Hls

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Why would we need to? You think you're right and have moral superiority to act, and so do I. What's the point of talking? Minds are already made up at that point, and the individual gets to decide whatever they want.

No, I'm not. If you're right, then there's no reason to come to a consensus or even really discuss morality. You're right. In your world where there's a universal right answer, then why would a consensus be necessary? Why would you change your opinion if you're right?

It's easy to say it's relative because it is. Talking morality like there's universal right and wrong, even though it's not possible to know what the universal right and wrong is, then what's the point of discussing it.

Assume that there is a right answer. That one of is right, and one of us is wrong. The fact that we both think we're right and therefore each feel like we can do what we need to do because of that entitlement. Given that there's no way to know which one of us is right, what's the point of seeing morality as universal?

I think we already went over this but maybe that was with straightedged x or whatever his tag is. Anyway humans are fallible and can have wrong ideas. So we should be able to defend our positions or change them. Thats the whole sifting and winnowing to find the truth. I would change my opinion because i find something else, a more convincing argument to be right. same way you convince anyone of any other objective truth.

The point of discussing morality as right and wrong and the like to to give us the rational we need to do harm to others in order to stop them from doing something we find is wrong. We would seem to be being unjust if we imprisoned rapists if we did not think rape was morally wrong. Now i'm not saying we should imprison non vegans, or even vegans who fuck up alot or something, at least not now, because we really haven't had the sifting and winnowing that has brought us to that point for alot of moral issues, animal rights for example. Maybe in like a thousand years or so, after we have started to tailor society to discourage rather than encourage animal misuse.

Another reason to talk about objective morality is because that is what their is. We shouldn't lie cause it makes things easier. At least thats my feeling

[xsecx]

I think we already went over this but maybe that was with straightedged x or whatever his tag is. Anyway humans are fallible and can have wrong ideas. So we should be able to defend our positions or change them. Thats the whole sifting and winnowing to find the truth. I would change my opinion because i find something else, a more convincing argument to be right. same way you convince anyone of any other objective truth.

So the truth you had yesterday isn't necessarily the truth of tomorrow. That opinions and morality change through time and circumstance.

The point of discussing morality as right and wrong and the like to to give us the rational we need to do harm to others in order to stop them from doing something we find is wrong. We would seem to be being unjust if we imprisoned rapists if we did not think rape was morally wrong. Now i'm not saying we should imprison non vegans, or even vegans who fuck up alot or something, at least not now, because we really haven't had the sifting and winnowing that has brought us to that point for alot of moral issues, animal rights for example. Maybe in like a thousand years or so, after we have started to tailor society to discourage rather than encourage animal misuse.

Another reason to talk about objective morality is because that is what their is. We shouldn't lie cause it makes things easier. At least thats my feeling

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without bringing up rape as an example? Who's objective morality should we choose when we talk about things, yours or mine? If we both think we're right, how do we decide which morality we should live under? Who gets to decide as a whole, who is right and who is wrong, since one of us has to be?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

So the truth you had yesterday isn't necessarily the truth of tomorrow. That opinions and morality change through time and circumstance.



Is it possible for you to have a discussion without bringing up rape as an example? Who's objective morality should we choose when we talk about things, yours or mine? If we both think we're right, how do we decide which morality we should live under? Who gets to decide as a whole, who is right and who is wrong, since one of us has to be?

Nope, they are the same, we just might not know 100%. The whole problem of empiricism.

Why shouldn't i bring up rape if its great for suggesting the truth of my point? Can you stop arguing with good points haha? No one decides who is right, we figure it out. Rightness and Wrongness does not come from me or you any more than any other laws of nature. I don;t get to decide about how the earth gravity affects me it just does.

[xsecx]

Nope, they are the same, we just might not know 100%. The whole problem of empiricism.

It's the problem of human existence and morality. Even though you're arguing that it's static, it isn't.

Why shouldn't i bring up rape if its great for suggesting the truth of my point? Can you stop arguing with good points haha? No one decides who is right, we figure it out. Rightness and Wrongness does not come from me or you any more than any other laws of nature. I don;t get to decide about how the earth gravity affects me it just does.

Because for this conversation, it's actually one of the worst examples you can talk about. you're not going to find any large group of people who think that rape is right. Abortion, animal rights, gun rights, gay rights, property rights are all much better examples. They're examples where there is a contention and both side believes they are right.

How do we figure it out if we both think we're right? How is morality a law of nature when it's 100% dependent on human interpretation? Gravity exists without you and me, morality only exists because of you and me.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

It's the problem of human existence and morality. Even though you're arguing that it's static, it isn't.



Because for this conversation, it's actually one of the worst examples you can talk about. you're not going to find any large group of people who think that rape is right. Abortion, animal rights, gun rights, gay rights, property rights are all much better examples. They're examples where there is a contention and both side believes they are right.

How do we figure it out if we both think we're right? How is morality a law of nature when it's 100% dependent on human interpretation? Gravity exists without you and me, morality only exists because of you and me.

I don't see how you can really believe that. If something is not moral for all time, thats cool, and those are things that can be tolerated indefinalty. But i would be hard pressed to say thing like, and i know you hate this, rape or slavery are not immoral in the past or possibly in the future, in my mind, it is never ever moral to forcefully have sex with someone without their consent, thats just not something that is okay, ever. The same goes with enslaving someone against their will for no reason other then to have them do labor for you, not acceptable.

I am trying to argue that morality is not relative, so i should use something most people agree is not something that is relative, I don't say morality is objective, look at abortion. People will say they have objective opinions but will disagree. Rape or slavery or something else like that is exactly what i would want to use. I don't get why you wouldn't i guess. Maybe we are arguing over each others heads?

I would think that morality would condemn certain things even if they were never carried it, it would not be important to talk about them, in fact it would be kinda crazy but it wouldn't change the general fact. We could talk about, and probably if we took it seriously, come to agreement about how we should treat self aware moderately intelligent beings, we could see that using them as a means to an end is wrong.
I think morality doesn't matter without you and me, but it is the same whether we know it or not. If someone murders someone else just to steal something from them and has no idea its wrong, they themselves are not immoral or bad, but the action would still be. I hope you get what i'm saying their cause i could be being a littler unclear.

[xsecx]

I don't see how you can really believe that. If something is not moral for all time, thats cool, and those are things that can be tolerated indefinalty. But i would be hard pressed to say thing like, and i know you hate this, rape or slavery are not immoral in the past or possibly in the future, in my mind, it is never ever moral to forcefully have sex with someone without their consent, thats just not something that is okay, ever. The same goes with enslaving someone against their will for no reason other then to have them do labor for you, not acceptable.

If something is immoral in your world, why would it be tolerated indefinitely? What would be an example of this?

Humans have used religion since the beginning of time to justify morality. They honestly believed at the point in time they were doing x or y that they were moral and justified in their actions. Modern viewpoints look at these actions differently because our moral context is different. These actions are immoral to us now, but were not immoral to them then. I don't really understand why you think this is so impossible to grasp. Let's take something like killing animals for food and clothing. I'm going to assume that because you're vegan you believe that this is an immoral act. I'm also going to assume that based on this conversation that you believe that this has also always been an immoral act. In cultures and societies that have had limited access to fruits and vegetables such as the Inuit, in their situation are you going to say that the killing of animals was and is immoral? In modern existence it's relatively easily to be vegan or even vegetarian but that hasn't always been the case. Can you legitimately argue that being vegan has always been the moral choice?

I am trying to argue that morality is not relative, so i should use something most people agree is not something that is relative, I don't say morality is objective, look at abortion. People will say they have objective opinions but will disagree. Rape or slavery or something else like that is exactly what i would want to use. I don't get why you wouldn't i guess. Maybe we are arguing over each others heads?

If it's not relative, then taking something that is agreed upon doesn't prove anything. Talking about something like abortion and demonstrating to me why the morality around it, who is right, then you may convince that it's objective. Only bringing up things people universally agree are immoral doesn't really make a convincing argument, since there are far more things that people disagree on. This tends to suggest that morality is in fact subjective. If you're going to make the statement that all morality is objective, then you need to be able to give multiple examples and those examples can't simply be murder, rape and slavery. What's the objective morality of abortions? Gun rights? Drug and alcohol use? Which is the right answer?

I would think that morality would condemn certain things even if they were never carried it, it would not be important to talk about them, in fact it would be kinda crazy but it wouldn't change the general fact. We could talk about, and probably if we took it seriously, come to agreement about how we should treat self aware moderately intelligent beings, we could see that using them as a means to an end is wrong.
I think morality doesn't matter without you and me, but it is the same whether we know it or not. If someone murders someone else just to steal something from them and has no idea its wrong, they themselves are not immoral or bad, but the action would still be. I hope you get what i'm saying their cause i could be being a littler unclear.

Morality isn't a thing that exists outside of humanity. Humans look at acts and judge them to be moral or immoral. You and I could look at the same act, be presented with the same evidence and come to a completely different viewpoint as to whether or not something was moral or immoral. We could also look at it later in life and reverse positions. It's because our morality is dictated by our experience and our world view, not some overarching "natural law".

[xVeganAnarchistx]

If something is immoral in your world, why would it be tolerated indefinitely? What would be an example of this?

well i think now in a world of abundance its wrong to not feed hungry children or elderly. But 3 thousand years ago in a much scarcer society that might be perfectly okay and thus be tolerated. Further, we should tolerate societies doing that if they live in scarce environments now. But then, i think we should be giving aid to scarce societies now too. So eventually we would deal with it. But assuming their is a society filled with scarcity, that we cannot somehow help. We should not condemn their actions.
This is not as good of an example as i had in mind, but i'm having trouble actually pinning one down, so perhaps you are right in suggesting that i don't really believe that. I guess i probably think that if its not objective its not really a moral issue. The fact that some morality changes over time, like how we ought distribute goods explains relative morality, but it doesn't really make a difference for the here and now which is what you are probably more worried about.

Humans have used religion since the beginning of time to justify morality. They honestly believed at the point in time they were doing x or y that they were moral and justified in their actions. Modern viewpoints look at these actions differently because our moral context is different. These actions are immoral to us now, but were not immoral to them then. I don't really understand why you think this is so impossible to grasp. Let's take something like killing animals for food and clothing. I'm going to assume that because you're vegan you believe that this is an immoral act. I'm also going to assume that based on this conversation that you believe that this has also always been an immoral act. In cultures and societies that have had limited access to fruits and vegetables such as the Inuit, in their situation are you going to say that the killing of animals was and is immoral? In modern existence it's relatively easily to be vegan or even vegetarian but that hasn't always been the case. Can you legitimately argue that being vegan has always been the moral choice?

I don't argue that. And i don't condemn older societies for doing those things, like i don't condemn them for letting people starve, they had no choice. The fact that we have a choice makes it immoral now. Any society with roughly like ours is a society where it is immoral to use animal products. It's objective giving our development level, but its likely much closer to a historical relativism like that of the feeding the starving children or whatever. Now its immoral though and thats what matters.

If it's not relative, then taking something that is agreed upon doesn't prove anything. Talking about something like abortion and demonstrating to me why the morality around it, who is right, then you may convince that it's objective. Only bringing up things people universally agree are immoral doesn't really make a convincing argument, since there are far more things that people disagree on. This tends to suggest that morality is in fact subjective. If you're going to make the statement that all morality is objective, then you need to be able to give multiple examples and those examples can't simply be murder, rape and slavery. What's the objective morality of abortions? Gun rights? Drug and alcohol use? Which is the right answer?

I think you are wrong. If one piece of morality is objective then there is objective morality. It just depends on how broad it is, maybe their are only three objectively wrong things, maybe 3 hundred, point is their is some and that's all i'm arguing, im not saying i know everything that is objectively moral just that some things are. Pointing out a few things that you would likely agree are proves my point. I mean of course you can do as you did, and deny that rape is always wrong, but that's a popularly held position, and most philosophers would disagree, of course majority rules does not make it true it's just a rough estimation, like the law is of morality.

Morality isn't a thing that exists outside of humanity. Humans look at acts and judge them to be moral or immoral. You and I could look at the same act, be presented with the same evidence and come to a completely different viewpoint as to whether or not something was moral or immoral. We could also look at it later in life and reverse positions. It's because our morality is dictated by our experience and our world view, not some overarching "natural law".

I disagree i think if we came to a disagreement one of us would be wrong. And assuming their was a being with the capacity to understand the situation they would eventually find the right answer. I think that if you imagine a being with roughly the same attributes as humans, self awareness, ability to suffer, etc, they would find rape to be wrong too. It's objective for those you can recognize it. Of course i'm not like that damn mouse is raping that other mouse, though that is exactly what it looks like, because they (likely and we could be wrong, though i think we'll agree that unlikely) have the capacity to know its wrong, or to suffer from it in a way that is a moral issue.

[xsecx]

well i think now in a world of abundance its wrong to not feed hungry children or elderly. But 3 thousand years ago in a much scarcer society that might be perfectly okay and thus be tolerated. Further, we should tolerate societies doing that if they live in scarce environments now. But then, i think we should be giving aid to scarce societies now too. So eventually we would deal with it. But assuming their is a society filled with scarcity, that we cannot somehow help. We should not condemn their actions.
This is not as good of an example as i had in mind, but i'm having trouble actually pinning one down, so perhaps you are right in suggesting that i don't really believe that. I guess i probably think that if its not objective its not really a moral issue. The fact that some morality changes over time, like how we ought distribute goods explains relative morality, but it doesn't really make a difference for the here and now which is what you are probably more worried about.

If things are static, and what is moral is written in stone, situations and time doesn't matter. This is the problem with your mindset and it's clearly demonstrated by this example.

I don't argue that. And i don't condemn older societies for doing those things, like i don't condemn them for letting people starve, they had no choice. The fact that we have a choice makes it immoral now. Any society with roughly like ours is a society where it is immoral to use animal products. It's objective giving our development level, but its likely much closer to a historical relativism like that of the feeding the starving children or whatever. Now its immoral though and thats what matters.

Why don't you? They're acting immorally, if moral are not subjective and exist without context. If people don't have choice, then how does the morality of the act change? Also, just because you view something as immoral, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. That doesn't make it immoral it just means you think it is.

I think you are wrong. If one piece of morality is objective then there is objective morality. It just depends on how broad it is, maybe their are only three objectively wrong things, maybe 3 hundred, point is their is some and that's all i'm arguing, im not saying i know everything that is objectively moral just that some things are. Pointing out a few things that you would likely agree are proves my point. I mean of course you can do as you did, and deny that rape is always wrong, but that's a popularly held position, and most philosophers would disagree, of course majority rules does not make it true it's just a rough estimation, like the law is of morality.

Morality doesn't exist in a bubble. Because there are 3 things that people for the most part universally agree one, that doesn't mean that there is objective morality, or that morality is universal. Your original point was that morality was objective and that you saw no point in talking to people who are relativists. Are you now saying that not all morality is objective and some is objective? If so, then who/how decides what is one, and what is the other? If not, then explain to me the morality of the issues I previously listed?

I disagree i think if we came to a disagreement one of us would be wrong. And assuming their was a being with the capacity to understand the situation they would eventually find the right answer. I think that if you imagine a being with roughly the same attributes as humans, self awareness, ability to suffer, etc, they would find rape to be wrong too. It's objective for those you can recognize it. Of course i'm not like that damn mouse is raping that other mouse, though that is exactly what it looks like, because they (likely and we could be wrong, though i think we'll agree that unlikely) have the capacity to know its wrong, or to suffer from it in a way that is a moral issue.

But there isn't a being. All there is, is human consciousness. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? That morality isn't a human construct?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

If things are static, and what is moral is written in stone, situations and time doesn't matter. This is the problem with your mindset and it's clearly demonstrated by this example.

Your either being dishonest or misunderstanding me. I didn't deny some things are historically relative, i just stated, like ten times, that some things at least are certainly not. Things like Rape, Slavery, etc, and that is why i bring those things up.

Why don't you? They're acting immorally, if moral are not subjective and exist without context. If people don't have choice, then how does the morality of the act change? Also, just because you view something as immoral, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. That doesn't make it immoral it just means you think it is.

I just said that veganism, is likely more similar to the feeding starving children or the elderly then it is like rape. Historical circumstances do matter. The fact is however that now their is no good reason, as far as i can tell, to cause sentient life to suffer in most of the ways we do it. Of course we can imagine some life boat scenario but short of that their is no reason to sacrifice sentient life. your hamburger has nothing to do with 3000 years ago. So your act of consuming animals is a moral wrong, you are not immoral assuming you disagree though (cause i think you need to understand something as immoral and still do it to be immoral, that's a little bit of Kant that i really value)

Morality doesn't exist in a bubble. Because there are 3 things that people for the most part universally agree one, that doesn't mean that there is objective morality, or that morality is universal. Your original point was that morality was objective and that you saw no point in talking to people who are relativists. Are you now saying that not all morality is objective and some is objective? If so, then who/how decides what is one, and what is the other? If not, then explain to me the morality of the issues I previously listed?

1)Some things are objectively moral, which by definition means their is an objective morality. 2)Some things are historically relative, which coupled with the first statement means their is an 3) objective morality alongside a historically relative morality. Morality is still objective even if their isn't a moral answer to every situation. We could deal with historical relativity by creating some statement so broad as to be useless such as "Act in a way so as to cause the least harm to the most people while not using others as a means to an end, except where that is impossible (like the starving tribe or the lifeboat)" i Suppose we could figure out something like that to explain changing morality, cause it doesn't really change then, but i think its just as easy to say that something is historically relative.

But there isn't a being. All there is, is human consciousness. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? That morality isn't a human construct?

There certainly could be. Intelligent life, likely will, or did evolve in other places in the universe. Its wrong to rape their as well. Assume something like rape is possible in that context. We did not make up morality as humans. What is immoral objectively depends not on us but on the conditions and the subjects. If by human construct you mean that
talking about what is right or wrong where their is no beings to be affected by (victim of the immorality, or constrained by the morality) said act is a waste of time. I agree. But if you mean, humans just got together and "made up" morality because it made us feel good, (or made us feel less bad) i disagree.

[xsecx]

Your either being dishonest or misunderstanding me. I didn't deny some things are historically relative, i just stated, like ten times, that some things at least are certainly not. Things like Rape, Slavery, etc, and that is why i bring those things up.

Historically relative or morally relative?

I just said that veganism, is likely more similar to the feeding starving children or the elderly then it is like rape. Historical circumstances do matter. The fact is however that now their is no good reason, as far as i can tell, to cause sentient life to suffer in most of the ways we do it. Of course we can imagine some life boat scenario but short of that their is no reason to sacrifice sentient life. your hamburger has nothing to do with 3000 years ago. So your act of consuming animals is a moral wrong, you are not immoral assuming you disagree though (cause i think you need to understand something as immoral and still do it to be immoral, that's a little bit of Kant that i really value)

If morality is objective, why do historical circumstances matter? If that society does not view it as immoral, then how is it immoral? If the majority of people in this country do not believe that eating animals is immoral, how is it immoral? You believing that it's immoral doesn't have any bearing on me.

1)Some things are objectively moral, which by definition means their is an objective morality. 2)Some things are historically relative, which coupled with the first statement means their is an 3) objective morality alongside a historically relative morality. Morality is still objective even if their isn't a moral answer to every situation. We could deal with historical relativity by creating some statement so broad as to be useless such as "Act in a way so as to cause the least harm to the most people while not using others as a means to an end, except where that is impossible (like the starving tribe or the lifeboat)" i Suppose we could figure out something like that to explain changing morality, cause it doesn't really change then, but i think its just as easy to say that something is historically relative.

How can some things be objectively moral? You got painted into a corner and are trying to create some kind of wacky logic to try and reconcile it. This is a black and white conversation. Either morality is objective and there is an objective right and wrong, or morality is subjective and can and does change through time and circumstance. There isn't an option for both.

There certainly could be. Intelligent life, likely will, or did evolve in other places in the universe. Its wrong to rape their as well. Assume something like rape is possible in that context. We did not make up morality as humans. What is immoral objectively depends not on us but on the conditions and the subjects. If by human construct you mean that
talking about what is right or wrong where their is no beings to be affected by (victim of the immorality, or constrained by the morality) said act is a waste of time. I agree. But if you mean, humans just got together and "made up" morality because it made us feel good, (or made us feel less bad) i disagree.

Morality is a human construct just like religion is a human construct. We get together and decide what is right and what is wrong. That gets put into the society by the creation of laws. You kill all of humanity and morality goes away with it.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Historically relative or morally relative?

If its historically relative that means it is not morally objective so it must be morally relative. But i don't think its really morally relative in the sense that "I think X is Wrong" and "You think X is Right" and we are both correct. Because we are in same place so one of us is right for where we are, just a small t truth instead of Truth i suppose.

If morality is objective, why do historical circumstances matter? If that society does not view it as immoral, then how is it immoral? If the majority of people in this country do not believe that eating animals is immoral, how is it immoral? You believing that it's immoral doesn't have any bearing on me.

Because morality being objective does not mean that every possible action has a moral component, or that every possible action is morally objective. The statement "Morality is Objective" only demands one or more things to be objective to be true.

How can some things be objectively moral? You got painted into a corner and are trying to create some kind of wacky logic to try and reconcile it. This is a black and white conversation. Either morality is objective and there is an objective right and wrong, or morality is subjective and can and does change through time and circumstance. There isn't an option for both.

Morality is Objecitve. I just didn't explain what that means too you. Morally being objective does not mean that morality is objective for every single action, as i said above, some things have no moral component (my favorite music or color) and some things are historically relative (letting the young, the old and the weak die) and Some thing are morally objective (rape, Slavery). You have to deny that something like rape or slavery is always wrong to deny objective morality.

Morality is a human construct just like religion is a human construct. We get together and decide what is right and what is wrong. That gets put into the society by the creation of laws. You kill all of humanity and morality goes away with it.

thats an opinion (and it may be Right) Is that your position? cause then we are at a disagreement and to be honest, i don't know (yet) how to argue with someone against that position. I obviously disagree but i don't really have all that good of reasons beyond that fact that intuitively find it unlikely, and that the idea of rape being unacceptable only because we happened to decide we didn't like it is all their is too it.

[xsecx]

If its historically relative that means it is not morally objective so it must be morally relative. But i don't think its really morally relative in the sense that "I think X is Wrong" and "You think X is Right" and we are both correct. Because we are in same place so one of us is right for where we are, just a small t truth instead of Truth i suppose.

If there is an objective morality, then how can we both be right? If there is an objective morality, then why would historical time matter?

Because morality being objective does not mean that every possible action has a moral component, or that every possible action is morally objective. The statement "Morality is Objective" only demands one or more things to be objective to be true.

how doesn't it? How are some morals objective and some are subjective?

Morality is Objecitve. I just didn't explain what that means too you. Morally being objective does not mean that morality is objective for every single action, as i said above, some things have no moral component (my favorite music or color) and some things are historically relative (letting the young, the old and the weak die) and Some thing are morally objective (rape, Slavery). You have to deny that something like rape or slavery is always wrong to deny objective morality.

not really, since your opinion of color isn't morality. for there to be objective morality, it'd need to apply across the board on all things, but now you're trying to argue that because there are somethings that we agree on, then there must be objective morality, which simply doesn't make sense.

thats an opinion (and it may be Right) Is that your position? cause then we are at a disagreement and to be honest, i don't know (yet) how to argue with someone against that position. I obviously disagree but i don't really have all that good of reasons beyond that fact that intuitively find it unlikely, and that the idea of rape being unacceptable only because we happened to decide we didn't like it is all their is too it.

yes it is. Morality and religion are human constructs. We develop morality as a direct result of our environment, peers and experience. It's shaped throughout our lifes and changes through time. For someone who is raised catholic they will initially believe that homosexuality is wrong. Through interaction with homosexuals they come to realize that a lot of the imposed morality of the church doesn't really apply and doesn't reflect how they feel. Now, the church will tell you that their morals are divine and correct. I believe neither of those are correct.


I seriously have to ask though, what is it with you and rape?