Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience, has been discussed previously on Uncommon Descent (see here and here ). Well, it’s in the news again.

I expect many readers will have heard by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. The Declaration – a Christian statement drafted in 2009 that supports religious liberty, traditional marriage and right to life issues – now has 479,532 supporters. The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning that it contained no objectionable material.

Last month, around Thanksgiving, the Manhattan Declaration application for iPhones and iPads was suddenly dropped, after the activist group Change.org gathered more than 7,700 signatures for a petition, after claiming that the application promoted “anti-gay” bigotry and “homophobia,” and that it attacked both “equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” Under a headline entitled, “Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application,” the petition drive concluded with the words: “Let’s send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.

The petition seems to have had the desired effect. Catholic News Agency contacted Apple on December 2 for the reason behind its decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration application. Spokesperson Trudy Muller said via phone that the company “removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” Strange. Why the 4+ rating, then?

I believe in calling spade a spade, so I’ll just come right out and say it: Change.org lied to its readers and to Apple about the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.

In their online petition to Steve Jobs, Change.org made the following deceitful claim:

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate…

Apple’s reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

Oh, really? Let’s see what the Manhattan Declaration actually says about the unborn and about gay marriage.

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

“The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.” “Ours is … a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.” Is this hateful language? You tell me.

I notice that Change.org speaks of “choice” in its online petition drive, oblivious to the fact that the innocent human being whose life is terminated during an abortion is denied a choice.

In defense of traditional marriage

“What about gays and lesbians?” you ask. Again, not a trace of hate. In the section on “Marriage,” the Manhattan Declaration affirms “the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life.” Obviously that includes gays and lesbians. The Declaratio­n goes on:

We acknowledg­e that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorou­s conduct and relationsh­ips, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct… We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives…

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”

As I write this, more than 35,523 people have signed an online petition to have the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app reinstated. I would strongly urge readers to lend their support to the petition by signing it here or here.

Let’s send a strong message to Apple that giving a group of concerned citizens a platform to express their opinions, and then withdrawing that platform without warning, is bad business.

Comments
molch, Let me ask you a question. Is raping, torturing, killing and eating other people's children against their will a morally bad act? According to subjective morality it is no different that preferring to wear a blue shirt instead of a green shirt. Preferring pancakes instead of spam. Is it really wrong or not? I want a serious answer, not anything like, "Well, I wouldn't like it, but that's just me" nonsense.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
molch,
Yes, that’s exactly what that means: mathematics are a tool used by a number of humans (and not even close to the majority of them) to enrich their subjective index of reality.
I wouldn't have thought your reply would be an objective statement about mathematics being a tool while also objectively maintaining that mathematics, of all things, was subjective. Being a tool is not being subjective by virtue of being a tool, for starters, and 2=2 is not subjective, we cannot change that to mean anything we want. So, because not everyone agrees or perceives morality, does indeed not mean that it, therefore, must be subjective. I noticed you moved from the argument that not all morality is universal, and therefore subjective, to the argument that all things are subjective if they are used as a tool. There is no reason to enrich oneself unless enrichment is a real objectively good endeavor, other than personal preference, enrichment loses its proximate relation to anything and everything good or bad, better or worse. You cannot move towards enrichment unless moving towards a goal perceived as good against the proposition of non-enrichment as bad. Your thought is maintaining objective notions of good and evil, even if you don't want to admit it.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
molch, You didn't answer StephenB's question:
So why do you complain that others act on their subjective perceptions about you when there is no objective reality to challenge them?
Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
San Antonio Rose,
Notice how I worded my comment. The implication wasn’t that KF put me on moderation. The fact that he doesn’t post in a white background indicates that he doesn’t have mod privileges. What I was saying was that his appeal to the moderator in comment 481 was how I ended up here.
No, you're right, the implication wasn't that KF put you in moderation, it was an outright assertion. I didn't heed his appeal, next time you want to read my mind you should think twice.Clive Hayden
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
I've scanned through that paper. It isn't much different than anything that was said here. Marriage is all about procreation, except when it isn't. But even in those cases it is about the couple having the right type of intimacy. Which is what VJT said in his summary. So, I guess we are done here.San Antonio Rose
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
F/N: A recent paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, What is Marriage?, by Girgis, George and Anderson, will bear careful reflection. For reference.kairosfocus
December 20, 2010
December
12
Dec
20
20
2010
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Stephen: "Are you trying to make an objectively true statement about your gender." I am trying to inform your perception with evidence I have of what I learned the majority of humans have agreed to call "female". You know, vagina, breasts and such... "I perceive you as being of the male gender and, as we both know, and as you have taught us, objectivity is an illusion." I'd be interested to learn what has led you to perceive me of being of the male gender. Maybe you have some good arguments and evidence, that can inform my indeed subjective perception!molch
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: As is obvious from what I have written previously, I completely agree with your points 1-4. In 5 you make the jump from reciprocity to "objectification" of moral obligations. If what you mean here is that reciprocity is a moral rule used by basically all of humanity (in fact, the only one), I would agree with you here, too. So, even though I obviously don't think that complete objectivity is an attainable perspective, I can concede that I accept the use of "objective moral rule" for the rule of reciprocity as a practical use. In 6 you bring the concept of dignity into the discussion, but you justify neither it's necessity in this context, nor it's logical origin. Unless you assume that "objectification" of a moral rule somehow produces this dignity? Either way, the only thing that is logically necessary and commonly observable is that it is "just in our best interests to be seen as doing right by our neighbours" #8: yes; Because after having learned and experienced reciprocity, we all know that violation of the rules results in punishment; #9 is a complete non-sequitur to almost everything you said before. You and I both demonstrated that reciprocity is the one important, "objective" moral rule shared by humans. Reciprocity is an extremely fitness-relevant trait in social beings. So I don't see at all where you pulled the "inherent amorality" out of. Regarding relativism - do you not agree that, after applying the simple "objective" rule of reciprocity, the perceptions and requirements of what exactly it is that an individual wants and needs, what it receives in return, what is appropriate to give or withhold, what constitutes cheating in an exchange, what and how punishment is executed, etc. etc. etc. are extremely variable among cultures, eras and individuals?molch
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
---molch: "I think this is at least the fourth time I am pointing out to you that I am female… but, you know, whatever…" Are you trying to make an objectively true statement about your gender. I perceive you as being of the male gender and, as we both know, and as you have taught us, objectivity is an illusion. So why do you complain that others act on their subjective perceptions about you when there is no objective reality to challenge them?StephenB
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
KF:
First and foremost, a correction: I did not put you in moderation, it was your insistent slanderous accusations up to and including unwarrantedly accusing those who differ with you of support for mass murder, that put you there.
So, are you saying that you didn't follow through on your threat in comment 481 to report me to the authorities?
You know or should know that freedom of association does not include the just power to counterfeit an established institution
Ah, so people are free to associate with whomever they like, just so long as they associate in a manner that meets approval? You aren't honoring freedom, you are granting permission.
and insist that the general public — without protest (on pain of being slandered as haters and potential mass murderers)
I apologized to you in comment 483. Why is it so hard to accept that apology? Frankly, I am aggrieved that you cannot accept my apology with the same spirit of sincerity in which it was offered. What more do you want from me?
And, I note that to date you are still ducking he case of prof Epstein of Columbia.
Not ducking. Dismissing as irrelevant.
The same dictionary defines marriage thusly, reflecting a universal consensus:
Well, hardly universal and becoming less so as each generation passes.
There is no justification to demand acceptance of a counterfeit, as though it were good coin.
Actually, your acceptance is neither required nor particularly sought after. And, you are certainly free to carry your disapproval with you for the remainder of your days. The real issue here is not whether you approve or disapprove. The issue is whether you have the right to pass judgment on, and restrict, the relationships of others.San Antonio Rose
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
F/N:As a measure of what is going on, I just looked at the Wiki biography page for Dr Dembski. The introduction manages to point to his PhD in philosophy and his present position at a seminary [he has been "expelled," too . . . ], without acknowledging that he holds a SM and aPhD in Mathematics, and a MS in statistics. His relevant NSF fellowship in Computer science is also conspicuously absent from his intro. The relevant facts are artfully shunted into the sidebar. The introduction then manages to mangle the distinction between irreducible complexity -- a question of biological evolutionary pathways to get multipart functionality -- and specified complexity -- an issue of the probability of origin of information beyond a threshold on a "free lunch" basis from undirected chance and necessity. In short, the article misrepresents, and does so in a way calculated to undermine Dr Dembski's credibility and invite dismissal of him and what he argues.kairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Ms Molch: Let me pause with you for a moment. Let us look again at Hooker's argument in Ecclesiastical polity as cited by Locke in Ch 2 S 5 of his 2nd essay on civil govt, as he sets about grounding civil liberty: _____________________ >> . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. >> ____________________ In steps, we can see how he draws out the objectivity of the principle of fairness as a binding moral obligation written on the tablets of our hearts [which in this sense includes thoughts, feelings and will, i.e it is inter alia a cognitive matter]: 1 --> The individual wishes to be cherished -- "loved" -- and thus to receive good at the hands of others. 2 --> This is a basic and empirically undeniable fact of life. (E.g. when we quarrel, it is as a rule in the context of perceiving that we have not been well-treated, cf above in this thread for many cases in point.) 3 --> The concepts of reciprocity, equality and fairness are introduced: to desire and require such good treatment, we are obliged to treat our equals in nature fairly and well. 4 --> Thus, from our own awareness of our worth and value, and the similarity of others of equal worth and value (as they share the common human nature), we find ourselves under a mutual obligation of good neighbourliness: love, fairness, goodness. 5 --> thus, we see the objectification of the binding moral obligations of neighbour-love. 6 --> That is, it is not just in our best interests to be seen as doing right by our neighbours, but it is in our very sense of our dignity that we are obliged to view and treat others as we would have them treat us, with the dignity, fairness and respect that we crave. 7 --> That sense of our own value is evident from quarrelling, as I have pointed out above. 8 --> That is, there is indeed a universal consent on the binding nature of core morality, rooted in our dignity as human beings. A consensus that comes out strongly and implicitly, so soon as we feel affronted, and even moreso, when we feel ashamed of or find it hard to acknowledge our misbehaviour. 9 --> And so, too, we easily see that evolutionary materialism, with its inherent amorality, its might-makes right relativism, and its law of the jungle politics substitutes for peaceful moral suasion, has a poor fit to how we experience ourselves as human beings. 10 --> Indeed, only a worldview that has in it a foundational IS that inherently grounds OUGHTNESS can be credible. 11 --> Ethical theism is such a view. ______________ I trust that helps. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
SAR (and Ch): First and foremost, a correction: I did not put you in moderation, it was your insistent slanderous accusations up to and including unwarrantedly accusing those who differ with you of support for mass murder, that put you there. And, sadly, reasonably so. A blog such as this one faces such an onslaught of the most uncivil opposition, that if there was not a stringent comments policy, it would be overwhelmed with a tide of invidious commentary. When it comes to knowledge of the blog owners and contact with them, that is no secret to longtime participants here. Indeed if you read the onward linked moderation policy excerpt, you will see that Dr Dembski openly acknowledges his foundation ownership status. The blog was founded several years ago by prof Wm Dembski, and for the past couple of years it has been under the supervision of a Colorado State Attorney at Law. As recently as Dec 15th, prof Dembski posted an announcement of a peer-reviewed paper. The current lead owner has a recent post here, and you can fairly easily obtain contact information from information that appears in that post. UD is arguably the leading Intelligent Design blog in the world, though Mike Gene may beg to differ. As touching your latest agenda of questions, they were indirectly anwered but you seem to require more direct remarks. I will indulge briefly. You know or should know that freedom of association does not include the just power to counterfeit an established institution and insist that the general public -- without protest (on pain of being slandered as haters and potential mass murderers) -- accept the counterfeit as good coin. Second, your later question is a case of the accusatory, loaded, complex question. The issue is not the implied radical relativist, might makes right, and I am imposing my view that you infer. As has been pointed out, over and over and over, marriage -- as a universal institution until recent attempts to impose a counterfeit and demand its acceptance as if it were good coin [talk about a turnabout accusation fallacy; those who are imposing accuse those who challenge such nihilist amorality of being imposers!] --responds to the complementarity o the sexes, the biology of procreation, the requisites of sound child nurture, and the foundational significance of stable marriages and families for a sustainable civilisation. So, to require of would-be innovators, that they should soundly warrant their claims and solidly answer issues and challenges is not an imposition of one's personal or ideological judgment. It is a call to responsibility. And, I note that to date you are still ducking he case of prof Epstein of Columbia. This case raises the issue that if anything goes, so does father-daughter incest. So do a lot of other things that are even more blatantly obscene and destabilising. So, it is clear that both sexual conduct and who one may properly marry fall within the purview of social regulation in the interests of its own survival. For, the state of nature is a state of chaos and instability, so we are in a state of mutually beneficial civl society. In that context, liberty takes on the definition I cited above, from Webster's 1828 [which you have studiously ducked]:
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The same dictionary defines marriage thusly, reflecting a universal consensus:
marriage MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
In short, marriage is not just a religious idea or a convenient agreement, but a critical underpinning of community stability and child nurture. Thus it is the proper subject for regulation by civil society through just and wise law. And should that law be perverted in support of the kind of counterfeits envisioned in the Yogtyakarta agenda, and related agendas of all sorts, the result will be irreversibly destructive. Correction, are becoming just such. As you will note, I have already noted that our civilisation is mortally wounded. And, if the law can properly hold that a man ought not to sleep with or marry his daughter, how much moreso does it properly hold that marriage is " the legal union of a man and woman for life." Finally, let us have done with loose talk about marriage being a right. As has been repeatedly pointed out, as a covenantal agreement of consent, it CANNOT be a right. For, no one has a right to demand marriage of another without consent. And, any adult who has a suitable partner willing to engage in such an agreement, is free to be married. Just, such marriage reflects the basic facts of our nature: we come in two sexes, complementary in the context of procreation and child nurture. (As in, we are not like the fish that undergo sex changes as they age. Marriage would not obtain for such a species.) There is no justification to demand acceptance of a counterfeit, as though it were good coin. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Molch: My apologies; I did not notice. GEM of TKI PS: I have adequately responded to the points you are making, so I will not repeat again.kairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
"Christians are the only sources used? Did you read the list Lewis compiled?" No I didn't, since you indicated the 1st paragraph was what mattered. Upon scanning the list, I realized that I misinterpreted the author. I apologize for that. But I also realized that I greatly disagree with the author that the majority of these sources illustrate some kind of Natural Moral Law. But that's a different topic. "if you don’t perceive their rationality no argument can bring you closer to perceiving it" Ok. So you are saying that a person's experience, understanding and interpretation (that's what perception in the philosophical sense means) of morality is the only thing that could convince one of the validity of an objective moral law. I agree 100%. Perception is obviously an extremely subjective process, with widely differing outcomes. "There are people who can’t count to twenty, does that mean that mathematics is not universal nor objective?" Yes, that's exactly what that means: mathematics are a tool used by a number of humans (and not even close to the majority of them) to enrich their subjective index of reality. The person who can't count to twenty obviously cannot share in that particular enrichment. They can chose to believe the conclusion the mathematician draws, but that doesn't make the mathematics themselves a shared or "universal" experience. As for objectivity - since pretty much all the people who DO use mathematics as a tool can actually agree upon it's rules and applications, it is likely to be as close to "objective" as it can get in the context of human mathematicians. On the other hand, you'll find tons of differing subjective perceptions of mathematics if you do any reading in philosophy of mathematics... Still waiting for your answer on whether the feeling in one’s heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure.molch
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Clive:
San Antonio Rose to KF,
You got me put here, you can get me removed.
I put you there, not KF
Notice how I worded my comment. The implication wasn't that KF put me on moderation. The fact that he doesn't post in a white background indicates that he doesn't have mod privileges. What I was saying was that his appeal to the moderator in comment 481 was how I ended up here.San Antonio Rose
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
molch,
The problem is, that the sentence itself is obviously a contradiction, because IF there would be UNIVERSAL consent on Natural Law being real and rational, then EVERYBODY would perceive it.
Why? There are people who can't count to twenty, does that mean that mathematics is not universal nor objective?Clive Hayden
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
San Antonio Rose to KF,
You got me put here, you can get me removed.
I put you there, not KF.Clive Hayden
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
molch,
Ok. Well, that paragraph basically says that there are illustrations of Natural Law in the Bible and in Christian Philosophy, but there is no valid, independent proof for Natural Law. If I understand it correctly, it says that there in fact CANNOT be valid, inpendent proof for it. Which I obviously agree with. This sentence from your linked seems to try to justify the validity of Natural Law by the “perception of rationality” (among Christians, I assume, since they are the only sources used):
Christians are the only sources used? Did you read the list Lewis compiled? It's just about every historical group and religion you can imagine. But my point was what he said about it not being provable even by universal consent, it is a matter of rationality, like first principles, if you don't perceive their rationality no argument can bring you closer to perceiving it.Clive Hayden
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Clive "My answer is the first paragraph of this link" Ok. Well, that paragraph basically says that there are illustrations of Natural Law in the Bible and in Christian Philosophy, but there is no valid, independent proof for Natural Law. If I understand it correctly, it says that there in fact CANNOT be valid, inpendent proof for it. Which I obviously agree with. This sentence from your linked seems to try to justify the validity of Natural Law by the "perception of rationality" (among Christians, I assume, since they are the only sources used): "For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it" The problem is, that the sentence itself is obviously a contradiction, because IF there would be UNIVERSAL consent on Natural Law being real and rational, then EVERYBODY would perceive it. And maybe I am just missing some implications, but this still doesn't seem to answer the question whether the feeling in one’s heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure. I would be content with a simple yes or no, although qualifying explanations are obviously helpful.molch
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
kairofocus: I think this is at least the fourth time I am pointing out to you that I am female... but, you know, whatever... "He fails to address the underlying point that subjectivity is not he contradiction of objectivity." No. You obviously failed to read or understand the latter part of my 535. Please read it and point out where and why you disagree with my assessment of subjective indices of reality and why none of them can be truly objective. "Nor, does he address the point that even the deepest subjectivist finds himself bound by and appealing to the moral law — the Tao if you will — when he cries out against injustice that cuts close to home." As I also discussed in 535 - OF COURSE we cry out when we have been disadvantaged. But not because of some objective inherent moral law inside of us, but simply and precisely because we don't want to be disadvantaged - it's a loss in fitness (and I obviously mean that in the ecological/evolutionary sense, not in the gym-workout sense)! Your little excerpt from Richard Hooker: "...how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men..." is exactly in accord with my 535: the reason why we are motivated to play fair is reciprocity! No need for any "objective moral law". "In short the key point is that the assertion that principles of morality are ONLY subjective ends up in absurdities in multiple ways. So, we are well warranted to infer that they are extra-mental, i.e. objective and real." All you do here is re-assert your opinion without a shadow of supporting arguments or evidence. Please precisely point out the alleged "absurdities" in my 535.molch
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
KF:
Onlookers:
You forgot to answer the two questions I asked in comment 526.
SAR, As one who has no control on the actions of UD’s moderators, your complaints to me about delayed release of comments from the mod pile are misdirected; I suggest you communicate with the blog owner.
Two points: 1. I have looked and there is no means provided at this site for me to contact the administrators. No contact us page. No feedback page. Not even an email address. Nothing. 2. You, however, appear to have an inside track to the administrators, since you clearly indicated that you contacted them in comment 481. You got me put here, you can get me removed. Now, about comment 526.......San Antonio Rose
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
PS: To see how the desensitisation, jamming-out, conversion tactics that are ever so familiar above in this thread are beginning to play out on incest, have a look here at a Guardian article. We need to ask some serious questions about the amorality cliff our civlisation is beginning to slide over, and the agendas and agit-prop stratagems that are pushing us there.kairosfocus
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Re Molch: He fails to address the underlying point that subjectivity is not he contradiction of objectivity. Nor, does he address the point that even the deepest subjectivist finds himself bound by and appealing to the moral law -- the Tao if you will -- when he cries out against injustice that cuts close to home. If he is to at all be consistent, then he will recognise that other similar creatures have a similar status, and should be accorded the same protection of the principles of fairness etc. Otherwise, we are back at Kant's point: behaviour that parasites off the fact that most of humanity will behave otherwise as a rule, is inherently destructive and immoral. For instance, if lying, or incest were universal, society would disintegrate. Molch would find it useful to ponder the Learned and judicious Richard Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, as cited by Locke [ch 2 secn 5] in his 2nd essay on civil govt as he set about grounding he principles of liberty:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
In short the key point is that the assertion that principles of morality are ONLY subjective ends up in absurdities in multiple ways. So, we are well warranted to infer that they are extra-mental, i.e. objective and real. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Onlookers: SAR dismisses the Columbia U prof case as "irrelevant." (Actually, it is only inconvenient to the agenda she espouses. [In fact the Yogyakarta agenda advocates are on the defensive over this case, and are trying hard to deflect its force, especially as this was precisely one of the issues that has been explicitly on the table as inherently connected to the underlying rationale for claiming that sexual activity between consenting adults is always legitimate, a key assumption behind attempts to remove sodomy laws. Sodomy, of course is a legal-moral term that takes in several popular "unnatural" acts.]) Above, it was pointed out that the case of incest here raises the question as to whether society has a legitimate power to regulate who may marry whom, and linked questions of who may do what with whom; on what principles. Refusal to answer to the case of Prof Epstein and his affair with his daughter (that seems to have contributed to his divorce from his wife)implies that SAR and ilk know that if they were to directly answer no, society may not regulate -- by law or by custom -- consensual sexual behaviour among adults, then it will be immediately evident that their advocacy destroys marriage and so undermines the stable child nurture environment requisite for child nurture. The Epstein case in fact makes it obvious that society has a compelling survival interest in regulating sexual conduct and marriage between consenting adults. The real question, then, is where does society properly put the restriction. The obvious answer is the traditional one: men and women, who do not have a dangerously close blood-relation or adoptive relation that would interfere with family stability. And, the push to create a counterfeit "marriage" and insist that it be accepted on the premise of consensual sexual conduct is revealed as an amoral, anything goes, might makes 'right' chaotic element that is fundamentally destructive to family stability and society. for the same principles that would undergird so-called same sex marriages will undergird incestuous ones, polygamous ones and even bestial ones. So, the Yogyakarta agenda is fundamentally destructive to our civilisation. GEM of TKI PS: SAR, As one who has no control on the actions of UD's moderators, your complaints to me about delayed release of comments from the mod pile are misdirected; I suggest you communicate with the blog owner. (In that context your speaking of "perceived" slander in a context where you have falsely accused other participants in the thread of support for mass murder [and a host of lesser but still offensive things], does not help your case. Kindly note that involvement with UD is voluntary and unpaid, so moderators --Hi Patrick, Hi Clive -- may have other work or life engagements that will take priority, especially at this busy season.)kairosfocus
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
molch,
Maybe you can in turn answer my question what your take on objectivity is, and whether the feeling in one’s heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure.
My answer is the first paragraph of this link: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htmClive Hayden
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Clive: "I asked what you would like to see for valid objectivity, not whether you have encountered anything yet." I thought it was clear from my answer that I don't think there is such a thing as complete "valid objectivity". But if there was, and I include here the restriction of objectivity from the exclusively human perspective (which is obviously a contradiction, but so be it, for argument's sake), it would be something that all humans agree upon. Maybe you can in turn answer my question what your take on objectivity is, and whether the feeling in one's heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure.molch
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
molch,
I haven’t encountered anything yet.
I asked what you would like to see for valid objectivity, not whether you have encountered anything yet.Clive Hayden
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Also, how the strident objectors to the regulation of who may or may not be marriage partners will not touch the issue of the Columbia University professor and his incest?
As I said in a previous comment, which has yet be released from moderation, this point is irrelevant. Perhaps you could prevail upon whomever is controlling the release of comments from moderation to release them a little more quickly. I have posted 2 comments in the last 24 hours, which have not included any comments that could be percieved as slanderous, which ae still waiting for approval.San Antonio Rose
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
F/N: Checking back. Another uncorrupted vocabulary moment, courtesy the Webster's 1828 Dictionary: ____________________ >> libertinism LIB'ERTINISM, n. 1. State of a freedman. [Little used.] 2. Licentiousness of opinion and practice; an unrestrained indulgence of lust; debauchery; lewdness.>> >> perversion PERVER'SION, n. [L. perversus.] The act of perverting; a turning from truth or propriety; a diverting from the true intent or object; change to something worse. We speak of the perversion of the laws, when they are misinterpreted or misapplied; a perversion of reason, when it is misemployed; a perversion of Scripture, when it is willfully misinterpreted or misapplied, &c. >> >> tolerance TOL'ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring. Diogenes one frosty morning came to the market place shaking, to show his tolerance. [Little used. But intolerance is in common use.] >> >> intolerance INTOL'ERANCE, n. [from intolerant.] Want of toleration; the not enduring at all or not suffering to exist without persecution; as the intolerance of a prince or a church towards a religious sect. >> >> toleration TOLERA'TION, n. [L. toleratio.] The act of tolerating; the allowance of that which is not wholly approved; appropriately, the allowance of religious opinions and modes of worship in a state, when contrary to or different from those of the established church or belief. Toleration implies a right in the sovereign to control men in their opinions and worship, or it implies the actual exercise of power in such control. Where no power exists or none is assumed to establish a creed and a mode of worship, there can be no toleration, in the strict sense of the word, for one religious denomination has as good a right as another to the free enjoyment of its creed and worship. >> >> tyranny TYR'ANNY, n. 1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression. 2. Cruel government or discipline; as the tyranny of a master. 3. Unresisted and cruel power. 4. Absolute monarchy cruelly administered. 5. Severity; rigor; inclemency. The tyranny o' th' open night. >> >> sodomy SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature. >> ____________________ Notice what happens so soon as we begin to allow the concept of being tolerant to others to include the implication of approval? And, when the issue of liberty under the civil peace of justice is confused for libertinism and license? Also, how the strident objectors to the regulation of who may or may not be marriage partners will not touch the issue of the Columbia University professor and his incest? [Observe: if "anything goes," so does incest, so do bestiality, polygamy etc etc. If not, then we have to ask what is the true purpose and nature of marriage, whence the logic behind one man, one woman, for life. At once, the loudly asserted case for substituting a counterfeit and demanding equal treatment for it collapses. And, the rhetorical tactic of even more loudly accusing those who challenge the cheat, of hatred, stands exposed for its viciousness and incivility. (Is it wise to give such more and more power in the state and key institutions, if we see how they are abusive with what hey already have? Remember: chaotic rebels become the worst tyrants.)] Okay GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 21

Leave a Reply