China, Not our Friend.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Relativism, in this context, is the belief that torture might or might not be wrong - it just depends on your culture, society, personal beliefs, or whatever other criteria you wish to use. Relativism is saying that there is no objective standard by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Conditionality and circumstances are really irrelevant. If an action is wrong, objectively, then the circumstances just don't matter. Now, if an action is morally OK, then circumstances can matter, but only in the context of whether or not an action is advisable or appropriate.

I understand ur a hard liner. I'm just telling u that between the two things u don't like. just don't confuse them. ppl who believe that the circumstances matter don't necessarily like being called relativist.

just a heads up though david. the % of the human population who thinks its morally wrong to lie to save the world is basically u+kant. so enjoy.

[David Floyd]

ppl who believe that the circumstances matter don't necessarily like being called relativist.

I'm not interested in what people want to be called, I'm interested in cutting through the bull****. I'm gonna cut through the bull**** and say that with regards to torture, you have two options: Either it's morally permissable, or it is not.

Now, if torture IS morally permissable, THEN circumstances become relevant, but only in the context of the advisability/appropriateness of using torture.

the % of the human population who thinks its morally wrong to lie to save the world is basically u+kant.

a)I'm not generally compared to Kant.
b)Who's talking about lying? I only have a problem with lying when it hurts someone (ie, coercion). So don't change the subject. I'm not gonna debate the morality of lying when the subject at hand is Chinese human rights abuses and, specifically, the use of torture.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm not interested in what people want to be called, I'm interested in cutting through the bull****. I'm gonna cut through the bull**** and say that with regards to torture, you have two options: Either it's morally permissable, or it is not.

Now, if torture IS morally permissable, THEN circumstances become relevant, but only in the context of the advisability/appropriateness of using torture.

thats just a circle jerk of semantics. it still leads back to the same conclusion. all u have to do is assume everything is morally permissable then u can look at the circumstances. what a useless way to word a philosophy.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

a)I'm not generally compared to Kant.
b)Who's talking about lying? I only have a problem with lying when it hurts someone (ie, coercion). So don't change the subject. I'm not gonna debate the morality of lying when the subject at hand is Chinese human rights abuses and, specifically, the use of torture.

sorry its just easier as two posts.

holy crap man, conditional morality in bold type. "lying is only bad when it hurts someone." workin on those conditions?

[David Floyd]

all u have to do is assume everything is morally permissable then u can look at the circumstances.

If everything is, or can be, morally permissable, then you still have no basis for objecting to certain actions on any grounds other than whether the action is appropriate. For example: "While genocide is of course OK, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not the most appropriate response."

Come on. The point is that some things are NOT morally permissable, and everyone knows this, whether or not they think they do or want to admit it. Now, I think torture is one of those things. Maybe you disagree. Maybe Mindseye disagrees. So we come full circle - Do you think that torture is morally wrong, yes or no?

[David Floyd]

holy crap man, conditional morality in bold type. "lying is only bad when it hurts someone." workin on those conditions?

That's not a conditional thing at all. My whole basis is that coercion is immoral. If lying results in coercion, then the lying was immoral. But the act of lying isn't necessarily immoral if it doesn't involve coercion. It might be inadvisable or inappropriate, but then again, so is cursing in church.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If everything is, or can be, morally permissable, then you still have no basis for objecting to certain actions on any grounds other than whether the action is appropriate. For example: "While genocide is of course OK, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not the most appropriate response."

Come on. The point is that some things are NOT morally permissable, and everyone knows this, whether or not they think they do or want to admit it. Now, I think torture is one of those things. Maybe you disagree. Maybe Mindseye disagrees. So we come full circle - Do you think that torture is morally wrong, yes or no?

how does everyone "know" this? look u setup the rules for the philosophy. u don't get to appeal to common conception or definition. "well something has to be absolutely immoral." why?! its not in ur moral code that something HAS to be absolutely immoral. so a person is perfectly free to say that everything is possibly moral and that the situation must be looked at closer.

then for clarification they could simply state that some things it is very unlikely to create a situation where it is moral. whereas others it is more likely. and u basically have the vast majority of human morality gotten perfectly from ur system.

sure u ****ed w/ em a lil by pleaing that "something has to be immoral." but it still stands w/o breaking any logic they could keep their current moral system w/ urs.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's not a conditional thing at all. My whole basis is that coercion is immoral. If lying results in coercion, then the lying was immoral. But the act of lying isn't necessarily immoral if it doesn't involve coercion. It might be inadvisable or inappropriate, but then again, so is cursing in church.

fine fine, the basic concept works the same. would u coerce someone to save the world. why did u even make me write this post?

[David Floyd]

how does everyone "know" this?

Find me one person who can create a logical, consistent argument, with the premise being that the Holocaust was perfectly fine. You can find plenty of people who think the Holocaust was OK, but none of them have logical arguments for why that is so.

u don't get to appeal to common conception or definition.

No, but this is useful for pointing out the fact that everyone believes in some absolutes, which is relevant because many of these people try to claim that absolutes don't exist. This doesn't qualify as proof for my position, just as proof that relativists are rather silly.

so a person is perfectly free to say that everything is possibly moral

Sure, you're perfectly free to say that. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. Besides, you're arguing a position you can't possibly accept, unless you want to tell me you think the Holocaust was potentially morally acceptable, or that murder is just fine, in some circumstances.

then for clarification they could simply state that some things it is very unlikely to create a situation where it is moral. whereas others it is more likely. and u basically have the vast majority of human morality gotten perfectly from ur system.

sure u ****ed w/ em a lil by pleaing that "something has to be immoral." but it still stands w/o breaking any logic they could keep their current moral system w/ urs.

I don't follow some of what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that there is no objective moral standard because many people disagree on its existence.

But I'm sorry, that isn't correct. Many people do NOT disagree on the existence of absolute morality. At most, they disagree on what is morally right and wrong.

Again, though, an appeal to what most people think does not constitute proof. All I'm doing is trying to show you that it's stupid for people to make the argument that absolute morals don't exist, because the vast majority of people believe that they do.

[David Floyd]

fine fine, the basic concept works the same. would u coerce someone to save the world.

A better question would be "Would coercing someone to save the world be wrong?" That takes the human element out of it. Would *I* coerce someone to save the world? Sure, probably. Would that coercion be wrong? Absolutely (unless, naturally the person I am "coercing" is the one putting the world in danger, which isn't really coercion at all, but rather self-defense).

But this is still a silly discussion, because there is no conceivable scenario in which I can save the world by "coercing" someone in some way.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Find me one person who can create a logical, consistent argument, with the premise being that the Holocaust was perfectly fine. You can find plenty of people who think the Holocaust was OK, but none of them have logical arguments for why that is so.



No, but this is useful for pointing out the fact that everyone believes in some absolutes, which is relevant because many of these people try to claim that absolutes don't exist. This doesn't qualify as proof for my position, just as proof that relativists are rather silly.



Sure, you're perfectly free to say that. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. Besides, you're arguing a position you can't possibly accept, unless you want to tell me you think the Holocaust was potentially morally acceptable, or that murder is just fine, in some circumstances.



I don't follow some of what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that there is no objective moral standard because many people disagree on its existence.

But I'm sorry, that isn't correct. Many people do NOT disagree on the existence of absolute morality. At most, they disagree on what is morally right and wrong.

Again, though, an appeal to what most people think does not constitute proof. All I'm doing is trying to show you that it's stupid for people to make the argument that absolute morals don't exist, because the vast majority of people believe that they do.

ok now ur just blatantly cheating. the holocaust is a specific event that carries w/ it specific circumstances. the word u are looking for is "genocide."

plz argue correctly.

no I belive there is an objective moral standard. I am an absolutist in a way. but my moral system is more complex then urs.

there are two requirements to atleast have ppl look at ur philosophy. that it be internally consistent and not useless.

and on another front, ur wrenching the word absolute around till it breaks. again this all goes back to ur fundamental lack of understanding between someone who is objective but believes that circumstances matter. and a true relativist.

[David Floyd]

ok now ur just blatantly cheating. the holocaust is a specific event that carries w/ it specific circumstances. the word u are looking for is "genocide."

I believe I've used the word "genocide" previously, but in either case, it really doesn't matter. The Holocaust does NOT have specific circumstances that distinguish it from any other type of genocide, it's simply an easily recognizable and extreme example that no one can possibly say was morally right, and stay consistent.

there are two requirements to atleast have ppl look at ur philosophy. that it be internally consistent and not useless.

I'm not interested in popularity.

and on another front, ur wrenching the word absolute around till it breaks. again this all goes back to ur fundamental lack of understanding between someone who is objective but believes that circumstances matter. and a true relativist.

Circumstances matter, but not when determining whether or not something is morally right. If you are indeed an absolutist, then surely you have to concede that what you feel is absolutely wrong cannot be right, in certain circumstances.

In any case, enlighten me as to your "complex moral system".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just answer the question. Is torture OK, or isn't it?

Not so simple, DF. It's like asking the question, "Have you stop beating your wife?" and trying to push the other person into answering either yes or no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy if you don't know about it already.

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you have no absolute objection to torture, then?

Why don't you answer my non-fallacious question?

Where would these objective rights or "moral truth" stem from?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I believe I've used the word "genocide" previously, but in either case, it really doesn't matter. The Holocaust does NOT have specific circumstances that distinguish it from any other type of genocide, it's simply an easily recognizable and extreme example that no one can possibly say was morally right, and stay consistent.



I'm not interested in popularity.



Circumstances matter, but not when determining whether or not something is morally right. If you are indeed an absolutist, then surely you have to concede that what you feel is absolutely wrong cannot be right, in certain circumstances.

In any case, enlighten me as to your "complex moral system".

no the holocaust was when hitler slaughtered the jews in the 30's and 40's in germany. how can that not be specific? are u just trolling me?

I believe things are absolutely wrong in as far as they are connected w/ their circumstances. I believe the holocaust was wrong. I do not believe there is a way to interpret it that makes it correct. that is absolute. but that is because I know ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. its really not very hard to understand. why is it beyond u?

[David Floyd]

yavoon,

I believe things are absolutely wrong in as far as they are connected w/ their circumstances. I believe the holocaust was wrong. I do not believe there is a way to interpret it that makes it correct. that is absolute. but that is because I know ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. its really not very hard to understand. why is it beyond u?

Because your insistence of knowing about the circumstances implies that you think there is a set of circumstances in which the systematic slaughter of 10 million people would be perfectly acceptable.

UR,

Not so simple, DF. It's like asking the question, "Have you stop beating your wife?" and trying to push the other person into answering either yes or no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy if you don't know about it already.

Why won't you just tell me whether or not you think torture is wrong? There is no slippery slope or logical fallacy. Is there some reason you don't want to answer?

Where would these objective rights or "moral truth" stem from?

You're still avoiding the question. If you don't believe in objective moral truth, then you obviously don't believe that torture is morally wrong, so why not just say so, and save everyone a lot of time? On the other hand, if you DO believe torture is morally wrong, then obviously you believe in some objective truth, so what does it matter where I say it comes from? You already believe it's there.