Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court
Reply
 
Thread Tools
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2006, 10:38 PM Local time: Mar 26, 2006, 08:38 PM #76 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.
And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate. Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here. You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2006, 02:02 AM Local time: Mar 27, 2006, 12:02 AM #77 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate.
I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!
The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights. (Had to stay on topic somehow! Or tie-in)

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here.
Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.
You're half-right. I am putting forth the idea that law is not based upon objective standard. However, I'm not saying it's based on the whims on the public. Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?

I was speaking idiomatically.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2006, 09:08 PM Local time: Mar 27, 2006, 07:08 PM #78 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?
It doesn't matter who violates the law. You violated the law, and thus you are punished (assuming you get caught). How hard is this to understand?

Quote:
The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights.
Funny, It's estimated that around 5 percent of Americans evade taxes via offshore tax havens alone. And consider that a tax haven is one of the least used. Of the 1.5 trillion in taxes collected in 1998, it's estimated that there was at least another 232 billion that was never collected. Even accounting for corporate evasion, that's still a pretty penny of people whom, according to you, hate taxes but pay them anyway (which coincidentally makes taxes legitimate).

Quote:
Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?
Are you quite done being overly dramatic? =\

Quote:
Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?
Funny thing is, that prior to the Civil War era it was supported by the majority, and one of the main arguments from the South was that abolition would remove the strength of its economy. Also, it certainly isn't an institution protected by law today. And how can you say that "the vast majority of people violate this law thus it is illegitimate" is not saying "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion?"

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2006, 11:19 PM Local time: Mar 27, 2006, 09:19 PM #79 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
It doesn't matter who violates the law. You violated the law, and thus you are punished (assuming you get caught). How hard is this to understand?
Everyone who violates the law and get's caught get's punished? I wish.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Funny, It's estimated that around 5 percent of Americans evade taxes via offshore tax havens alone. And consider that a tax haven is one of the least used. Of the 1.5 trillion in taxes collected in 1998, it's estimated that there was at least another 232 billion that was never collected. Even accounting for corporate evasion, that's still a pretty penny of people whom, according to you, hate taxes but pay them anyway (which coincidentally makes taxes legitimate).
Offshore tax havens are legal. Not that a liberal think tank would agree with me. There's plenty of gray area. Which is why the IRS doesn't go after tax shelters with much gusto. Especially since the laws have changed in favor of the offshore havens. Corporations are not citizens anyway. That doesn't mean they aren't granted privileges as such. That's beside the point.

Additionally you are only talking about federal income taxes. People that do not pay their taxes are in the minority. When you fill up your car with gas you're paying a tax. When you get a drivers license you're paying yet more taxes. Face it, we're taxed to death on everything. Most states have a sales tax. So if you buy anything you're being taxed.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Funny thing is, that prior to the Civil War era it was supported by the majority, and one of the main arguments from the South was that abolition would remove the strength of its economy. Also, it certainly isn't an institution protected by law today.
That's debatable, not that I'm expecting you to come to a agreement with me. Only a small wealthy minority actually owned slaves. But it was still an institution protected by law, for roughly let's say half this nation's existence. You didn't answer my question of; Did it benefit the public even if the majority were not slaveowners?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And how can you say that "the vast majority of people violate this law thus it is illegitimate" is not saying "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion?"
When even a minority of people disregard the law, revolutions become a possibility. Revolutions in my mind are completely legitimate politicial actions. Self-determination and all that yeah? Yet they're still overthrowing "legitimate" laws right? Who's deciding what's legitimate?

Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time. Not everyone shares morals, nor do they stay the same. Which requires law to evolve with the times. The only real alternative to that is that the law loses it's legitimacy, and revolutions become a real threat to the established order. Which is part of the reason why Lincoln freed the slaves, and not Nat Turner.

Hmm, I don't know where to take it from here. This could probably go on forever. heh.

FELIPE NO
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 06:39 AM Local time: Mar 28, 2006, 04:39 AM #80 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
Everyone who violates the law and get's caught get's punished? I wish.
I meant "caught" as in with no reasonable doubt. Granted, it becomes massively complicated with plea deals, but such technicalities are outside the scope of this discussion, neh?

Quote:
That's debatable, not that I'm expecting you to come to a agreement with me. Only a small wealthy minority actually owned slaves. But it was still an institution protected by law, for roughly let's say half this nation's existence. You didn't answer my question of; Did it benefit the public even if the majority were not slaveowners?
Slave owners pre-Civil War would argue that it did benefit the public. Granted, after slavery was abolished there was (I believe) a minimal impact on the economy, but by the time the war had started the Industrial Revolution had already begun, minimalizing the need for slaves.

Quote:
When even a minority of people disregard the law, revolutions become a possibility. Revolutions in my mind are completely legitimate politicial actions. Self-determination and all that yeah? Yet they're still overthrowing "legitimate" laws right? Who's deciding what's legitimate?
One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist. When those people became revolutionaries, then in the eyes of the law they became criminals and were punished, usually severely, when they were caught. If the revolution succeeded, then the old system didn't exist anymore and the law was changed, thus the revolutionaries were no longer criminals.

Quote:
Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time.
...what.

Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?"

The majority opinion.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 07:21 AM Local time: Mar 28, 2006, 05:21 AM #81 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
I meant "caught" as in with no reasonable doubt. Granted, it becomes massively complicated with plea deals, but such technicalities are outside the scope of this discussion, neh?
I direct your attention to Oliver North. Infamous for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. Convicted of lying to Congress. His penalty? A show on Fox News. That's so harsh man! (I mean you're a liberal and all right? )

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist. When those people became revolutionaries, then in the eyes of the law they became criminals and were punished, usually severely, when they were caught. If the revolution succeeded, then the old system didn't exist anymore and the law was changed, thus the revolutionaries were no longer criminals.
So only winners write the history books. I can agree with that one.


Originally Posted by Murdercrow
...what.

Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?"
[/b]
Tradition and customs. People with differing opinions typically share the same tradition and customs. We're all united in that one. The minorities rights don't get trampled on in such a case. Except when the tramping of the minorities is a custom. That combined with precedents set by judges is the basis of common law.

Now I guess we're going to argue over civil law... or statutory law. Shit, this is never going to end.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 07:24 AM Local time: Mar 28, 2006, 05:24 AM #82 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
People with differing opinions typically share the same tradition and customs.
And thus, they have an opinion on morality, based on customs and traditions. Therefore, you are claiming that legitimacy of law is based on the majority opinion.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 07:31 AM Local time: Mar 28, 2006, 05:31 AM #83 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And thus, they have an opinion on morality, based on customs and traditions. Therefore, you are claiming that legitimacy of law is based on the majority opinion.
Morality is relative. There can be no clear majority opinion since everybody has differing morals that they live by. Thus, law is not based upon the "majority's opinions". Which is why morality issues such as abortion are such sticky legal territory. Also why Roe v Wade make's no reference to "a woman's right to an abortion" and merely states that States do not have the power to ban abortion.

and 'round we go.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 09:37 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 07:37 PM #84 of 107
Morality is RELATIVE?

I'm lollin'.

DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO!

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR":

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so:

"If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false."

What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 03:34 AM #85 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Morality is RELATIVE?

I'm lollin'.

DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO!

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR":

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so:

"If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false."

What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true.
1st, your shape relevatism is a bullshit red herring.

2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative.

3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false?

I was speaking idiomatically.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 03:27 PM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 01:27 PM #86 of 107
Originally Posted by PUG1911
1st, your shape relevatism is a bullshit red herring.
You've never taken a logic class, have you? Let me explain:

The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.

Quote:
2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative.
Did you even understand what I said? I said that the Pepsi vs. Coke debate was one saying "I like Coke more than Pepsi!" and the other saying "No, you don't." How can the other person know? He can't because they are dealing with irrevocably private feelings. According to Moral Relativism, ALL disagreements deal with irrevocably private feelings. However, there ARE disagreements that do NOT deal with irrevocably private feelings, but publically observed fact (such as 2+2=4. If somebody says 2+2=5, then that person is wrong because he is talking about a publically observed fact, and can be shown as such). Thus, Moral Relativism is false.

Quote:
3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false?
I've already dealt with this in my response to your second point. According to Moral Relativism, there can be no such thing as a genuine disagreement since we are all talking about nothing but irrevocably private feelings. But again, there ARE genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, since reality contradicts "MR," "MR" is false.

Most amazing jew boots
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:09 PM #87 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
You've never taken a logic class, have you? Let me explain:

The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.
The shape relevatism is only defective because it is a situation wherein we know the answer. Up until the time where the shape was known, either side of the argument could have been correct, because neither side was provable.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Did you even understand what I said? I said that the Pepsi vs. Coke debate was one saying "I like Coke more than Pepsi!" and the other saying "No, you don't." How can the other person know? He can't because they are dealing with irrevocably private feelings. According to Moral Relativism, ALL disagreements deal with irrevocably private feelings. However, there ARE disagreements that do NOT deal with irrevocably private feelings, but publically observed fact (such as 2+2=4. If somebody says 2+2=5, then that person is wrong because he is talking about a publically observed fact, and can be shown as such). Thus, Moral Relativism is false.
Except that arguments on moral issues are not debates about telling others what they do, and do not believe. It's telling others that you believe what you believe, and the other sides of the debate continuing to believe what they believe. Unlike the shape relevatism, these are generally issues that have not been 'proven' one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
I've already dealt with this in my response to your second point. According to Moral Relativism, there can be no such thing as a genuine disagreement since we are all talking about nothing but irrevocably private feelings. But again, there ARE genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, since reality contradicts "MR," "MR" is false.
This is not according to MR, this is according to Moore. And how is arguing over irrevocably private feelings not genuine anyhow?

But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp?

Most amazing jew boots
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:35 PM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 04:35 PM #88 of 107
Originally Posted by PUG1911
The shape relevatism is only defective because it is a situation wherein we know the answer. Up until the time where the shape was known, either side of the argument could have been correct, because neither side was provable.
So you're effectively saying that the Earth ISN'T round? Rrriiiiight.

Quote:
Except that arguments on moral issues are not debates about telling others what they do, and do not believe. It's telling others that you believe what you believe, and the other sides of the debate continuing to believe what they believe. Unlike the shape relevatism, these are generally issues that have not been 'proven' one way or the other.
Arguments on moral issues are, at least from a philosophical point of view, attempts at using logic and reason to determine whether something is justifiable and if so, whether it is true. And believe it or not, a great many issues that are still hotly debated have for the most part been resolved. The only problem is that often a LOT of cases within one issue have a mazework of factors, and the problem then becomes weighing these factors and making a moral judgement, which may result in different outcomes even in cases that are very similar in circumstance.

Quote:
This is not according to MR, this is according to Moore. And how is arguing over irrevocably private feelings not genuine anyhow?
"Genuine" as in an actual argument beyond going "NO U DON'T" over and over again. =\

Oh, and believe it or not, Moore is a logician. And what he did with his argument is give the definition of Moral Relativism in both the normative and meta-ethical sense (meta-ethical as in what "good" is: in the case of MR, it's feelings in general), then follow it to its conclusion, i.e. that people cannot genuinely disagree since they are disagreeing over irrevocably private feelings. Moore then notes that genuine disagreements occur since there are procedures/facts/etc. that are universally observable (such as gravity), and thus reality contradicts MR, making it false.

Quote:
But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp?
Congratulations on asking a question that is right up there with "Why are we here?"

And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right (and all arguments period, for that matter), even ones that contradict one another. As such, under MR, there is no point in arguing at all about ANYTHING. MR would say that things such as racism, genocide, etc. are morally correct, because ALL codes are correct. To claim otherwise is to argue something other than MR. In essence, MR isn't even a theory, it's just a diplomatic way of saying "I hate what you do, but I'm too much of a pussy to argue against what you believe in."

How ya doing, buddy?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:58 PM #89 of 107
Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.

The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 08:02 PM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 06:02 PM #90 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?
I don't believe in much. I just like to debate. Keeps the mind in shape.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?
No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.

There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so: ."
Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.

This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right
But don't all societies preceive their way to be "the right way?". Moore was not trying to debunk that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Watts; Mar 31, 2006 at 08:05 PM.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2006, 12:44 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 10:44 PM #91 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.
Tribe x is any group of people. It can be a nation, the Boy Scouts, you, me, the entire world, etc.

Quote:
There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.
You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?

Quote:
Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.
You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Quote:
This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.
Ethics are morals.

Congratulations on saying the single STUPIDEST thing in this thread so far.

Quote:
Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.
Ahh, but the problem I see with relativism is that instead of trying to FIND out what's moral and what's not, they just throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, everything's moral."

Quote:
The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that.
Wouldn't that imply that there is a possibility that one or the other is morally wrong?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2006, 02:23 AM Local time: Apr 1, 2006, 12:23 AM #92 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?
Perhaps. That's obviously not your skewed vision of what moral relativism is.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

What do you think they mean by "Absolute" and "Universal"? The only "absolute" philosophical thing I think that it could possibly refer to is the existence of a God. And "His" universal rules. Which is why I used the Catholic Church and Galileo as an example.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."
Yes I understand the point you're trying to make. The problem is, you don't seem to understand what I said. This is not a yes/no proposition. You're trying to boil it down into a simplistic AGREE/DISAGREE choice. My problem with your Shape Relativity is that lack of complexity dealing with complex questions. Only the most mundane of questions can be boiled down to agree or disagree. Moral relativity, (while not perfect) is certainly more complex then your Shapist theories since it encompasses tradition, custom, history, and personal choice.

The flaws I see of your shape theory is who is deciding what the group believes, and why are they choosing to believe that. How did they come to that conclusion? Name off all the examples you want, but until you can answer that then your theory is incomplete.

Again I ask, doesn't every society think their way is the right way?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Wrong. In the sense of what Moore was talking about. Ethics are the standards that govern groups. Morals are your personal perception of right and wrong. Do they sometimes cross and agree with each other? Yes. All the time? No.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2006, 05:08 AM #93 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe.
But these are still not examples of moral issues. At best they are examples of long understood 'scientific' issues. These are not questions of whether a thing is ethical but whether a thing is true or false.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Ahh, but the problem I see with relativism is that instead of trying to FIND out what's moral and what's not, they just throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, everything's moral."
That doesn't have to be the case at all. One can explore and test their moral stance, and re-evaluate it based on what they learn of another views on the same subject. You needn't close your mind to the other side in order to accept that you haven't the moral authority to determine what is right for everybody. All it really boils down to is admiting that although one does not believe so, it is possible that one's stance is not entirely right. To believe that as much as we may not like or agree with another way of doing things, it may not be entirely without merit.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Wouldn't that imply that there is a possibility that one or the other is morally wrong?
Of course it's possible that one is right, and the other wrong. But unlike some, I don't want to assume that my way is the right way because I believe it to be. If you keep a relatively open mind you might learn something from those you might otherwise dismiss as morally bankrupt. What's so bad about *trying* to take a relatively objective stance and trying to understand another's point of view?

That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance.

Most amazing jew boots
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2006, 01:38 PM Local time: Apr 1, 2006, 11:38 AM #94 of 107
Originally Posted by PUG1911
But these are still not examples of moral issues. At best they are examples of long understood 'scientific' issues. These are not questions of whether a thing is ethical but whether a thing is true or false.
*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:
That doesn't have to be the case at all. One can explore and test their moral stance, and re-evaluate it based on what they learn of another views on the same subject. You needn't close your mind to the other side in order to accept that you haven't the moral authority to determine what is right for everybody. All it really boils down to is admiting that although one does not believe so, it is possible that one's stance is not entirely right. To believe that as much as we may not like or agree with another way of doing things, it may not be entirely without merit.
Which again, implies that a) one may not be right, and b) there is an objective standard for morality.

Quote:
Of course it's possible that one is right, and the other wrong. But unlike some, I don't want to assume that my way is the right way because I believe it to be. If you keep a relatively open mind you might learn something from those you might otherwise dismiss as morally bankrupt. What's so bad about *trying* to take a relatively objective stance and trying to understand another's point of view?
There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that at that point you're more or less admitting that yes, there is an objective standard for morality, which moral relativism claims cannot be the case.

Quote:
That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance.
And this is the crux of why relativism is so attractive. With objectivism, you have to deal with individual cases, carefully weigh benefits/harm (assuming you're approaching from a utilitarian point of view), and make difficult moral judgements that not everybody will like, and indeed, it's not even guaranteed that anybody will like them, not even yourself. Relativism, on the other hand, solves the problem by refusing to acknowledge both an objective standard of morality, and even refuses to acknowledge that disagreements occur, period.

I'll respond to you later, Watts. I just got up and have to get ready for work in like... 5 minutes, and I don't have enough time.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2006, 05:13 PM #95 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.
Assuming that moral and ethical questions fall into logical forms, you are right. And I'll even agree on that. But they continue to be issues that have a known correct answer. And that is what sets them fundamentally appart from those questions which do not have a known correct answer.


Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Which again, implies that a) one may not be right, and b) there is an objective standard for morality.
I never said otherwise. And I've never heard someone who believes in moral relativity argue that either. The objective moral standard, which is not known is why people try to understand other sides of a moral issue. It's only your narrow view of what moral relativism is, which supports your argument. It's not as simple a view, or a singular a notion as you purport it to be. The wikipedia entry actually does a reasonable job of laying out some basics.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that at that point you're more or less admitting that yes, there is an objective standard for morality, which moral relativism claims cannot be the case.
Again, this is only by a very narrow view of what moral relativism claims.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And this is the crux of why relativism is so attractive. With objectivism, you have to deal with individual cases, carefully weigh benefits/harm (assuming you're approaching from a utilitarian point of view), and make difficult moral judgements that not everybody will like, and indeed, it's not even guaranteed that anybody will like them, not even yourself. Relativism, on the other hand, solves the problem by refusing to acknowledge both an objective standard of morality, and even refuses to acknowledge that disagreements occur, period.
It doesn't (always) refuse to acknowledge an objective standard of morality, and nowhere, ever, have I read of a moral relativist claim that disagreements do not occur (It's a construct built to attack MR). What is generally accepted by moral relativists is that the supposed objective standard of morality cannot be proven (yet), and so it's wrong to assume that one's own morals *have* to be the right ones. Thus, what makes ojectivism so attractive is that one gets to be right all the time. And one knows that no matters people's difference of opinions, you can rest assured that you alone are the one who has it all figured out (Or at least has the capacity since you are the one who *knows* the objective standard of morality).

MR doesn't argue that all sides are right. Only that there is no objective way to determine which one is right. And this is why I asked a few posts back, what the objective moral standard was. Since you don't know it, then how can you know that the 'other side' is wrong?

How ya doing, buddy?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment Ridan Krad Political Palace 33 Dec 19, 2007 11:36 PM
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights Robo Jesus Political Palace 4 Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM
Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School Locke Political Palace 64 Mar 20, 2006 04:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.