"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

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

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

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

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

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

[loinburger]

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

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

[chequita guevara]

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

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

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

[loinburger]

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

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

[chequita guevara]

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

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

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger


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

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

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

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

[loinburger]

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

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

[chequita guevara]

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

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

[chequita guevara]

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

Exactly.

[OzzyKP]

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

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

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

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

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

[loinburger]

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

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

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

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

His is unreasonable and yours is reasonable?

That sounds relative...

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

[chequita guevara]

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

[Ramo]

I agree with che et al.

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

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

How is one moral system inherently superior to another?