Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 03:40 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 02:32 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 02:09 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Pussy motherfucker.

There's nothing I can do about Denver not being in Australia. I said if you are in the same city as I am I would be willing to meet you. What part of the conditional are you failing to understand?

The part that you are a pussy motherfucker hiding behind your fucking keyboard to spout shit you couldn't POSSIBLY back up face-to-face in the real world.

Quote:If you want to fly to Australia let me know and I'll let you know where we can meet.

Put your fucking money where your pussy fucking mouth is and buy the fucking ticket, or shut the fuck up. They say it's nice in Oz this time of year.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 02:56 AM)Chippy Wrote:  You are the first person and only person that is going into my ignore list.

Yeah. Run away, you pathetic pile of chickenshit, and don't EVER come back.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 01:53 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 12:40 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That is a defensible position but I am not completely convinced that the welfare of a late-term foetus belongs solely in the private sphere.
You need to realise that if you set a precedent for government to have this type of control then what else can the government control as well?
With this type of thing they are going beyond the stability and safety of society.
To be clearer on the point I am conveying above:
If you argue for seperation of church and state, this means that you don't want religious people's values and moral beliefs forced on you (a.k.a. anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti blashphemy). But if you turn around and attemtpt to force your own values and moral beliefs (a.k.a. anti late term abortion) onto the general public then you are behaving hypocrytically. The religious folk will cry fowl and then it becomes a fight for power, where Might makes Right.
Which is not what atheists want because in many countries we are the overwhelming minority.

A way to combat this is to take morality away from government domain.
Which means you would need to give up on your desire to force people to not have late term abortions. In reality very few people would have late term abortions and you have other avenues that you can use regarding trying to convince people not to abort late term.

You will be in the same boat as the religious who can seek non legal avenues to try and convice people not to have gay marriages or not to participate in prostitution etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 01:53 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You need to realise that if you set a precedent for government to have this type of control then what else can the government control as well?
With this type of thing they are going beyond the stability and safety of society.
To be clearer on the point I am conveying above:
If you argue for seperation of church and state, this means that you don't want religious people's values and moral beliefs forced on you (a.k.a. anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti blashphemy). But if you turn around and attemtpt to force your own values and moral beliefs (a.k.a. anti late term abortion) onto the general public then you are behaving hypocrytically. The religious folk will cry fowl and then it becomes a fight for power, where Might makes Right.
Which is not what atheists want because in many countries we are the overwhelming minority.

A way to combat this is to take morality away from government domain.
Which means you would need to give up on your desire to force people to not have late term abortions. In reality very few people would have late term abortions and you have other avenues that you can use regarding trying to convince people not to abort late term.

You will be in the same boat as the religious who can seek non legal avenues to try and convice people not to have gay marriages or not to participate in prostitution etc.

So it would be like the necrophilia laws in the US i.e. it's immoral to have sex with dead people in public therefore, it's illegal.

No, hang on, it's not illegal Consider No need to legislate against something that doesn't happen.

OK, that works.

Just out of interest, can anyone tell me how late term abortion became illegal over there?

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  To be clearer on the point I am conveying above:
If you argue for seperation of church and state, this means that you don't want religious people's values and moral beliefs forced on you (a.k.a. anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti blashphemy). But if you turn around and attemtpt to force your own values and moral beliefs (a.k.a. anti late term abortion) onto the general public then you are behaving hypocrytically.

Correct me if I have misunderstood. You are saying that because abortion--even late-term--can not be clearly demonstrated to threaten social stability it should be left for the private sphere. All the more so because late-term abortions are rare.

That is a fair position but my concern relates to whether the late-term foetus is or isn't a person. If the late-term foetus is a person then it should enjoy the benefits that the "social contract" gives you.

Can you persuade me that a late-term foetus is not a person or that pershood is irrelevant?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 07:27 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  To be clearer on the point I am conveying above:
If you argue for seperation of church and state, this means that you don't want religious people's values and moral beliefs forced on you (a.k.a. anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti blashphemy). But if you turn around and attemtpt to force your own values and moral beliefs (a.k.a. anti late term abortion) onto the general public then you are behaving hypocrytically.

Correct me if I have misunderstood. You are saying that because abortion--even late-term--can not be clearly demonstrated to threaten social stability it should be left for the private sphere.
Yes, it goes outside the governing mandate.
(08-12-2013 07:27 PM)Chippy Wrote:  All the more so because late-term abortions are rare.
This isn't a reason for it to go outside governing mandate. I am just highlighting that this item you deem to be highly important is not something that is common or will likely be common.

(08-12-2013 07:27 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is a fair position but my concern relates to whether the late-term foetus is or isn't a person.
I don't see how it matters as this doesn't impact society, it doesn't make society unstable.
I understand from your personal moral perspective this is a very important consideration for you but many people have a different view to you. Catholics think a person is created at conception and so do I.
(08-12-2013 07:27 PM)Chippy Wrote:  If the late-term foetus is a person then it should enjoy the benefits that the "social contract" gives you.
If you are to deem my position a "social contract", well, please realise my position is regarding government's purpose towards supporting a stable society rather than a moral one.
I don't want government to elevate something (i.e. personhood) to a status of being "sacred" as this is part of a subjective belief system and goes beyond society's stability.
(08-12-2013 07:27 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Can you persuade me that a late-term foetus is not a person or that pershood is irrelevant?
Person-hood or holding person-hood as sacred is irrelevant to the stability of society.
I realise you hold it as sacred, and I realise it is important to you. I offer you means other than law to persuade (rather than force) other people to comply.
My argument to try and persuade you to concede with regards to legal enforcement is that your beliefs are not universal and that if you try to inject your beliefs into government then what is to stop other groups (i.e. Catholics) to use the same logic and inject their own beliefs into government.
I would like to remind you that law gives the police force the obligation to use violence to force members of society to comply.
Why is it that your own beliefs, your own values should be forced onto other people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 10:12 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, it goes outside the governing mandate.

I think I see where you are coming from. You are basically drawing a clear line of demarcation about what a government should be concerned with and the criterion of demaracation is, viz. social stability. Your justification for the criterion is that it is the lowest common denominator which can gain near universal agreement, i.e. almost everyone will agree that security and stability are important.

You aren't claiming that late-term abortion is good or bad only that it should be outside the purview of a government because the government's influence should only be as big as it needs to be to achieve the goal that (almost) everyone can agree upon: social stability, security of person and security of property.

Late-term abortion may well be immoral but even so it would require an exception to the criterion to legislate this and if one exception is allowed then others will follow and the criterion that determines the governmental mandate will become invalidated. It would be arbitrary to start allowing exceptions to the criterion.

I think I now understand your position. You confused your position in other dialogues by repeatedly referring to nihilism.

I think your position is sound. I am still stuck thinking of the late-term foetus as a person but your response is essentially continue to do so and use education and moral suasion to convince people not to do it but don't break the minimalist state's constitution by introducing considerations beyond the central criterion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
08-12-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Objective Morality
Stevil and Chippy sitting in a tree...

I love the way this discussion has gone / is going.

Small point... I reiterate that 'stability' as a governance objective can lead to stagnation (and in e.g. the gene pool, this is fatal) ... 'sustainability' or 'continuity' is preferred.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
09-12-2013, 12:20 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I think I see where you are coming from. You are basically drawing a clear line of demarcation about what a government should be concerned with and the criterion of demaracation is, viz. social stability.
Yes.

(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Your justification for the criterion is that it is the lowest common denominator which can gain near universal agreement, i.e. almost everyone will agree that security and stability are important.
Yes, but I don't like the term "lowest common denominator" it sounds very negative. It wouldn't make for a winning campaign slogan.

I think of it more with regards to clearly defining the purpose of government. It protects the people from the whims of government. Any laws government make they would need to clearly justify to the people how this works towards a stable society. E.g. When introducing a law against gay marriage they would need to show how society would come to be physically dangerous and unstable should gay people be allowed to marry. They can no longer use the "immoral" card. This way government work for the people rather than against.

(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You aren't claiming that late-term abortion is good or bad only that it should be outside the purview of a government because the government's influence should only be as big as it needs to be to achieve the goal that (almost) everyone can agree upon: social stability, security of person and security of property.
Government aren't the authority of morality. They aren't gods thus it isn't their place to make moral judgement. Their job is to provide a stable society such that we don't devolve into violent riots.

(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Late-term abortion may well be immoral but even so it would require an exception to the criterion to legislate this and if one exception is allowed then others will follow and the criterion that determines the governmental mandate will become invalidated. It would be arbitrary to start allowing exceptions to the criterion.
Yes, because as we have established the moral yardstick is subjectively selected.

(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I think I now understand your position. You confused your position in other dialogues by repeatedly referring to nihilism.
I use moral nihilism to mean that there is no "right" or "wrong", no "good" or "bad" no "evil". That moral statements are nonsensical. That moral truths are imaginary.
I don't take it to mean that I don't value my own life, or that of my family or friends.
I assert that people are individuals and that I cannot know what others ought to do. I respect that in most circumstances individuals are best placed to make their own decisions. Certainly politicians are not the best people to make your decisions for you.

(08-12-2013 10:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I think your position is sound. I am still stuck thinking of the late-term foetus as a person but your response is essentially continue to do so and use education and moral suasion to convince people not to do it but don't break the minimalist state's constitution by introducing considerations beyond the central criterion.
If you use law then you fall into the Might makes Right trap. You become guilty of using violence to force other people to conform to your opinions and beliefs. You become a hypocrite when you insist others not force their opinions and beliefs onto yourself, and you leave yourself open to unnecessary oppression from an over controlling government.

In my system many laws become easy to make.
It would be hard to justify laws against prostitution, gay marriage, polygamy etc.

But my system isn't anti-morality, it isn't anti belief. What it is, is tolerant and diverse.

If people lose the expectation of government mandating morality then they wont get upset at liberal government. Actually I feel (over time) even the religious will come to love this type of society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
09-12-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-12-2013 11:06 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Small point... I reiterate that 'stability' as a governance objective can lead to stagnation (and in e.g. the gene pool, this is fatal) ... 'sustainability' or 'continuity' is preferred.
Yeah, i see sustainability as part of stability.
Of course there will be the economic side of government as well. Providing infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc. Supporting businesses, tourism etc. Trying to get people out of poverty...

I understand there are political systems such as anarcho capitalism which proposes putting infrastructure also into private hands thus reducing government even further. I am very scared of anarcho capitalism I think it would lead to riots as the poor get desperate.

Anyway, this thread is about morality rather than economy.

I also think government may need to support communities etc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: