Why Have the GOP and Conservatives

[Berzerker]

An absolutely valid assertion is true without any prior assumptions.

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

Nothing prevents an intrinsic morality from being inconsistent.

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

What are you getting at?

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

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

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

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

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

[Ramo]

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

Why?

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

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

[Ramo]

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

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

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

Moral relativism has no requirements...

Neither does objectivism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position.

But that makes morality meaningless

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

[Berzerker]

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Ramo]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Berzerker]

Why?

That's what "intrinsic" connotes.

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

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

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

And an absolutely valid opinion is the opposite?

Neither does objectivism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position.

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

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

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

[Berzerker]

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

[Berzerker]

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

[Boris Godunov]

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

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

[Berzerker]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack .

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

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