Why Have the GOP and Conservatives

[Kuciwalker]

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

Objective morality requires consistency no more than subjective does.

[Berzerker]

I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack .

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

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

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

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

Objective morality requires consistency no more than subjective does.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Yes. You don't own the thread .

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Berzerker]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Berzerker]

Yes. You don't own the thread .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Berzerker]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

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

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

No, you complained about me hijacking this thread.

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

[Berzerker]

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

his position runs counter to moral relativism

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

[Berzerker]

Kucinich -

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

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

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

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

Imran -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack .

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