Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are right--you CAN vote subjectively, but that's not what we truth seekers do when WE vote.

It is, actually. You just like to pretend otherwise.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-08-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 10:13 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

You understand that there can be subjective qualities that still don't have global exceptions, right? It is possible for morality to be subjective without there being circumstances that would let one off the hook for a specific act within the overall framework of morality, since subjectivity does not stem from there always being exceptions to things.

However in this case I think there are exceptions. I don't happen to think that morality is purely subjective, this isn't my position I'm defending, but I get so irritated with religious types trying to maneuver atheists into this gotcha "you'd condone rape?!" zone that I do have a solution. What's particularly weird is that the solution is so obvious that I can't imagine it wouldn't also occur to you: apply the trolley problem to it.

A man is put into a situation where he has two choices: he either rapes a nearby woman, or the choice-giver will proceed to kill the woman. If he chooses the former, you now have a rapist that, I would argue, is not culpable due to the circumstances of the case. You can continue to grow the case exponentially from there, too: consider if the choice-giver threatens the man as well. Or everyone in the building they're in. Or the city. At some scale the man is performing a rape that is, unfortunately for everyone involved, the best possible choice given to him, and one for which he is certainly not legally culpable.

There. Your dichotomy has a solution. You might be thinking that all rapes are caused by your typical criminal rapist, but that's not necessarily the case when considering the wider possibility space; christians so often go to rape because they think it's easier to make moral subjectivists look bad, but that's only because you have a specific image in mind which does not apply in every possible case.

Additionally, I feel I need to point out the conflation of morality with law, here; you do understand that laws can be morally wrong, yes? Voting to convict or not is a representation of a legal standard, not a moral one: on a jury you convict based on the current legal standard, not your own moral feelings about it.

Quote:BEAR IN MIND that if you say "I think rape is wrong because it is one creature causing another to suffer," I will then ask you the following:

Is ALL suffering objectively wrong or is SOME suffering subjectively not wrong?

We know that some suffering isn't wrong: if you give a child a shot, you're causing it to suffer for a beneficial purpose. This is trivial.

Quote:But be warned that if you answer:

1. All suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that absolute values exist and that therefore, suffering must be excluded/prevented and that therefore, some absolute moral values exist--it is always wrong to rape because the causing of suffering is always wrong.

Why are you presenting this enormous binary and, moreover, why are you equivocating between "objective" and "absolute"? Those are two different terms with very different meanings.

Quote:but if you instead answer:

2. Only some suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that we should not judge God for causing/allowing suffering, since we may not know all His purposes and some suffering is essential, perhaps even beneficial.

Okay, no. At any given time we are bound to use the evidence at our disposal to come to our conclusions; even if they're incorrect that's still what we have to do, and we can hardly be blamed for coming to incorrect conclusions due to information we didn't have. We aren't precluded from judging god merely because of your weird, reverse argument from ignorance: god could easily provide evidence of the supposed good reasons for his actions, if he doesn't then that's not our fault. If we're examining god's moral nature then his actions are what we use for that purpose, and you're begging the question by presupposing that the possibility of a good reason outweighs every possible negative judgment.

Let's go back to your courtroom analogy: god's on trial. A list of all the bad shit in the bible is laid out as the charges, the prosecution lays out all the evidence, has witnesses, all of that. But when it's the defense's turn to speak, he simply gets up and makes the argument you just did: "Maybe he had good reasons for all that! You don't know he didn't! You can't judge him!"

How do you think the jury should vote, then, if all the evidence is on one side, and all the defense offers is "you don't know that he wasn't doing good there!"?

Instead of god, what if it was a man? A man who murdered someone, and despite all the evidence, the defense just asserts that maybe he had good reasons, so you can't possibly judge him. Do you acquit that man, if you were on the jury? Is "maybe he had a good reason!" sufficient legal justification to forgo judgment to you?

Lastly though, your argument is invalid because it's a shifting of the burden of proof: it's not up to us to prove that god didn't have morally sufficient reasons, it's up to you to demonstrate that he did. See, our determination of whether a specific piece of suffering was justified or not is based on the circumstances of the case and the evidence that those involved can bring to bear. If a party involved can give no justification for their actions beyond "I had one though," then we can hardly determine that the action was justified, now can we?

In your case, you utterly fail to provide that justification, and instead want to just appeal to ignorance and assume that the justification exists because that fits your presuppositions. But we're not obligated to join you in your unjustified assumptions, and so only your failure remains.

I guess we have two problems here:

1. Most religious people I know, as well as most ethical non-religious people I respect, would still not rape the person. Nor would they take people holding guns on them as stable and arbiters of morality, etc.

2. If TTA members are so into correct jurisprudence, why will they never accept my defenses of God when I offer alternative theories of God's "crimes"? TTA members are SO quick to say, "God sucks if god exists because he causes suffering!" I come along and say things like, "God has accomplices in suffering, called human sinners!" and then the human sinners on the TTA jury vote to convict God despite being offered a defense by one of their peers, that is Q, the sinner.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are right--you CAN vote subjectively, but that's not what we truth seekers do when WE vote.

It is, actually. You just like to pretend otherwise.

There's no need for me to pretend anything as multiple TTA atheists refuse to answer the charge:

Is rape objectively wrong?

I know it is. Do you not know this absolute moral value?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There's no need for me to pretend anything as multiple TTA atheists refuse to answer the charge:

Is rape objectively wrong?

We have answered it. You have ignored the answer.

It is "no", in case anyone needs a refresher, because there is no such thing as "objective" morality. The concept, in fact, is rather incoherent.

(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I know it is.

No, you don't. You like to think that you do, but you don't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-08-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  I really wish you wouldn't write walls of text.

The whole concept of a jury I think is a bit ridiculous. However, since you've appointed me as a member of a jury the question is simply, does the person fulfil the legal criteria so that I should find him guilty?

The judge helps with that by deciding e.g. what is admissible as evidence.

Personal feelings should not enter into it.

What fucking stupid question did we allegedly avoid Q?

Whether a law is JUST or MORAL or BOTH. THAT is the question. If you convict a rapist because he is unlawful, you have missed the opportunity to employ justice, mercy, empathy, righteous indignation and more.

No - that is what victim impact statements and judicial choice are for.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Whether a law is JUST or MORAL or BOTH. THAT is the question. If you convict a rapist because he is unlawful, you have missed the opportunity to employ justice, mercy, empathy, righteous indignation and more.

It is not the job of a juryperson to determine the justness of the law. Just to determine if, in terms of the law, the defendant has fulfilled the conditions to be found guilty or not.

You can have your opinions about the justness of the law but if you let your opinions colour your decision making then you fail as a juryperson.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 06:24 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is, actually. You just like to pretend otherwise.

There's no need for me to pretend anything as multiple TTA atheists refuse to answer the charge:

Is rape objectively wrong?

I know it is. Do you not know this absolute moral value?

There is no absolute "truth" let alone absolute morals. And you worshippers of bivalent logic who bow before the feet of the laws of the excluded middle and noncontradiction are just ignorant of what "truth" means. You really shouldn't try to argue using logic if all you know about it is "true" and "false". That's just fucking naive. You embarrass yourself.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-08-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There's no need for me to pretend anything as multiple TTA atheists refuse to answer the charge:

Is rape objectively wrong?

We have answered it. You have ignored the answer.

It is "no", in case anyone needs a refresher, because there is no such thing as "objective" morality. The concept, in fact, is rather incoherent.

(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I know it is.

No, you don't. You like to think that you do, but you don't.

Let me help you to cohere the concepts at hand:

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Subjective: open to interpretation

If you believe as a juror an alleged rapist is actually guilty of rape, do you vote to convict or do you rather say, "I feel like rape could be okay so I'm unsure whether I should convict..."?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 08:24 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-08-2015 06:16 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There's no need for me to pretend anything as multiple TTA atheists refuse to answer the charge:

Is rape objectively wrong?

I know it is. Do you not know this absolute moral value?

There is no absolute "truth" let alone absolute morals. And you worshippers of bivalent logic who bow before the feet of the laws of the excluded middle and noncontradiction are just ignorant of what "truth" means. You really shouldn't try to argue using logic if all you know about it is "true" and "false". That's just fucking naive. You embarrass yourself.

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let me help you to cohere the concepts at hand:

Trust me. I don't need your help on that front.

(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you believe as a juror an alleged rapist is actually guilty of rape, do you vote to convict or do you rather say, "I feel like rape could be okay so I'm unsure whether I should convict..."?

That isn't how either the law or subjective interpretations of morality work.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: