Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

_{William Murray

May 16, 2016

Constitution, Culture, governance, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Psychology, Society}

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

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments

Fish clown You mention Canada. Are you familiar with what vast majority of average people care about? http://angusreid.org/federal-issues/ I don't see people worried about toilets. Toilets are only on Trudeau's and Obama's mind, rather toilets are in their mind. They are from your species of clowns except they are humans. As usual the issue is forced on people by whining social justice warriors.Eugen_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

S, my point exactly. Presumably trans have been using women's bathrooms (and men's) for many years. What is the danger in allowing them to do it legally?clown fish_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Andre @ 226
How would you feel if your nine year old daughter shares a bathroom with a transgender? Can you say with absolute certainty that he is not a disguised sexual predator? How does one test genetically if someone really is a transgender? How do we do that?
A sexual predator could - and always has been able to - disguise himself as a woman if he was so disposed and enter a bathroom in search of prey. Would it make any difference whether the convenience was gender-specific or gender-neutral? Is there any evidence to suggest that there is a higher number of sexual predators amongst transgenders compared with the general population? If a transgender feels herself to be a woman trapped in a man's body, is she likely to have any sexual interest in young girls at all?
What biological tests exist today to ascertain if someone is transgender? Can you name one? We do have biological tests to differentiate male from female but for transgenderism? What do we have?
Nothing, as far as I know but so what? If someone feels they were assigned to the wrong sex at birth and should be the opposite, where does it harm me or anyone else to let them change?Seversky_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

" Going back to the matter in the main, the core point is that it is absurd to impose men on girls in their bathrooms, showers and locker rooms." Canada has just introduced a transgender protection bill. What do you think of it?clown fish_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

DS, I have said enough on a tangential matter. The core matter currently being discussed is that it is credible (on pain of absurdity on attempted denial) that the moral principles advanced are so case by case, also that they are structurally related, and so they are coherent. Going back to the matter in the main, the core point is that it is absurd to impose men on girls in their bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. More broadly, it is utterly wrong to push people into a position where they are forced to uphold wrongs in the name of these being 'rights' created under color of law and/or by manipulation of our moral vision. In the end such will eat the heart out of any community or culture, and we should take warning here from one reason why Islam advanced so rapidly in its early decades in Syria and in Egypt, capturing a pivotal land bridge for its 100 year advance to the W: not only the mutual exhaustion of the Byzantines and the Persians through their conflicts, but also that the people in these strategic provinces were disaffected by how Byzantium treated them over their theological disputes. Similar disaffection would play a like role in Spain. Whether or no we pay attention to history, the IslamISTS do so. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

KF, Eh? I'm not sure what you're saying.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

DS, things of the relevantly sufficient complexity. And Math is the logic of structure and quantity. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, Yes, what I meant more precisely was that while they always apply, some formal systems don't satisfy the hypotheses of the incompleteness theorems, so the conclusions do not follow. And that furthermore, there are formal systems which are provably complete and consistent.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

DaveS "I know this is not a math thread, but Gödel’s theorems don’t apply to all formal systems, so I am open to the possibility that we can have absolute certainty regarding some mathematical/logical propositions." Hi Dave I am just going to jump in and out so as to allow your conversation with KF to continue without to many distractions. Isn't math just symbolic logic? If so wouldn't Godels theorems apply? Vividvividbleau_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Dave S. "how does one establish that fact rigorously?" WJM "I don’t claim I’ve pursued that goal “rigorously” (whatever that means), only vigorously." I think St. Anselm of Canterbury lends some insight. from his Proslogion. As a theist, for him, God is: "....a being than which none greater can be imagined." If this had been a part of a moral argument for God's existence, and not an ontological argument, it might read: "....a morally great being than which none greater can be imagined." It seems to me that when judging the morality of others, even materialists in their minds, refer to an imagined morally great being, and if that being is not themselves (it often is), then it is an abstract ideal of moral greatness. Consider for example, Richard Dawkins' denunciation of the God of the bible in his book "The God Delusion." In that screed he means to say that the God of the bible cannot be the morally great being that he imagines, based either on his own self-referential ideal of morality, or on some sense of morality he derives outside of himself (although I can't imagine what that might be), and that is a reason to reject theism. So for materialists, the morally objective reference is in the imagination, even though, ultimately, they do subjectively what the theist CAN do objectively by basing morality in God's character. Since the materialist does not believe in this God, the theists' basis for morality is seen as just as subjective as their own. And that is the point at which the question is begged. The vigorous argument of the theist can find support in a number of places: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the law of love in 1 Corinthians 13, the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians 5. The materialist may object that these are religious rules, and therefore, not objective; yet many of them are employed by the materialist him/herself, which is perhaps why Paul stated in Galatians 5: "Against these things there is no law." IOW, there can be no real objection. But what of "a morally great being than which none greater can be imagined?" What are we getting at? I suggest several things: Perfect in truthfulness Perfect in faithfulness Perect in judgment Perfect in love There is a word, which synthesizes all of these and other moral qualities. We call it "holiness." Whether one believes that such a being exists or not, these are some of the qualities that the thoughtful person imagines regarding morality; and for theists, such a being does in fact exist; which renders morality more vigorously objective than with non-belief., because, with the exception of the Golden Rule, it is entirely non-self-referrential.CannuckianYankee_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

KF, I would agree that absolute certainty is too much to ask in certain domains, including morality (if that's an accurate paraphrase of your position). I know this is not a math thread, but Gödel's theorems don't apply to all formal systems, so I am open to the possibility that we can have absolute certainty regarding some mathematical/logical propositions.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

DS, not even Mathematics can deliver absolute certainty, post Godel. For cause, I am certain enough to confidently put the weight of my soul on the line on these principles, and would put the future of our civilisation too. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

KF, Is it therefore the case that these 12 principles are absolutely certain to be logically consistent? Edit: On a second reading, as you use the word "credibly" a couple of times as an adverb, I'm guessing you are still referring to moral certainty, rather than absolute certainty.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

DS, the same again. You omit the basic fact that truths must all be so together, a key point of a coherent world: on distinct identity the triple first principles obtain and so no x is both A and not-A, and so too no two truths x and y can be such that y = NOT-x. In this context, each of the 12 being in turn directly credibly true on grounds of patent absurdities on attempted denial, they are immediately credibly coherent. Next, it so happens that the principles are in fact linked together in a chain so they are mutually supportive and relevant, in fact framing the basis for moral principles in governance. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, It is clear that you have no actual particular cause to dismiss the coherence of the moral framework in question but seem to want room to distance yourself from it and its implications.
There's no need to start speculating about my motives. I just think it's worth investigating whether we can know any particular moral theory is logically consistent.
To this you do not seem to have any reply. That tells us all a lot on the actual balance on the merits: there is no good reason that you seem prepared to defend in public that the individual items are incoherent or false, and you evidently cannot find incoherence in the cumulative set as cumulative from 1 to 12.
Yes, as I have stated several times, I'm not defending anything here; rather I'm asking you (or anyone) to demonstrate the logical consistency of their moral theory (or the 12 principles you have listed). The fact that I have not pointed out any incoherence does not prove they are logically consistent.
But you wish to insert the selectively hyperskeptical principle if I can doubt I can dismiss or at least distance myself.
Pardon, but you cannot know my wishes, and I'm not trying to dismiss anything. Edit:
On those terms manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law are clearly ahead of the game and can be responsibly treated as morally certain. Which is what is needed.
And if the standard here is moral certainty, which is inherently subjective, then as I said above, perhaps that standard can be met wrt the logical consistency question.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

DS, It is clear that you have no actual particular cause to dismiss the coherence of the moral framework in question but seem to want room to distance yourself from it and its implications. In response, first, the principles in order are cumulative each built on the other. Second, they are each pointed out as self evident on grounds that the attempted denial of each in turn lands one in instant patent absurdities [which BTW are here broader than logical contradictions]; skeletal outlines being given in most cases. To this you do not seem to have any reply. That tells us all a lot on the actual balance on the merits: there is no good reason that you seem prepared to defend in public that the individual items are incoherent or false, and you evidently cannot find incoherence in the cumulative set as cumulative from 1 to 12. But you wish to insert the selectively hyperskeptical principle if I can doubt I can dismiss or at least distance myself. Very well, we leave the worldviews level choice to comparative difficulties, starting with the incoherence of selective hyperskepticism, and the evident balance on comparative difficulties. On those terms manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law are clearly ahead of the game and can be responsibly treated as morally certain. Which is what is needed. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

HR:
Which I actually addressed in both of my posts. ‘Experiencing ill effects’ is not an exclusive precondition of harm. A loss in value can be harm just as well. And this is not tied to a threshold value.
Under your strict "loss of value" paradigm, wouldn't the man who gives $50 to charity be harmed just as much as the one who had $50 stolen from his wallet?Phinehas_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Vivid: Maybe it is time for me to cross-post here the update to 870 in the previous thread, which will give a lot of context to what has happened:
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/the-perils-of-prolonged-march-of-folly-triggered-crisis/#comment-607076 I, I have already told you that morals are not merely matters of opinion. You have been directed tot he OP which discusses the roots of morals and are again directed thereto. The practices in question were patently wrong, being based on murder; deliberate shedding of innocent blood with no just cause or excuse. These practices were imposed through offensive warfare, and were an expression of the nihilist absurdity, might makes ‘right.’ Likewise, the repeated attempt embedded in your line of argument, to suggest that morals are merely matters of opinion. I suggest that you would find this on the objectivity of morals helpful, also this in reply to 07 on self evident moral truths. As to the notion that the twisting of marriage contrary to the order manifest in nature through manipulation of law and institutions of state and law, is to become so triumphant that principled objection to it is to be regarded as of the same order as the barbarities of idolatrous human sacrifice that ripped the beating hearts of living victims out of their chests to present to the sun imagined a god, that is itself a monstrous outrage by implication of the boat you would push us into. It inadvertently lets a very big cat out of the bag. Indeed, it underscores the point of the concerns and exposes the nihilistic mentality of the agenda we now confront. KF F/N May 18: This refers to I at 867 above:
“If the Mesoamerican morals were so wrong, and those of other cultures throughout history that we disagree with, how do you know that your morals are the correct ones? Is it not more likely that humans in 500 years will look back at your morals (eg. homosexuality and SSM are immoral) and think that those were absurd and nihilistic?”
It is a sad necessity to have to be so explicit in showing the true state of affairs, but I think I have little choice. KF
kairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

WJM "Kf note: Aleta will take the time negatively characterize you and your posts; she will take the time to quote you in order to attempt to justify a broad negative characterization; she will take the time applaud her compatriots when they quote-mine in order to support an already corrected mistake; she will even take the time to describe her views and complain when one of her compatriots gets banned. What she steadfastedly refuses to do is respond to and rationally defend/rebut any number of specific questions and challenges regarding her descriptions of her views or the expressed, more detailed views of, say, hrun. She’s left a large number of criticisms, direct questions and points without any response." No Aeleta has not covered herself in glory on this thread, she has left the field but she will be back on another thread I am sure. Then we will have a repeat of her incoherent babble as if this thread never happened. My advice to you , KF, SB and other regulars is to refer her back to here where she cowardly left the battle, bloody and beaten, only to resurface as if nothing has happened. I can hear it now " Oh you know William we've been through this before" LOL Vividvividbleau_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, again, note the twelve core principles I articulated to 07, on the premise that they cumulatively build a system and each is articulated on the denial of that principle at once ends in absurdity hot water. It seems to me that unless there is a gross error in the outline, such will be coherent, naturally so. This renders an objection but you have not proved coherence strained and even possibly hyperskeptical.
Sure, I haven't proved anything. But many things that seem to be true in fact aren't.
Now, can you show my acting on moral certainty to be in the wrong?
No, but that's not my objective. I'm just trying to get clear about these claims of logical consistency of moral theories. If the claim is just that one can be morally certain that a moral theory is logically consistent, then perhaps that's possible[*], but it introduces some subjectivity into the matter. * I say perhaps it's possible, but the use of "moral certainty" in this context strikes me as a bit strange. Can we be morally certain that ZFC is consistent? Or that the Goldbach Conjecture is true?daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

DS, again, note the twelve core principles I articulated to 07, on the premise that they cumulatively build a system and each is articulated on the denial of that principle at once ends in absurdity hot water. It seems to me that unless there is a gross error in the outline, such will be coherent, naturally so. This renders an objection but you have not proved coherence strained and even possibly hyperskeptical. I hold it morally certain per how they are put together and on a whole history of experience that the following hold and are a coherent (but acknowledged quite challenging) whole:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even your implication in your question, challenge and argument, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, you imply we OUGHT to do and say the right. Not even you can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (You were depending on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to win your point. See what would happen should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally?) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right. ) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
That is, one would be irresponsible to act as though one can dismiss such. Now, can you show my acting on moral certainty to be in the wrong? If not, it is clear where the balance on merits lies. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

WJM,
KF’s argument is more about the internal logical consistency of a worldview containing a moral system, and my arguments are more about whether or not one’s behaviors, terminology and arguments are rationally consistent with their moral premise.
Yes, thanks for pointing out that distinction. My question is directed at the issue of internal consistency of one's moral theory.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, the issue is, not can you raise a challenge in the abstract but can you find a fatal incoherence in the specific?
Again, that's not my job. If someone claims that their system is logically consistent, then the burden is on them to demonstrate so.
PS: Re Maths, my concern is that the claim that there is an infinite number of finite successive counting sets is not right; instead we should take endlessness of succession with the next member is the order type of the collection so far as a key part of what infinite means seriously.
Well, I think you are free to work in that sort of mathematical system. I'm not sure what that tells us about the physical universe, though, which is not required to bend to our choice of metaphysics.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Notice the difference in tone, focus and substance?kairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

DS, the issue is, not can you raise a challenge in the abstract but can you find a fatal incoherence in the specific? [try here, a list of 12 specific principles: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-07-demands-a-list-of-ten-self-evident-moral-truths/ ] I would suggest that something of no great size logically, built on a few core commitments then articulated from there on the premise of avoiding the absurd will be coherent. (As opposed to, we may find ourselves in real settings where our only option is the least bad choice, the relative good. For instance that is how I am a committed democrat.) Otherwise, Locke has somewhat to say in his Essay on Human Understanding, Intro Sec 5:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]
KF PS: Re Maths, my concern is that the claim that there is an infinite number of finite successive counting sets is not right; instead we should take endlessness of succession with the next member is the order type of the collection so far as a key part of what infinite means seriously.kairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

DaveS said:
This brings up an issue which I was considering posting about earlier. First, I don’t know if WJM himself claims that he acts in a logically consistent fashion, or even that his system of morality is logically consistent. But I’m guessing at least some on the objective morality side do believe that their systems of morality are logically consistent. If that’s true, how does one establish that fact rigorously?
KF's argument is more about the internal logical consistency of a worldview containing a moral system, and my arguments are more about whether or not one's behaviors, terminology and arguments are rationally consistent with their moral premise. The answer depends on what you mean by "fact", and what you mean by "rigorously". I don't claim it is a "fact" that I behave consistently with my moral premise; I don't claim I've pursued that goal "rigorously" (whatever that means), only vigorously. I believe my behavior, terminology and argument is consistent with my moral premises, if not entirely consistent with my understanding of right and wrong (yes, I do bad things now and then).William J Murray_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, The issue of coherence applies to the core of morality.
Maybe so, however logical consistency is a tall order.
Do you find such incoherent, if so where and why?
No, but my question is whether one can show rigorously that this system is logically consistent, not whether I'm clever enough to deduce a contradiction from it, if that's possible. For a mathematical analogy, I don't find ZFC incoherent, but..., well, you know the rest.daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

DS, The issue of coherence applies to the core of morality. That is to manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law. Which entails mutuality, common recognition of moral governance, and the like. In short, something much like this extended cite of Hooker used by Locke in grounding what would become modern liberty and constitutional democracy:
. . . 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 . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
Do you find such incoherent, if so where and why? Likewise, for my own summary here [--> oopsie, the list proper is here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-07-demands-a-list-of-ten-self-evident-moral-truths/ . Especially, as this listing is in material part built up on the premise of avoiding absurdities. I add, of course, the struggle to move from IS to more consistently conform to OUGHT, is ever a challenge to us as finite, fallible morally patently fallen and ever struggling (at best), and too often blind and wrong-hearted. To be human is in a sense to be hypocritical, ever in struggle to live up to what we know deep down we ought to. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

KF,
WJM, of course, consistency is also tossed out the window — even as such will often try to skewer others as hypocrites. KF
This brings up an issue which I was considering posting about earlier. First, I don't know if WJM himself claims that he acts in a logically consistent fashion, or even that his system of morality is logically consistent. But I'm guessing at least some on the objective morality side do believe that their systems of morality are logically consistent. If that's true, how does one establish that fact rigorously?daveS_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

kf note: Aleta will take the time negatively characterize you and your posts; she will take the time to quote you in order to attempt to justify a broad negative characterization; she will take the time applaud her compatriots when they quote-mine in order to support an already corrected mistake; she will even take the time to describe her views and complain when one of her compatriots gets banned. What she steadfastedly refuses to do is respond to and rationally defend/rebut any number of specific questions and challenges regarding her descriptions of her views or the expressed, more detailed views of, say, hrun. She's left a large number of criticisms, direct questions and points without any response. I will say this for hrun: he appears to at least put up an effort to stay on point, offer responses, and respond to challenges. Whether or not they are good, they're still at least in the ballpark of what is being argued and debated. Regardless of his debate skills, he at least is willing to try. Aleta, it seems, will do anything except stay on point and specifically, directly address points and challenges.William J Murray_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply