FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus

June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

LT, see the diversion? I think that has implications. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

at 427, kf added,
In effect, why are you unhappy that I have — repeatedly — dumped garbage on your front lawn? Sorry, I have a right to take strong action not just to clean up but to deter you and others from repeating such vandalism. KF
Does this mean you have banned kmp? From UD completely, or just from this thread?jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

jdk, that article @452 makes a great point. Most Christians don't want to be mean, and I don't know anyone who will reject a sale to someone just because one thinks he is sinning. The problem comes when one thinks he is being made to express approval of something he thinks is wrong. To turn it around, I suspect that the vast majority of gays feel one shouldn't be force to do something that one thinks expresses approval of something one thinks is wrong.tribune7_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

KF, I'm going to surprise you a little by saying that I completely agree with you that morality is at core an objective body of truths that we may identify and reason about in consistent, sound ways. But I think that you and all others who try to base morality on religion are doing it wrong. There actually is an IS that we can ground our OUGHTS on. I mean that there are real phenomena in the real world that can be objectively identified, observed, measured and that reasoning about them can be used to guide us on how we ought to behave. One of the most important phenomena is that are a whole lot of things that virtually nobody in the world wants to happen to them. Nobody wants to be kidnapped, raped or murdered, for example. I know I don't and I bet you don't and the same for the rest of the readers, so let's all agree not to do it and we're all better off. We call those things and other universally unwanted things "bad" and agree not to do them and even formally prohibit them and everybody benefits because if nobody does bad things to anybody, then nobody does bad things to us. It also gives us a definition of bad - things that hurt us in some way. It's all pretty objective too, because those bad things are material and we can all see them, discuss them, reason about them, understand the consequences of doing them and enjoy the benefits of not doing them to each other. The problem for religion is that their traditions and holy books are frequently encumbered with things that are objectively bad, like murdering innocent children or killing witches, but they're represented as God's actions, or His commands. This leads to a lot of tortured "reasoning" as the faithful try to repair the damage and it also scuppers the holy books as trustworthy guides to morality. The situation is made worse because objective secular morality has left most religious morality in the dust. The Bible tells you you can own slaves, secular morality looks at slavery more objectively, notes that nobody wants slavery to happen to them, and bans it. (Christians note proudly that most of the abolitionist leaders were Christians, but forget to mention that so were most of the slavers. It's no coincidence that the former US slave states are the buckle of the Bible Belt.) The Bible says homosexuals should be killed, objective secular morality notes that killing people is a bad thing and homosexuals don't seem to be doing anything to hurt anybody and leaves them alone. I'm sure you get the drift and I want to go to sleep, so I'll stop now. Before I go, though, I really should tell you that when you use words like "distractive turnabouts", "agit prop", "village atheist talking points", "gotcha turnabouts" and especially the beloved "red herring dragged away to strawman caricatures soaked in toxic oils then set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating clarity and sound conclusion", you score points on certain web sites.MatSpirit_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

FYI, and relevant to our discussion:
Denying service to gays is unpopular even among faith groups, survey finds Paul Singer , USA TODAY Published 6:00 a.m. ET June 21, 2017 | Updated 7:38 a.m. ET June 21, 2017 Businesses refusing to serve gays and lesbians for religious reasons turns out to be an unpopular position even among most religious groups, according to a new survey by PRRI, a non-partisan research group specializing in faith and public policy issues. The group found in a survey of 40,000 Americans that 61% of Americans oppose allowing businesses to deny services to gays and lesbians, though it has increasingly become a rallying cry of the religious right. The Supreme Court is still mulling whether to take the case of a Colorado baker who refuses on religious grounds to make cakes for same-sex couples. But the new survey found not a single major U.S. religious group where a majority of members support denying service to same-sex couples. Fifty percent of white evangelical Protestants supported such service denial, but the numbers drop from there: 42% of Mormons, 34% of Hispanic Protestants, 25% of black Protestants and 25% of Jehovah's Witnesses believe businesses should be allowed to deny services to same-sex couples. The finding is part of a major shift in views of same-sex marriage across the country, where support is growing especially among younger people of all faiths. "Roughly six in ten (58%) Americans express support for same-sex marriage today, compared to 53% in 2015, a five-point increase," the group found. While 61% of white evangelical Protestants still oppose gay marriage, even that group is split by age, with 51% of evangelicals under the age of 30 saying they support gay marriage. Evangelicals show "much more ambivalence" about denying service to gays and lesbians than they do about opposing gay marriage in general, said Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI. In just one year, white evangelical Protestant support for service denials dropped from 56% in 2015 to 50% in 2016, which Jones noted is a dramatic shift. "Usually these things drop pretty slowly." "One of the key things driving these changes are relationships," Jones said. "One of the strongest predictors of your views on same-sex marriage or anything on gay rights is whether you have a close friend or family member who is out as gay or lesbian." Those relationships tend to trump traditional church teachings on homosexuality, he said.
linkjdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

KF @436 – I see your test case and agree it describes a scenario that clearly exemplifies evil. In your numbered list, I want to take a slight detour at #2, “how we come to identify evil.” Let’s use your test case and neutralize the language a bit:
Is it evil — and, knowably evil — to forcibly remove a living thing, slice it with a knife, and eat it? If so, why? If not so, why?
By flattening the language and abstracting the test case, we immediately understand a few things about how we come to identify evil: (1) The individual actions are not themselves enough to be recognized as evil. (2) The “living thing” or recipient of the actions is a factor in accounting for whether the action is evil. If the living thing is a stalk of celery, then many of use will not consider the test case an example of evil. If the living thing is an animal, then maybe it depends on what animal and what other actions were or were not taken. (3) The intention or motivation of the actor is important. The original test case notes that the horrific actions were taken “for one’s pleasure.” Yet, if one ‘kidnaps” a child to remove her/him from an abusive home, that action may not be viewed as evil. This little analysis suggests that identifying evil involves weighing the physical actions – which we can, theoretically, observe – as well as certain characteristics of the affected person/community/environment and intentions/motivations of the perpetrator. If we do not know one or more of these three factors, the self-evidence of an evil scenario certainly becomes murkier. So, I think the real question is how we characterize the “the reality of evil beyond perceptions, opinions etc.” Can you please explain on this specific point?LarTanner_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

LT, once grand delusion is let loose across the life of the mind, this instantly undermines responsible, rational freedom, and that is exactly what Ruse and Wilson do. Many others acknowledge the point. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Pindi, I note, J-Mac has given a test case. That test case does draw out issues of moral character. For instance, you clearly imply several oughts regarding individuals capable of marriage. You also imply that J-Mac ought not to think like the straw figure you put up. And more. Do you then recognise that reasoning and argument are inextricably deeply entangled with moral considerations, such that we would be well advised to seek how such can be successfully addressed objectively, on pain of spreading grand delusion through our mental life? KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

MS: First, nope, I have cited a test case, not a proposed foundation. It does however draw out our moral foundations as an inductive study. Your reaction is typical, distractive turnabouts, a common rhetorical strategy of agit prop operators and activists. (Just for record, kindly note here on your village atheist talking points. Such are irrelevant to the issue, is morality at core an objective body of truths that we may identify and reason about in consistent, sound ways?) I again draw attention back to the case. (Let me add, I specifically chose this sad, real world case precisely to focus attention in ways that do not readily lead to all sorts of tangential discussions. This specific case is one about kidnapping, sexual assault and murder for pleasure. Once we settle it, it will equip us to assess many other cases, having drawn out underlying frameworks. The insistence on substituting a hypothetical then running off on tangents that lead to attempted gotcha turnabouts is a case of the red herring dragged away to strawman caricatures soaked in toxic oils then set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating clarity and sound conclusion.) Is or is not the specific test case a case of evil, why? Your answer: __________ on grounds _______ (Once we can get foundational frameworks in place and put up sound yardsticks that can pass the plumbline tests, then we can with confidence address particular puzzles. For sure, moral anarchy and might/manipulation makes 'right' nihilism linked to gender confusion and hedonism as well as licence confused for liberty will not be that foundation.) KF PS: BTW, if you hold that morality is not objective but is subjective or relativist or the like, then kindly argue onward without implying that oh you OUGHT to be right, but are wrong. In short, this is a matter where we are all sitting on a branch and it is not wise to try to saw it off.kairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

J-mac, I think a relationship between a human and a chimp, may be rich and rewarding, just as relationship between a human and a dog can be. But marriage implies an equality, a meeting of minds and a mutual understanding. If you think that's possible with a chimp, then, I don't know what to think. My impulse is to think you are very strange. But then Jane Goodal might relate to what you're saying. Although even she I don't think would go so far as to suggest human - chimp marriage was a legitimate question. So on balance, I think perhaps you might want to talk to a mental health professional about your thoughts on that.Pindi_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

KF @ 19: "As for the issue of objective morality, let us start with a highly instructive first moral self-evident truth: "It is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. Corollary, were we to encounter such in progress, it is equally self evident that we ought to try to intervene or intercede to rescue the victim from the monster. [And this, sadly, is NOT a hypothetical . . . ]" [Quoting Barry] I put it to you that the attempt to deny this ought instantly lands in absurdities. And, that this undermines any attempt to pretend that objectivity and warrant for moral truth are impossible to attain. KF" Wait a minute! Is that the foundation of your so-called 'objective morality'? A 'self evident' truth? In other words, something you feel deeply or really really believe? Or, as the Bible outs it, doing what seems right in your own eyes? What do you say to someone who believes that young children should be kidnapped, bound, tortured, sexually assaulted and murdered just as deeply? As Barry starts to say in your quote, this is not hypothetical. Such people exist. How would you persuade such a person he was wrong? What evidence or arguments would you use? You certainly couldn't use the Bible. It's full of hideous immoralities, including direct commands from God's very best prophets to kill everyone including women and children. Exodus actually portrays God Himself murdering the first born child in every family in Egypt! The only way you could use the Bible to buttress your argument would be to go through it first and remove all the immoral parts. And what would you use to distinguish the moral from the immoral parts? Why your own human judgement, of course and now you're right back to doing what seems right in your own eyes. The biggest scandle in Christendom is that Christians have no objective basis for their morality and base it instead on what seems right in their own eyes. And what's worst about that is that Jesus gave you the most important part of an objective morality when He gave you the Golden Rule, but you shun it because the morality you so deeply believe in can't live up to its test. "Is it all right to kill the first born child in an Egyptian peasants home because of something the Pharoah did?" Would you like your own child murdered? "Is it all right to enslave someone?" Would you want to be a slave? "Is it all right to fire someone for being gay or transgendered?" Would you like to be fired? "Would it be all right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?" You must be religious. Probably Christian or Muslim.MatSpirit_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

jdk, I asked you: "Would you object to the marriage between a human and an animal say…chimpanzee? Your answer: J-Mac: that’s a pretty worthless question. Of course not Make up your mind!J-Mac_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

JDK, are you aware that in Stalin's day experiments were apparently done to try to breed in effect cannon fodder through mating apes and humans? (Of course we see the usual pooh poohing and projections to those silly fundies, but things are sufficiently precise to name a specific researcher who had a longstanding interest. One that for sure did not come from the Judaeo-Christian frame of thought.) KF PS: Are you implying that some things ought not to be done, suggesting such irrationality as to point to insanity? [BTW, Epictetus thought irrational behaviour by rational creatures was the essence of evil, as of course JCW echoes; the ANE wisdom vs folly contrast definitely has this as an element, too.] And, beneath it, do you not imply -- cf. your reference to trollish conduct [though actually it seems J-Mac is raising valid test cases of the form: is this not patently morally absurd]. It seems to me that you imply but will not explicitly state that the case ought not to have been brought up? (As in, implying or assuming oughts is pretty hard to avoid in arguments, precisely what we would expect for an inherent part of reason.) PPS: After leading by stridently denouncing Creationists, deep in a Sci Am blog we can find this admission:
He [Ivanov, apparently a then leading expert on artificial insemination] only attempted to inseminate three [chimpanzee] females [with human semen] before being forced to abandon the project as useless. Desperate to make use of his limited funding, Ivanov then made the horrific decision to attempt the insemination of African women with chimpanzee sperm without their knowledge. He made a proposal to doctors at a local hospital about his experiment and was ready to proceed when the General Governor of French Guinea, Paul Poiret, rejected the plan. Out of options and funding, Ivanov and his son decided to return home. By the time the two boarded their ship they had been in Africa for just over one month. Ivanov hoped to pursue his experiment again in Russia through the use of women volunteers (and he found at least one who was willing to participate). However, when word got out that Ivanov had attempted to inseminate African women without their consent he was condemned by the Soviet Academy of Sciences and all support was eliminated . . .
kairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

I answered your question: of course I would object to someone wanting to marry a chimpanzee. Such an interest would either be a poor joke or a sign of mental illness. The reason I said you're question was worthless was that I can't imagine anyone who would support that, and your reasons for thinking someone might were just silly. This is useless trolling, in my opinion.jdk_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

jdk J-Mac: that’s a pretty worthless question. Of course not. Why do you consider this question worthless? I think it is a pretty legitimate question. Please elaborate. And what does this whole discussion have to do with “believers in evolution”, which I assume you erroneously think is synonymous with being non-religious. Virtually everything we’ve been discussing here has many religious people who agree with us about at least some of the topics: SSM, sexual practices, contraception, etc. I find that to many the belief in evolution is often synonymous with the absence of the divine and morality. Being religious and holding a belief in a divine being is not the same thing is it? Many people call themselves spiritual but not religious... Just because some religious people agree or disagree with you on some issues it doesn't make it right or just, does it?J-Mac_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

J-Mac: that's a pretty worthless question. Of course not. And what does this whole discussion have to do with "believers in evolution", which I assume you erroneously think is synonymous with being non-religious. Virtually everything we've been discussing here has many religious people who agree with us about at least some of the topics: SSM, sexual practices, contraception, etc.jdk_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

kmidpuddle, Pindi, jdk, Would you object to the marriage between a human and an animal say...chimpanzee? After all humans are considered by many believers in evolution to be nothing more than just higher apes... Since human genome is apparently 98.6 % identical to chimpanzee, you wouldn't have a problem with two animals this close genetically to fall in love and try to become a normal part of society would you?J-Mac_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

I neglected @ 435 to double check my spell check. “Assignation” (whatever that means) in the first sentence should be “assassination.” My argument against same sex marriage is very simple: XY + XY does not equal XY + XX Nor does XX + XX equal XY + XX To argue that they do defies not only history and tradition but also biology and basic logic. Any so called redefinition of marriage is completely ad hoc and arbitrary. Any persecution of people upholding a traditional view of marriage is totally unwarranted as well as immoral.john_a_designer_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

..."does that mean a man and a woman who are unable to procreate cannot be married?" No.StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

"Assignation attempt" . Interesting slip of the tongue there, JAD. But looking at your post, and the argument that a homosexual union cannot be a marriage because of an inability to procreate - does that mean a man and a woman who are unable to procreate cannot be married?Pindi_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

LT: Let us go to a test case -- and, unfortunately, it is a real-world test case:
Is it evil -- and, knowably evil -- to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's pleasure? If so, why. If not so, why.
1: This entails (i) is it evil and (ii) can this be warranted so becoming knowledge; where, warrant can include self-evidence. 2: If the answer to is it evil is yes, then this entails how we come to identify evil. 3: If the answer is that evil is a perception or opinion only, perhaps "indoctrinated" by a community, this runs into the challenge that good/evil is little more than might, manipulation and delusions, perhaps those fostered by some Plato's Cave shadow show game. Nihilism, in a nutshell: absurdity. 4: If the onward answer is, we cannot warrant the claim, "this is evil," beyond perceptions, opinions, community relative values or the subjectivity of the individual, we are still stuck on nihilist absurdity. (And BTW, think about the real world consequences of such a view.) 5: In short, the attempt to deny the reality of evil beyond perceptions, opinions etc boils down to the absurdities of might and manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights,' 'good/evil' etc. Nihilistic absurdity. 6: The onward implication is conscience, which pervades our reasoning and deciding -- pointing to the duty to ought rather than what one wants or can get away with -- would be fundamentally delusional, fatally tainting mindedness including what we imagine is logical reasoning. This, too is absurd. 7: We do have an alternative: this is evil, knowably evil by virtue of self-evidence. 8: And one trying to persuade otherwise inevitably implies that our view is an error and we ought to change it. That is, such an objector has not escaped appealing to the binding nature of ought. 9: We CANNOT stand outside of oughtness and reason about it, even reasoning is shot through with ought, on pain of reducing to little more than cleverer manipulation. 10: So, either one agrees, this is evil, our consciences sense aright in this unfortunately real case, and we can know it by its self-evidence; or else we fall into a morass of absurdities and incoherence that invites the absurd nihilism of might and manipulation. 11: In short, we can be sure that some things are evil, sure by virtue of self-evidence. And, this is one of these cases. 12: Any scheme of thought that cannot deal with this case condemns itself as absurd. 13: We have good reason to see that evil is real and can be known in certain key test cases. 14: These are plumbline cases, and they expose the crooked yardsticks in many schemes of thought on morality, including subjectivism, relativism and nihilism. 15: We would be well advised to accept the plumbline's verdict and set aside such flawed schemes. 16: We may then proceed to rebuild the severely damaged edifice of sound moral reasoning in our civilisation. 17: The question is whether we will do so now, or whether we will wake up in pain with crippling wounds due to having gone over a cliff, with the challenge to restore what in our folly we so unwisely surrendered to horrific cost. The choice is ours. KF PS: SB in 428, is well expressed:
It seems to me that the term “honestly” means faithfully following the logic of the investigation wherever it might lead. In my judgment, it begins with the following question: What is a moral judgment supposed to do? Isn’t it supposed to produce a conclusion about what one ought to do as opposed to what one might want to to? After all, if it is about subjective preferences, no judgment or discernment is necessary. It would simply be a matter of following one’s willful preferences. Moral judgement is necessary only if an objective moral standard exists that could tug away at or challenge those preferences. In other words, doesn’t the term moral judgment mean to judge between what we want to do and what we ought to do, and if what we ought to do is taken to mean what we would prefer to do (subjectivism) then whatever judgment we make is preferential, not moral.
kairosfocus_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Recently, a U.S. Congressman, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, was severely wounded in an assignation attempt. Fortunately, two members of his security detail, sustaining wounds themselves in the process, acted bravely to take out the gunman and save the Congressman’s life. However, the fact that one of the members of his security detail happens to be a lesbian was not lost on the secular progressive left. Unfortunately, in respect to their own credibility, their reasoning and logic is extremely flawed. The following article by Hans Fiene of the Federalist exposes some of the fallacious logic behind their thinking and rhetoric.
“Once he gets out of the hospital, Rep. Steve Scalise ought to change his position on gay marriage...” Thus saith George Takei, MSNBC’s Joy Reid, and a number of other liberal voices who are demanding that the Majority Whip see the error of his conservative ways after his attempted assassination was thwarted by Special Agent Gay Black Woman. Gay Black Woman is not, as you might guess, the special agent’s given name. It’s Crystal Griner. But considering Scalise’s politics, Griner’s name and bravery had to play second fiddle to her sex, sexuality, and race. It was just too deliciously ironic, you see, that a Republican now owes his life to someone composed of such non-Republican identities… But Scalise never argued that homosexual unions shouldn’t be considered marriage because gay sex renders people incapable of valor or selflessness. Nor has he ever suggested that gay marriage should be illegal because gay people don’t deserve to have their lives protected. Like most conservatives, he’s argued that, because homosexual unions are incapable of procreation, they’re incapable of being what marriage is. And Crystal Griner’s courage, commendable as it is, neither contradicts nor even addresses Scalise’s argument. So expecting her courage to change his position is just as illogical as expecting Pope Francis to convert to Lutheranism simply because a German mechanic fixed the papal golf cart… Of course, if a conservative Christian saved George Takei from a psycho, knife-wielding Star Trek fan, the actor and LBGT activist would most certainly not be expected to reconsider his support of Obergefell v. Hodges.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/according-left-alexandria-shooting-intersectionality/#.WUvpLWo3ytQ.twitter By the way, I believe Special Agent Crystal Griner deserves our praise, honor and respect. Why can’t those on the secular progressive left reciprocate that kind of goodwill?john_a_designer_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @417. No problem. It is your thread and your rules.StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

LT@430, I would add the impact of teaching/indoctrination and reinforcement/feedback. Or, if you will, conditioned responses. If we are repeatedly told from the time we can crawl that something like masturbation is a sin, and punished when our parents catch us doing it, I am sure that we are going to grow up with the moral belief that it is wrong. But that doesn't make that moral belief objectively true.kmidpuddle_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Instead, I see moral judgment as seeking to find the optimal balance between several competing impulses and desires: a) What I want to do b) What helps you or helps others c) What my parents or peers might think d) What might serve the long-term interests of a-c above e) And so on
So you do not believe in an objective standard of right and wrong?StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner
was surprised that you defined moral judgment as you did and wonder if the heated disagreements generated by these kinds of topics really boil down to differences in defining fundamental terms.
In many cases, I think that is true. Unfortunately, many here enter into discussions like this without even knowing what *they* mean by the terms they use.StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB @428 My off-the-cuff opinion (and then I must get off UD and do my paying job) is that no, moral judgment is not "supposed to produce a conclusion about what one ought to do as opposed to what one might want to to." Instead, I see moral judgment as seeking to find the optimal balance between several competing impulses and desires: a) What I want to do b) What helps you or helps others c) What my parents or peers might think d) What might serve the long-term interests of a-c above e) And so on I was surprised that you defined moral judgment as you did and wonder if the heated disagreements generated by these kinds of topics really boil down to differences in defining fundamental terms.LarTanner_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

kwimpuddle to kairosfocus
If you can step the emotion back a little, we might be able to have a civil and productive discussion.
It isn't possible to have a rational discussion with you because you will not answer questions.StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner
Acknowledging that we ought to investigate the nature of moral judgments honestly does not, in my view, undermine the idea that moral judgments are subjective (if one holds to this idea).
I appreciate the clarity of your comment. It seems to me that the term "honestly" means faithfully following the logic of the investigation wherever it might lead. In my judgment, it begins with the following question: What is a moral judgment supposed to do? Isn't it supposed to produce a conclusion about what one ought to do as opposed to what one might want to to? After all, if it is about subjective preferences, no judgment or discernment is necessary. It would simply be a matter of following one's willful preferences. Moral judgement is necessary only if an objective moral standard exists that could tug away at or challenge those preferences. In other words, doesn't the term moral judgment mean to judge between what we want to do and what we ought to do, and if what we ought to do is taken to mean what we would prefer to do (subjectivism) then whatever judgment we make is preferential, not moral.StephenB_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

KF:
I am utterly unsurprised to see you supporting sexual hedonism, anarchy and nihilism,...
Believing that neither the government, the church nor any individual should have any say or influence in what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not the same as supporting sexual hedonism, anarchy and nihilism. You are creating a false equivalence. Trying to lay a guilt trip on people who enjoy forms of sexual activity that you feel are perverse is just a form of crude manipulative behaviour. Resorting to name calling and denigration of those who disagree with you ranks right up there with the type of propoganda used by the allies during the war to demonize and denigrate the enemy. If you can step the emotion back a little, we might be able to have a civil and productive discussion. In effect, why are you unhappy that I have -- repeatedly -- dumped garbage on your front lawn? Sorry, I have a right to take strong action not just to clean up but to deter you and others from repeating such vandalism. KFkmidpuddle_{June 22, 2017
June
06
Jun
22
22
2017
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply