not bring them to a point of equivalent importance.
The fact that you deny any objective moral standards neutralises your own ability to talk of “equivalence” or “non-equivalence” at all, in that regard. You might as well try to prove 2 + 3 equal to 5 while trying to deny the existence of an equals sign (or comparable equivalence relation)! It also makes nonsense of your (above) claim that your statement is a “fact”.
Perhaps you could tell the anti-gay action groups that their activities are no more significant than if they agitated for banning pepsi because they believe coke to be better? After all, both cases are subjective.
Surely you know that this is a mere appeal to the gallery? (And I trust that you’re talking only of the fringe groups who are actually “anti-gay” [i.e. they hate homosexuals], and not about those who love homosexuals while fighting the political agenda of “homosexual normalisation” and maintaining the disordered nature of homosexual activity?) And (to the extent that I would interact with such groups at all–and I don’t see that happening soon) I would only (hypothetically) tell them such a thing if they, like you, also denied all objective moral standards. Frankly, I predict that such groups would laugh at your idea that “objective morals don’t exist”.
You subjectively choose where to live, in what form of accommodation you reside and what form of employment you undertake.
Subjectivity plays a role (and perhaps a large role) in all of these, yes; but you err when you assume that such decisions are utterly bereft of objective considerations. For example: I hold to an objective moral code (yes, which I haven’t proven–all that’s necessary for this example is the fact that I believe it to be objective, and that my personal moral code was formed by it) which forbids me to seek employment as an abortionist, for example… or to reside in a strip-club, or to kill someone else in order to annex their home for myself. Those are non-negotiable… which is quite different from my tastes in house colour, choice of state in which to live, and parochial vs. public school employment (or school employment vs. non-school, for that matter).
Do you truly believe that these choices are of no more importance than which socks you choose to pull on in the morning?
You’d have to specify “these choices” in order for me to answer. Is my decision not to slaughter a family in order to claim their house “of more importance” than my sock-colour? Yes: it is of far greater importance, since it involves moral imperatives which transcend my personal tastes. Is my decision to live in a white house of greater importance? No (save perhaps for a difference in intensity of emotion, since changing the house colour is a bit more of an expense and a nuisance).
I have mentioned the means by which morals are formulated subjectively, which basically amounts to anthropology and the capacity to think.
You have mentioned. You have not proven, or even demonstrated, yet.
We have seen examples of this in our own lifetime.
I have seen examples both of subjective standards (to the extent that such a phrase makes sense at all) and of objective standards, in my lifetime… which seems to differ from yours.
I’ve also said to MaryRose that there is no source for objective morals. So if you wish to claim that there are objective morals, you’ll need to offer something in support of that claim.
And you cannot possibly prove that claim in any coherent way. To make a claim like that, and then retreat with a cry of “Well, if you don’t believe me, then prove the opposite!”, simply won’t do. Look up “Burden of Proof Fallacy”, when you get a moment.
But since I did find what you wrote so interesting –
In the absence of you finding it “convincing”, I’ll accept that as a temporary consolation prize… :)
[Paladin]
The mere fact that I *believe* in objective moral standards allows me to be self-consistent in judging someone’s standards to be good or bad, noble or ignoble
[Reality]
seriously? Maybe on a subjective level.
Oh, honestly! Forgive me, but: have you not grasped this idea, yet? If I deny the existence of negative numbers, then I render myself incapable of answering questions such as “What is 10 – 15?” That is quite objective (i.e. it depends on no one’s personal perspective, opinion, tastes, etc.). If I deny the existence of birds, then I’ll be helpless to categorise seagulls properly. It’s a matter of simple logic; one cannot validly hold two contraries at the same time (though the actual contraries might be hidden–what logicians call “suppressed minors”).
[Paladin]
Why does the mere presence of an item in the “morality box” give it any more importance?
[Reality]
impact.
Ah. Such as the “impact” that anchovies have on me? Such as the “impact” that viewing an open-heart surgery has on others?
[Paladin]
“Perhaps there might even be a whole number which is even and odd simultaneously; who knows?”
[Reality]
now you’re mixing the objective with the subjective.
No; you are failing to distinguish the fact that your own example contains both subjective and objective bits. Saying that “Navy Blue is my favourite colour, bar none” is a subjective claim. But the flat contradiction between saying that, and saying also that “Crimson Red is my favourite colour, bar none”, is an objective fact. If you claim [x] and [not x] at the same time, then it scarcely matters whether [x] happens to be a subjective issue in its own right, or not; the contradiction between [x] and [not x] remains immovable and objective.
[Paladin]
You are a moral atheist (or an a-moralist, if you like), not a moral agnostic… and that has implications into which you’ve crashed headlong, friend.
[Reality]
you have confused my stance that morals are subjective with an absence of morals. That’s rather slipshod of you Paladin. The fact that I find morals to be subjective doesn’t mean I don’t have any.
You may have misunderstood my intent. I did not seek to claim that you have no moral code, nor did I even seek to claim that you have no moral standards on which that code is based. Rather, I distinguish you from those who say, “There might well be objective moral codes, though they are currently unknown (and perhaps unknowable).” Those would be “moral agnostics”, in my example. Perhaps you might substitute “moral objectivity atheist”, if it would avoid confusion (and/or hard feelings).
[Paladin]
I’m pointing out that, according to your own standards, you have at least two different collections of “tastes”: the “moral tastes”, and the “gastronomic/culinary tastes”… and that you have no logically coherent way of giving one any moral importance over the other.
[Reality]
you think that culinary tastes have ‘moral importance’?
No… any more than I think that your moral tastes necessarily have culinary significance; I claimed only that you, given your own stated starting assumptions, would be helpless to show that your moral are not simply another collection of personal tastes, indistinguishable in importance from your culinary tastes.
Do you seriously think we bring no more effort, thought, conscience, to our morals than to what we put in our mouths?
Effort need not be a deciding factor (avoiding murder, for example, takes very little effort on my part; but forcing myself to eat insipid or bad-tasting food in order to be polite can sometimes be a terrible trial requiring strenuous effort, on my part). Quantity of thought is only good and distinguishing if it is logical (i.e. good) thought. Conscience is only relevant to the extent that it is well-formed, and to the extent that we heed it. And even with that being said: it’s quite possible for someone to attach moral relevance to food (e.g. try to force an observant Jew or Muslim to eat pork, and you’ll get resistance based on morality). But that wasn’t my point, as I mentioned earlier. See my reply to your “culinary tastes” comment, immediately above.
Morals aren’t predicated merely on taste. I find some (non-foodstuff) things in life distasteful without finding them immoral.
All right: what DOES make the difference? In your mind, on what else are morals predicated? I’m genuinely curious about your views, on this.
[Paladin]
You might possibly argue that I am mistaken or deluded, but unless you’re accusing me of lying (and I hope you aren’t), you really can’t say that I am not an objectivist, any more securely than you could say that I secretly love anchovies.
[Reality]
fair comment. I’ll go with the mistaken and deluded cause for your claim then ;-)
:) Remind me to send you a tin of anchovies, soon.
[Paladin]
I can think of plenty of reasons why objectivists might think so; I can think of no reasons whatsoever (apart from mere personal taste) why utter moral relativists might think so.
[Reality]
again, impact. Just because moral views are reached subjectively does not mean they are only based on ‘taste’.
But that’s just the problem: issues of taste have “impact”, as well… and sometimes they have a very great impact! (Try to force-feed me an anchovy, if you doubt. I have no moral prohibition against eating one, but my disgust would render my resistance quite strong, indeed!) The mere fact that one thing has “more impact” than another says nothing especially about morals, nor does it require that we even mention the term at all!
[Paladin]
if we extent this principle from colours to all of the empirically-perceived universe, then there is no reliable overlap between your “universe” and mine, whatsoever (save only by accident, which we could never know for certain).
[Reality]
that may be true, although you do tend to overplay some of these things.
Well… if it’s true, then do you at least see how this view would lead to solipsism?
[Paladin]
You would be in your own universe of ideas, and no one else would be guaranteed to impact it, even by mere confirmable *existence*!
[Reality]
it may not be guaranteed but nor is it precluded.
But you would never know (i.e. a sort of “agnostic solipsism” which claims irresolvable doubt about the non-self universe, rather than an absolute “atheist solipsism” which utterly and positively denies everything except self)… and therein lies my “solipsism” claim regarding moral (and other) relativism.
[Paladin]
Surely you see how circular that argument is?
[Reality]
and “my claim is objective because I’m claiming that something is objective” isn’t?
(*sigh*) “Tu quoque”, again? And for at least the seventh time: I did not (nor will I, until further notice) even pretend to prove the claim you attribute to me, at all; we are currently looking at YOUR views, and their internal consistency (which is in disarray).
In regard to washington and god, bringing the same applications to bear finds washington quite likely and god not at all.
You seem to have mislaid the original point. You originally claimed (among other things) that the variety of human moral perspectives, along with the fact that many human views on morality (both as individual humans and as collectives) have altered over time, “proves indisputably” that there exist no objective moral absolutes; I replied by saying that “shifting views do not imply shifting realities behind those views”, and I used revisionist history as an example to illustrate that fact (e.g. shifting views about the existence of Washington do not change his real, objective existence on Earth). In fact, revisionist history is quite a good example, since it shows how a culture’s (or an individual’s) grasp of truth can deteriorate over time, rather than “evolve and advance inexorably” (as some atheists claim both for science and for morals–“since the culture no longer prohibits homosexual acts, this can only mean an improvement in moral view away from hide-bound, ignorance-and-fear-based, Puritanical moral prejudices of the past!”, and other such rubbish).
[Paladin]
you don’t find accounts of the miraculous (or anything else which cannot be proven by the empirical sciences, apparently) to your liking.
[Reality]
what an odd thing to say. There are no miracles, just unobserved or undiscovered causes. It has nothing to do with what I like.
Mm-hmm. And how, exactly, would you set about proving your absolute claim (that “there are no miracles”), above? Think this through.
[Paladin]
There are hundreds of thousands of accounts of events which cannot be explained by the modern empirical sciences (e.g. medicine, etc.), and yet I think (correct me if I’m mistaken) you’d reject them solely because they claim to be miraculous…
[Reality]
er, no. I reject the claim of ‘miracles’ as the cause, not the events themselves.
All right… fair enough, and I’ll accept the correction. Now: on what basis do you reject the claim, apart from personal prejudice? I could just as easily (though I certainly don’t!) reject the existence of “any good atheist”, on the basis that “all atheists are bad by definition, and every last scrap of evidence to the contrary is simply pretense on the part of atheists who are wily enough to ‘seem’ good to escape public reprobation!” That’s known as a “self-sealing argument”, which is a fallacy.
[Paladin]
In short: if it attributes anything to a supremely perfect, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., God, then you want nothing to do with it. Correct?
[Reality]
incorrect. It is the claimed attributing I want nothing to do with, not ‘it’.
See above.
Whoops… one bit in my last comment needs clarification:
—revised quote—
[Reality]
I’ve also said to MaryRose that there is no source for objective morals. So if you wish to claim that there are objective morals, you’ll need to offer something in support of that claim.
[Paladin]
And you cannot possibly prove that claim [i.e. your claim that “there is no source for objective morals] in any coherent way.
— end revised quote —
So many claims, so little time… :)
response being constructed
I have a heavy workload at the moment and to apply the time and effort that I wish to, given that I find your discourse so interesting, may take a day rather than the time it takes to respond to the usual suspects on other threads
:) Oh, heavens… no worries, there! My computer and I have conspired to make you cool your heels for at least 3-4 extra days of delay, total, in these past weeks; at your leisure!
What is the problem. Pro choice people like myself support a woman’s right to choose no matter what. If the baby is a girl and the mom wants a boy, and she chooses to abort and try again then go for it!
Just for Jake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KKcCaCgMLBE#t=77