Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[grumbler]

Dude, they're kids. Middle and high schoolers. The bulk of their character is the result of parenting, education and genetics; they've barely reached the age where they can reason independently. If they are ill-prepared, the fault lies in their upbringing and teaching, far more than in themselves. The girl who was worried about being mean in debate presumptively got the idea from her parents and the broader culture, where such notions are endemic. In the debate itself, she performed admirably for a seventh-grader. Most of the class did, if it comes to that, with the exception of a couple of attention-starved boys. They just inherited an unusually pissant set of beliefs, which I hope they will shake off in time.

I'm actually a substitute teacher at present (which means my perceptions of the zeitgeist are based on a very broad but shallow sampling). Getting ready to dive in to being a real teacher in another state. It'll be rough, but hopefully worth all the bureaucratic bull****.

Dude, my students are kids, as well. They just are not like "Most of the kids" you teach, in that it is utterly untrue that the students I teach "learn no moral philosophy beyond the utterly namby-pamby (blather about self-esteem that even their teachers don't appear to really believe in)." I have taught seventh grade and found my students utterly avid to learn about moral reasoning and they loved moral dilemmas. My seventh grade classes probably went over the Henz and Trolley Car Dilemmas three times in a school year, because they kept wanting to go back to them. My students also are utterly unlike yours who, "If they have any convictions about anything, it's "don't judge, ever," which sounds superficially good but really amounts to a disbelief in all collective values." Inner city kids, suburban kids, it didn't matter; they understood that they lived in a moral world and needed to make moral choices (even bad moral choices are moral choices).

You students sound developmentally delayed for some reason. A kid's interest in moral reasoning doesn't come from society or inheritance, it is intrinsic to their development as humans.

[grumbler]

I don't think this is particularly correct. The pace of social change for extremely long periods of history was extremely slow and measured in many multiples of generations. Our society today is basically unrecognizable from the one our parents grew up in, let alone our grandparents. I don't think its any kind of exaggeration to say that there has been literally no time in history that is even close to comparable.

I think that it is a popular conception that the pace of social change was glacial where it wasn't well-recorded, but I don't think that it is particularly true. It definitely IS true that social change accelerates as communications accelerate, and, thus, has tended to accelerate over historical time, but I think that the argument that socialization (which is also a function of communication) lags social development is true even when social development is slow. property, for instance, is a concept that has changed over time in every society about which we know; and in every one of those societies, it seems there are still people who don't understand the current social concept of property.

[kentonio]

I think that it is a popular conception that the pace of social change was glacial where it wasn't well-recorded, but I don't think that it is particularly true. It definitely IS true that social change accelerates as communications accelerate, and, thus, has tended to accelerate over historical time, but I think that the argument that socialization (which is also a function of communication) lags social development is true even when social development is slow. property, for instance, is a concept that has changed over time in every society about which we know; and in every one of those societies, it seems there are still people who don't understand the current social concept of property.

It's not that it's a popular conception, as much as its simple historical fact. For huge parts of human history (pretty much any time up until the industrial age) you could have taken someone from one point in time and placed them in one several centuries apart and they wouldn't have struggled too much to acclimatise. There were obviously some huge changes along the way, things like the fragmentation of the Catholic church and countless wars and national boundary changes, but the basic way of life of everyday people really did change extremely slowly for most of human history.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is good advice. Too bad you don't take your own advice.

This is something I've actually studied, btw. I've taken bioethics courses, and a course on meta-ethics as well.

This is pretty much completely wrong. Virtue ethics does focus on the nature of the actor rather than the action (i.e. proposes that the same action may be immoral for one actor and moral for another - god allowed the child to die, but, since god is moral, it must be moral for him to allow children to die, even if that's not moral for us)

Most atheists argue that virtue Ethics is just God rubber-stamping whatever. This is wrong.

, but utilitarianism is just one of many consequentialist moral concepts, and consequentialism is focused entirely on the action and not the actor (an act is morally correct if it produced a morally superior outcome).

The system for "what is a moral action" in utilitarianism is non-existent. How do you define the Good? Two people can disagree to the point where they disagree entirely on what are Good actions and still be utilitarians.

Deontology also focuses on the act, but proposes that the moral value of the act derives from the act, rather than from the consequences of that act (an act is morally right or wrong no matter the consequences). I don't know of any modern adult that believes in virtue ethics except in religious terms.

Well, that's because you're an atheist and you've not really correctly defined Virtue ethics.

Then you won't make these kinds of mistakes in describing various approaches to morality.

I have read about consequentialism. As well as Virtue ethics. For me the best non-Christian ethical system is Kantian Deontology. It works except for the presupposition that moral acts are necessarily rational.

[Ben Kenobi]

Explains why Ben is so determined to prove that homosexuals do bad things more than heterosexuals do.

To a utilitarian audience? Absolutely. Since y'all believe doing bad things make you bad people.

As for me I believe that human nature is depraved, and that everyone is a sinner. This isn't going to change, and we shouldn't be telling people that up is down, sin is not sin just because we listen to this sinful human nature.

[Ben Kenobi]

I dont know what an honest BK would say, since we have no example to go off of.

If you don't know what a honest BK would say, I can only conclude you have no standard for what a dishonest BK would say. Logic, dear sir.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think the problem is that we're still trying to make sense of a basically complete new world using old and outdated value and belief systems. None of them really fit the way the world works now, and the problem is that we don't have one yet that really does. It feels like people are basically stumbling around in the dark reaching out for something that actually makes sense in terms of the way we live our lives now.

There hasn't been a new 'idea' since Aristotle. Probably won't ever be.

[giblets]

To a utilitarian audience? Absolutely. Since y'all believe doing bad things make you bad people.

As for me I believe that human nature is depraved, and that everyone is a sinner. This isn't going to change, and we shouldn't be telling people that up is down, sin is not sin just because we listen to this sinful human nature.

No one cares what you believe, people respond to you the same way they respond to Kidicious (in order to marvel at the craziness).

[Ben Kenobi]

No one cares what you believe, people respond to you the same way they respond to Kidicious (in order to marvel at the craziness).

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way, Gribbler. I believe you're a realboy and not a DL.

[giblets]

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way, Gribbler. I believe you're a realboy and not a DL.

Is this basically your retarded version of "I know you are but what am I?"

I'm guessing your mom didn't want to abort you just for being deaf... you must have some sort of mental defect

[Ben Kenobi]

Is this basically your retarded version of "I know you are but what am I?"

I'm guessing your mom didn't want to abort you just for being deaf... you must have some sort of mental defect

You're the expert on mental defectiveness.

[giblets]

That insult doesn't work. How could I be an expert on something if I was mentally retarded?

[Aeson]

If you don't know what a honest BK would say, I can only conclude you have no standard for what a dishonest BK would say. Logic, dear sir.

No, we have a standard for what a dishonest (and/or ignorant) BK would say. Your posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

How could I be an expert on something if I was mentally retarded

Which is why you're a pioneer in your field.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, we have a standard for what a dishonest (and/or ignorant) BK would say. Your posts.

The argument, "everything I post is a lie" would invalidate your statement should I quote it.