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

_{William J Murray
May 16, 2016

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

4}_{Categories
Constitution
Culture
governance
Laws
Legal
Philosophy
Psychology
Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Aleta said:
My guess is wjm is going to say that, no, we don’t believe in anarchism, but if we were logical consistent, we would.
Moral anarchism. You believe in taste, music and gender anarchism, do you not? Everybody being free to express and experience their personal preferences in food, music and gender as they wish, correct? If morality is subjective like those things (arguendo), then why wouldn't you be moral anarchists? Isn't that exactly what you described, Aleta, everyone pursuing their own biology + nurture, subjective moral development as they see fit? Except, you know, where you feel personally uncomfortable with it. That's where you draw the line with moral anarchism.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

KF: "Here, FTR, is my remark to Aleta when s/he tried to back up your attempt to insinuate that principled objection to homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law is comparable to the backward morality of Meso-America c 500 years ago." Your repeated lies about what my purpose was in raising the issue of child sacrifices speaks more about you than it does about me. Especially that you continue to state the same lie after I made an attempt to clarify my point, and after Aleta also tried to clarify it. The fact that nobody supported your ridiculous claim about my intentions should have been a hint that you might have been in error. KF, it's impossible to reason with you when your emotions get out of control like this. Calm Down, stop being so hysterical, and try to think rationally. When you have calmed down, I am willing to accept your apology.inquisitor_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

wjm at 149
The problem is that moral anarchism is the necessary logical entailment of logically consistent moral subjectivism.
So I will correct my statement: "wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is moral anarchism." There, is that better?Aleta_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
I apologize. I obviously jumped to that mistaken impression.
Yes, because you and others here apparently cannot distinguish between an argument concerning the logical entailments of a premise, and claiming that someone believes a thing because those are the logical entailments. When, in fact, I've been making the explicit case that you, Aleta and hrun do not believe in the logical entailments of moral subjectivism, because you would find them as morally unacceptable and as unpalatable as any other sane person. Thus my argument that you guys are not logically-consistent moral subjectivists. Which I guess Aleta has just admitted to, since her defense seems to be that "humans are not entirely logical machines". If you are admitting that your moral structure is not logically consistent, then we have reached and agreement in our debate.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Aleta said:
wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is nihilism.
Where did I claim that, Aleta?
What he doesn’t take into account is that people are much more complex (and human) than just being logical consequence machines. We care for each other, for instance, not because there is a logical reason to do so, but because it’s part of the emotional nature of human beings.
Hate and prejudice are also part of the emotional nature of human beings. So? Claiming "complexity" doesn't explain or justify your views, which have been challenged.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

hrun said:
WJM, do you realize that you can do stuff without being warranted?
Yes, but you said where I believe it is warranted". I've challenged you to explain how you think it is "warranted" wrt your premise of a subjective morality.
he question how I justify for myself how I morally act was also explained to you.
No, hrun. You have described your views. Descriptions are not rational explanations. Such as, your description that it is because of empathy that you are free to intervene. But, why do you think empathy gives you special license to interfere in the behavior of others whereas other emotions or sentiment involved in other personal preference reactions do not? You have described empathy as your rationale; you have not explained why empathy gives you that special authority.
Yes, it does. It has to do with the golden rule and empathy. Do you know what empathy even is? It means that if you observe and know of people treated a certain way, that you naturally share part of their emotions as a consequence of what happened. So, for example, when I see somebody being hit, I experience part of the pain they are experiencing as a consequence of being hit.
Because you empathetically feel what others experience is not an explanation for why that empathetic experience gives you special license or authority to intervene in the personal, subjectively moral interactions of others, when other such shared sentiments do not. Yes, hrun, I understand what empathy is; what I don't understand is your reasoning why empathy, which is one particular emotion or sentiment, grants you special license or authority to intervene in the subjective moral behavior of others beyond what is granted by other subjective emotions or sentiments which occur with other subjective preferences.
Exactly the opposite. Moral objectivists feel an entitlement to extend their view of morality on others. I feel no such entitlement. Yet, case by case, I make the decision if whether or not I will either attempt to convince somebody that my moral understanding is correct, simply ignore it, or forcibly deal with it.
So, that's not "exactly the opposite". That's "the same thing" but you're just insisting it's not. Both you and the moral objectivist will behave exactly the same way - ignore where you consider it appropriate, discuss where you consider it appropriate, and physically intervene where you consider it appropriate. The question, then, is not one of differences of behavior, but rather which premise (objective or subjective morality) rationally justifies (or warrants) that behavior. You have indicated above, I believe, that "empathy" is what warrants, or justifies, interventionist behaviors under your subjectivist premise. I'm challenging you: how so? What is it about "empathy" that it, instead of, oh, hate, or greedy self-interest, or maliciousness, or a cool assessment of self-interested value return, gives you special license to intervene in the affairs of others, or try to change their mind about something, or advocate for laws that coincide with your personal feelings on a moral matter?
So I think it would be up to you to explain.
No, hrun, because you have not explained your views, you have only described. I have challenged your descriptions of how your morality works by asking you to explain the reasoning that justifies your behavior via your premise. You seem to think "empathy" is the key to that justification, but you have yet to explain - rationally - how empathy can rationally justify interventions under moral subjectivism.
And there is nothing (i.e. no external authority) that justifies anything that I do. Only I ultimately justify my actions. Same as you.
This is where your problem with abstract thought gets you into trouble; you are confusing your premise and your metaphysical views for reality. You may beleive that there is no external authority, and that it is only the individual that ultimately "justifies" their own actions, but that doesn't make it true. The best we can do is presume each case arguendo and follow the logic to the entailments of those premises. If, ultimately, you are the sole justifier for your moral behavior, and there is no external authority, then your moral view can be summed up: You do what you feel like doing (where you physically can) and justify it however you feel like justifying it. IOW, "Because you feel like it & because you can." Which is the only valid form of moral subjectivism, which is the equivalent of moral anarchism and moral solipsism.
You have a view of the world and you justify for yourself what actions you take. They are based on what each of us think is right or wrong.
Just because we all act and think and feel subjectively does not mean that everything we interact with or perceive is subjective in nature. You don't seem to be able to grasp this point. Just because I subjectively perceive and consider a brick wall doesn't mean the brick wall itself is nothing more than my subjective experience. Just because we are limited to subjective interpretations doesn't mean everything we are interpreting (via sensory experience) is itself subjective in nature. We all experience moral sensations of right and wrong (unless you're a sociopath). That they are not identical doesn't mean that what we are experiencing is not objectively existent. So, neither you nor I know whether or not our morality experience is of a subjective or an objective commodity. We cannot know. The question is, which do we choose to believe - that morality is a subjective experience of an objectively existent commodity, or that it is an entirely subjective experience? At that is the point of the argument and my challenges - the premise of a subjective morality fails to explain how people act and argue, and it fails as a basis for any rational, just system of laws. It fails out of the gate because under your view such a system is nothing more than personal, subjective sentiment and emotion which boils down to "because I feel like it, because I can", which is individually self-justified however anyone sees fit, and so cannot serve as a sound or just rational basis for anything, much less a social system of law.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Good research at 163, Inquisitor. My guess is wjm is going to say that, no, we don't believe in anarchism, but if we were logical consistent, we would. My reply, given above in 162, is that human beings are not just logical consequence machines: our morality arises from emotions and other aspects of our human, biological nature. We apply our rationality to exercising our entire human nature, but logic itself is not, nor should not be, our only foundation.Aleta_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Re #151:
IOW, Aleta, if you, inquisitor and hrun were logically consistent with the logical entailments of your professed belief, you would act and argue entirely differently than you actually do.
Yes. That is your professed opinion and I guess that is fine. At some point you are convinced to the point that there is really no way to sway you. The thing that is just so puzzling tome is that rather than taking the answers we give to questions or criticisms and examine them, they are simply disregard and the same assertions are made again and again. Let's take one of the particularly egregious one to me: 'subjectivists have to believe that might makes right' or 'subjectivist chose their actions based on what they can do'. It has been said many times that none of the subjectivists here believe that might makes right and explained why. For me neither my empathy nor the golden rule allows for might to make right. And empathy and the golden rule specifically preclude me from doing something just because I can. so, let's take an actual example: I'm on a train right now and there's an annoying kid next to me with a pretty cool cell phone. I CAN punch the kid in the face and take his cellphone. Subjectivists are supposed to believe that might makes right and should do act as they please. Yet, I have empathy. If I were to punch the kid in the face I would share his feelings of pain, loss, and bewilderment. Furthermore, the golden rule means that since I do not wish for other people to punch me in the face and take my cell phone (however much they'd like to) I will do the same. Do you realize that nowhere here have I assumed any kind of objectivity of morals? It is actually completely irrelevant if my morals are true or not nor if they are shared by anybody else but me. Still, I do not act according to 'might makes right' nor do I do something simply because I can. In short, it is not a necessary entailment of moral subjectivism to act like a sociopath. So, if you wish you can address this specific case. Was anything I did here irrational? Was it necessary for me to assume or know that my morality is TRUE for everybody, everywhere, at every time? Did I need to use complex abstract thought even though I don't understand it and that therefore goes over my head? I would say 'no' on all accounts.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

WJM: "Another problem you and other “subjectivism” advocates have here is not being able to follow an argument. I never said subjectivists believe in anarchism." I apologize. I obviously jumped to that mistaken impression. It might have had to do with your statements below: "You can make that argument about anything, winding up with nothing but anarchy of thought." "Whether there is actually an objective basis for morality or not, we must act as if there is, and laws must be ordered as if there is, otherwise all you have is anarchy and chaos moving through an ocean of sentiment and might-makes-right manipulations." "So, logically, your position endorses elimination of law altogether and embracing true anarchy as people define for themselves what their “true self” is, how to “best” pursue it," "Yes, but from the objective perspective, we are not merely trying to influence others to be more like us (a rather petty ambition, if I may say so), but rather are trying to understand and help others understand a concept of morality that is rationally sound and justifies how people must act and argue in the real world, without which all we can have is the anarchy of subjective sentiment..." "Well, other than the fact that I spent years as a practicing moral subjectivist (not just a lip-service one) and actually had books promoting true moral subjectivism published (Anarchic Harmony,..."inquisitor_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Good post, Seversky. wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is nihilism. What he doesn't take into account is that people are much more complex (and human) than just being logical consequence machines. We care for each other, for instance, not because there is a logical reason to do so, but because it's part of the emotional nature of human beings.Aleta_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

It seems to me that the only difference between moral subjectivists and moral objectivists is that the objectivists are trying to annexe the moral high ground by asserting unwarranted claims of authority for their opinions based on ill-defined notions of truth and objectivity. They also persist in arguing a false dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity where moral beliefs are concerned. As was pointed out some time back, there is a middle ground of socially negotiated and constructed moralities by what is known is inter-subjective agreement and based on common human interests. Granted, they lack the comforting certainty of some absolute moral scale against which all behaviors can be measured. On the other hand, we worked them out for ourselves, they weren't dictated to or imposed on us by someone or something else. If we make mistakes and there are bad outcomes then it falls to us to make changes. We don't have to go to cap-in-hand someone else to ask what we should do because we are too dumb to try and work it out for ourselves. As for the argument that under subjectivism a psychopath who argues that he is justified in committing his crimes because it gives him pleasure is just as right as those who condemn him simply ignores the logical extension of that position. He may well believe it but all the other people in society who would strongly prefer that they and their families and friends should not be among his victims believe that he is wrong. And if we assume that the normal members of society vastly outnumber the psychopaths, guess which view, guess whose desires and interests prevail?Seversky_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Re #155:
Saying you can draw a 4-sided triangle is not the same as demonstrating it. Just saying ‘you believe it is warranted” does not explain how “imposing personal moral views on others” is warranted from the premise of moral subjectivity.
WJM, do you realize that you can do stuff without being warranted?
You might as well be saying “because I can, when I feel like it, I will impose my personal preferences on others.”
Yes. There are many things that I MIGHT say, but I don't. In fact, I tried to be very clear on what I said. Nowhere did it include the question of whether I can or can not do something. True, if I can not do something I won't do it. That is true for you as well. But just because I CAN do something is not how I chose to do something. Same for you again. The question how I justify for myself how I morally act was also explained to you.
Personal preferences are driven by all sorts of sentiment and emotions; does that mean you care whether or not other people act the same way you do wrt something you have a personal preference about?
Yes, it does. It has to do with the golden rule and empathy. Do you know what empathy even is? It means that if you observe and know of people treated a certain way, that you naturally share part of their emotions as a consequence of what happened. So, for example, when I see somebody being hit, I experience part of the pain they are experiencing as a consequence of being hit. So yes. I do care.
ou act as if empathy entitles you to act as if your personal preferences can be extended to other people and how they act out their personal preferences. Does it? If so, how so?
No. Exactly the opposite. Moral objectivists feel an entitlement to extend their view of morality on others. I feel no such entitlement. Yet, case by case, I make the decision if whether or not I will either attempt to convince somebody that my moral understanding is correct, simply ignore it, or forcibly deal with it.
Yes, indeed. Tell us what you mean by “moral subjectivism” and, while you are at it, explain how that premise justifies the forms your argument takes and justifies how you act in the real world wrt morality, especially in the case of intervening in the affairs of others and advocating for laws based upon your moral views.
I explained my views. These views make me a moral subjectivist. You disagree and claim that I am not a moral subjectivist but rather a deluded objectivists. So I think it would be up to you to explain. And there is nothing (i.e. no external authority) that justifies anything that I do. Only I ultimately justify my actions. Same as you. You have a view of the world and you justify for yourself what actions you take. They are based on what each of us think is right or wrong.
One of the problems I consistently run into with moral subjectivists (and materialists and atheists) is that they have a serious problem understanding complex abstract thought. I mean, this problem is pretty obvious in this thread, but I think what you are trying to explain to hrun is just over his head. He reads and understands things far too literally for this kind of argument.
Yes, yes, WJM. and by being irrational and failing to understand complex abstract thought it is the very same subjectivist, materialist, atheists that are responsible for ending rational debate.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

I guess Just Trudeau doesn't read UD. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/justin-trudeau-transgender-rights-legislation-2016-1.3584419inquisitor_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Stephenb: One of the problems I consistently run into with moral subjectivists (and materialists and atheists) is that they have a serious problem understanding complex abstract thought. I mean, this problem is pretty obvious in this thread, but I think what you are trying to explain to hrun is just over his head. He reads and understands things far too literally for this kind of argument. Right now, I'm imagining hrun responding: "Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it."William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

I've already broken down this statement from Aleta, but let me show once again exactly how inconsistent it is, both internally and wrt moral subjectivism:
I believe, strongly, that some people have inborn attractions to the same sex, and that some have an inborn sense of being born the wrong gender.
Similarly, one could make the case that people are "born with" all sorts of inborn proclivities and biological predilections.
These are biologically-based parts of their nature, and interact with their nurture (including various levels of their cultural surroundings) in just as complex a way as heterosexuality functions in the majority of people.
Again, this can be said about any aspect of human personality and behavior.
We (the generic “normal” person) did not choose to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and did not choose to feel a gender identity consistent with the biological sex we were born with. These are just part of our biological nature that are presented to us as we grow up.
In the same sense, there is no aspect of the biological states of our birth or our initial nurturing environment that anyone on Earth chose (arguendo).
So my moral belief is that all people, irrespective of their sexual or gender orientation, deserve the same consideration.
However, if other people by biologically predisposition and by nurture develop the moral belief that people do not deserve "the same consideration", then that too, by physical fact, is morally equivalent (just as valid) as Aleta's perspective here.
We are all people trying to be the best, truest self we can,
Under her subjectivist premise, Aleta has no right to make such claims about "we", only herself.
...and all of us have a moral responsibility to help others with this task, just as we would hope they would support us.
This is not a logically justifiable statement from the premise Aleta herself outlined above. Each of us will behave as we happen to behave, and think about that behavior whatever biological predispostion + nuture has developed in us. There is no universal "responsibility" to help others in any task, nor any warrant for the hope that would support us. She is projecting her personal morality as if it applies to others which is not derivable from moral subjectivism.
Therefore, as a moral choice, I support same-sex marriage and transgender accommodations.
If she supports a thing because, as she has outlined, it is a matter of their biological predisposition + nurture (and, btw, what the heck isn't a matter of biology + nurture under her premise?), then she must also support those who, because of their biology + nurture, behead homosexuals and transgenders. She must, as a matter of logical entailment from her stated premise, support anything anyone does or thinks that is the result of "biology + nuture".
Of course, this general belief does not extend universally to all traits of all people (because nothing is absolute): I don’t have a moral obligation to help a psychopath realize his true self, and such people do exist.
IOW, she's only going to extend the logical entailments of her moral premise so far as she is comfortable extending it. Why bother with the premise at all? She's going to support what she feels like supporting, and be against what she feels like being against. Period. The offered premise is irrelevant if one doesn't accept the logical entailments of the premise.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Re #148:
Right. It doesn’t exist as a legitimate right. Claiming it as a right and even enforcing same does not change its status.
StephenB, do you understand my confusion? You make two contradictory claims: 1) The right of comfort does not exist. 2) The right of comfort was gained by a minority and given up by a majority. When I follow up and ask: Hey, StephenB, how do you square this contradiction you say: Well, the right that was gained and lost was a non-existent right. And then you start adding more adjectives to right. To square this confusion you talk about legitimate right, enforced right, existent right, non-existent right, ... We are literally having a conversation where you talk about somebody has gained rights, but these rights are non-existent. Ok, I get that, they just THINK they have gained that right (but actually didn't). But then you claim that when this non-existent right is 'taken seriously and enforced' then it's actually a real right that can be gained and lost. But still, a 'real right that can be gained and lost' IS STILL 'an illegitemate, non-existent right'.
Recall that we are discussing two illegitimate rights (the unreal comfort standard granted to the transgender, and the same unreal comfort standard not granted to the nonstransgender, (as opposed to being taken away) and one legitimate right being taken away, (the right of the non-transgender woman to kick a man out of her restroom).
But that's not the same thing as you claimed previously. For quite a large number of posts you talked about the right of comfort being lost (or not afforded) to non-transgender women. Only in the last couple of posts did you talk about the supposedly legitimate right of 'kicking men out of restrooms'. By the way, is this a legal right or a natural, inherent right that can be gained or lost? By the way: If now you claim that the right of women is directly tied to the action they are allowed to perform (kicking people out of restrooms) and not their feeling of a situation (being comfortable) how did you come to the decision that the law for transgendered is not about the action (going to the restroom according to their self-identified gender) but about their feeling (being uncomfortable)?
The phenomenon of an enforced law on behalf of one group or person taking a right away from another group or person is inextricably tied to its enforcement. Whenever you enforce any right, real or imagined, it is going to adversely affect those to whom it is directed against. All laws are directed against one person or group for the sake of another person or group. I think my philosophy is safe (and sound) until someone can show me why this is not so.
Yes. I understand that's what you claim. However, you may realize that this statement has absolutely no meaning if by the rights that are gained and lost you also includes imagery, non-real rights.
Well, I have provided at least ten examples to show that a law always produces a down side, and you have provided no examples to the contrary. Under the circumstances, it would seem that my argument is much stronger.
StephenB, saying that 'a law always produces a down side' is not actually the same as claiming that 'for every right given to one group another group loses a right' and that is significantly different from 'for every existent or non-existent right given to one group another group loses a real or non-existent right'. Of course the final form is trivially true and has nothing to do with minorities or majorities. It is true if a right is given to everyone as well: If right A is gained by you, then the right to have not-right A extended to you is lost. Surely, you want your statement about rights (the one that I don't understand) to be more meaningful than that.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

hrun said:
Speaking for myself, as a moral subjectivist, I retain the option to impose these views on others where I believe it is warranted.
Saying you can draw a 4-sided triangle is not the same as demonstrating it. Just saying 'you believe it is warranted" does not explain how "imposing personal moral views on others" is warranted from the premise of moral subjectivity. You might as well be saying "because I can, when I feel like it, I will impose my personal preferences on others." Is that what you are actually trying to say?
Argh. Seriously? How often did a moral subjectivist in the two mongo threads explain that for many (all?) of us moral understanding is driven by empathy?
No matter how often you make the same non-sequitur, it is still irrelevant to the argument. Personal preferences are driven by all sorts of sentiment and emotions; does that mean you care whether or not other people act the same way you do wrt something you have a personal preference about? You act as if empathy entitles you to act as if your personal preferences can be extended to other people and how they act out their personal preferences. Does it? If so, how so?
You know, seeing this post makes me wonder if we shouldn’t go back to square one and make clear what we all mean when we talk about moral subjectivists and moral objectivists.
Yes, indeed. Tell us what you mean by "moral subjectivism" and, while you are at it, explain how that premise justifies the forms your argument takes and justifies how you act in the real world wrt morality, especially in the case of intervening in the affairs of others and advocating for laws based upon your moral views.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Eugen @96 said:
Atheists are getting away with so much in this and related threads. They want to eat their cake and have it. In a formal debate this wouldn’t be allowed. It’s the nature of this forum (and not a fault by any means) that moderator is also discussant so he has no time to remove himself from participating and fully moderate the discussion. It would be interesting if one or more atheists get the chance to write a post and form their argument or position. Hopefully the post would be concise and the best possible argument they can provide. Maybe they can pick one writer who is most eloquent. This way everybody, including themselves will get to know where they stand.
Good idea. If any moral subjectivist wants to write up a post on what their moral subjectivism means and entails wrt behavior and arguments, and hopefully explain a few things asked of them in this thread, I'd be happy to host it in a new thread. Instead of reiterating "you don't understand", 'splain it to us, Lucy.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
Apparently Aleta wants to be part of the group hug. Well, the more the merrier. WJM?
Not as long as you're on Brokeback Mountain.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Aleta said:
I find it very unconvincing (as well as other less-than-favorable qualities) when someone (in this case vivid) thinks he “really understands” someone else’s position (in this case, Inquisitor’s) better and more truly than the person himself does.
It seems truly difficult for you to actually follow an argument. I haven't said or implied that I understand inquisitor's position better than he does; my claim is that I understand the logical entailments of moral subjectivism better than he does, better than you do, and better than hrun does. Do you understand what a logical entailment is? It is a necessary aspect or conclusion. Just because you, inquisitor and hrun claim to be "moral subjectivists" doesn't mean you actually act as if you are one, or structure your arguments appropriately wrt to moral subjectivism. In fact, you do not. Inquisitor, you and hrun are free to make your case, then, about how your terminology, phrasings and behavior in the world is more comparable to such activities with regard to commodities you also believe are matters of personal preference than they are comparable to commodities you believe are matters of objective fact. Begin here: in the real world, people do not advocate that that things they hold to be matters of personal preference should carry the weight of law. They do not claim that people who have different personal preferences are "wrong" (except in jest or flippantly). They do not care if other people elsewhere are indulging in personal preferences they do not care for, or even that personally disgust them. Now, reconcile your actual behavior in the real world, and your actual terminology, with your supposed "moral subjectivism". Make your case how your words and behaviors wrt morality corresponds to your words and behaviors wrt other subjective matters of personal preference. "You don't understand" is not an argument; it's an evasion of one. Explain it, then. And please pay attention to what I'm actually asking you to elaborate on - don't go down rabbit holes or respond to a straw man.
The belief that moral subjectivism is equivalent to nihilism is the black-and-white, slippery precipice, over-the-cliff perspective which totally ignores any human nuance.
Where did I say it was the equivalent of nihilism?
It is an ivory tower strawman that might have its home with some philosophers, but is not relevant to the vast majority of human beings who believe as we who are representing this view do.
Unless you can show me where in this argument I have drawn an equivalence between moral subjectivism and nihilism, who is it that is attacking a straw man? Reiterating over and over that others "do not understand" your moral subjectivism, or claiming that some imagined "vast majority" of moral subjectivists have some "nuanced", complex version of "moral subjectivism" that grants you relief from the "black and white" argument I have provided about what moral subjectivism logically entails, does nothing whatsoever to rationally explain how your real world behavior and arguments/phrasings/terminologies here can be justifiably extracted from your premise that morality is subjective in nature. In short, it is my position that in the real world, you, hrun and inquisitor do not act nor argue as if morality is a subjective commodity like flavor or music; you act and argue as if morality is an objective commodity that, at least in some things, everyone should agree on and, at least in some things, you are willing to impose on others by advocating for force of law. Now, instead of saying "you don't understand", make your case that you actually behave and talk like a moral subjectivist.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

IOW, Aleta, if you, inquisitor and hrun were logically consistent with the logical entailments of your professed belief, you would act and argue entirely differently than you actually do.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Aleta said:
My point was that his experience, and his conclusion from it, while valid for him, is not universally valid for others of us. There is a difference between William’s personal perspective and a blanket claim that all subjective moralists are effectively nihilists if they were just honest with themselves
Then it is a good thing I never made such a claim. My actual position is that people who claim to be moral subjectivists are not practicing, logically-consistent moral subjectivists; if they were, they would behave and argue (with regard to moral incidents and questions) in a manner comparable to anything else they hold to be matters of subjective preference. They do not; no one does. IOW, they (including you, hrun, inquisitor) are hypocrites, claiming to be moral subjectivists, claiming moral subjectivism is true, while acting and arguing as if moral objectivism is true. IOW, they are willing to argue that other moral preferences are wrong and continue to characterize them as such, they are willing to intervene in the affairs of others when others are engaging in some activity they personally react to strongly enough, and they are willing to force their personal moral preferences on others via force of law. This is not how a logically-consistent subjectivist behaves or talks in matters they truly believe are, in fact, matters of subjective personal preference.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
The fact that you think that subjectivists believe in anarchy speaks volumes (as KF soul say). I would argue that you were on the extreme nihilistic fringe of moral subjectivism. Which explains why you don’t understand it.
Another problem you and other "subjectivism" advocates have here is not being able to follow an argument. I never said subjectivists believe in anarchism. Certainly, people here that call themselves moral subjectivists do not. The problem is that moral anarchism is the necessary logical entailment of logically consistent moral subjectivism. Claiming that moral subjectivism doesn't necessarily logically entail moral anarchism is not showing it or making a case that it does not. Claiming that you "are" a moral subjectivist and that you "are not" a moral anarchist (or a moral solipsist) does not make the case. Anyone can claim to be a logically consistent X while espousing things that contradict X like Aleta has done twice now. Claiming it doesn't show it. If you actually believe that morality is a matter of subjective personal preferences, then your reactions to and behavior with regards to moral situations would mirror that of other things which you consider matters of subjective preference, like preferences of music or fashion. You do not, Aleta does not, nobody here does. Only sociopaths act like moral subjectivists. You and Aleta and Hrun want to be able to claim to be moral subjectivists without actually having to act or react like one, and without having to make arguments and word your arguments as if you were one. That's called being hypocrites. If you were true (logically-consistent) moral subjectivists, it would not matter to you how others treated transgenders, just as it would not matter to you that others disliked music you personally enjoy. You certainly wouldn't be interested in the folly of trying to convince others to have the same personal, subjective moral preferences you happen to have. That's just not the way the category of "subjective" preferences works in real life. So your claim that you are "moral subjectivists" is hilariously, hypocritically absurd. You might fancy yourselves that, but you certainly are not that. You could not live a day as a logically-consistent moral subjectivists. None of you could.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

hrun
As an aside: I have the strong suspicion that much of the confusion comes from how you use the term ‘right’. Maybe if you were to preface things by ‘legal right’ when you are talking about a right that is granted by law or government and ‘natural right’ when you talk about rights that you think people inherently are endowed with.
Yes, perhaps that could help at times. I will be on the alert for that.
If an unjustly claimed right is taken seriously and enforced, does that not mean it now exists as a right?
It doesn’t exist as a legitimate right, but it does exist as an illegitimate claimed right with legal consequences, which means it can be enforced.
So I guess you see where this is going: You say that the non-existent right is ‘the right for comfort’ which we now agree simply does not exist.
Right. It doesn’t exist as a legitimate right. Claiming it as a right and even enforcing same does not change its status.
However, you also say that only once it exists as a serious and enforceable right does it take away someone else right. However, since we both agree that the right of comfort does not exist, this situation (where this right is taken away from somebody else) also can not exist.
Recall that we are discussing two illegitimate rights (the unreal comfort standard granted to the transgender, and the same unreal comfort standard not granted to the nonstransgender, (as opposed to being taken away) and one legitimate right being taken away, (the right of the non-transgender woman to kick a man out of her restroom).
So I fear we are still in a situation where either the right of comfort does not exist OR where the right of comfort can be taken away from some and given to others. From your explanation it does not appear possible for both of those statements to be true.
Again, we must make the distinction between an unreal legal right (comfort) not being granted to the nontransgender, and a real legal right being taken away (protection from potential sexual abusers and predators). SB: Again, I cannot emphasize the point too strongly. You cannot just start passing all kinds of rights around and think that freedom is being advanced. On the contrary, freedom is maximized when only the basic human rights are acknowledged and protected (life, Free express, free assembly, due process etc.) Arbitrarily granted rights, or rights made up, will compromise or take away more essential rights.
Yes, I understand that this is your philosophy. But I would submit that it would carry significantly more weight if you could show that your understanding of rights (for every granted right to one group a different right is taken away from another) pertains to existing rights and not to imaginary, non-existent rights.
The phenomenon of an enforced law on behalf of one group or person taking a right away from another group or person is inextricably tied to its enforcement. Whenever you enforce any right, real or imagined, it is going to adversely affect those to whom it is directed against. All laws are directed against one person or group for the sake of another person or group. I think my philosophy is safe (and sound) until someone can show me why this is not so.
You know that from my point of view there is really no downside in granting and taking away a dozen non-existent imaginary rights from random people before breakfast every day.
Well, I have provided at least ten examples to show that a law always produces a down side, and you have provided no examples to the contrary. Under the circumstances, it would seem that my argument is much stronger.
Unless, of course doing so turns them into existing rights, but that would mean that the right of comfort exists– which it doesn’t.
As you probably suspect by now, there is no way for an illegitimate legal right to morph into a legitimate legal right. However, an illegitimate right can be treated as a legitimate legal right, producing the inevitable downside to whom it is being directed against.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I got back up for a moment. The onward sustained attitude of disrespect, denigration and intransigence in the teeth of reasons to reconsider speaks for itself. Notice the list I cited and responded above is an exercise in utterly uncivil invidious association which is a form of personal attack, and on my correction the reaction was to double down. That speaks volumes as to what is going on and where the problem is coming from. I and others of like ilk need to recognise that "he hit back first" is not an excuse for turnabout accusation and projection of false and slanderous accusation. Remember, too, that it is across several threads of discussion and in the case of the specific thread after nearly 900 comments and much opportunity to correct the attitudes that are still on display that I have acted. Attitudes and tactics that are literally straight out of the Alinsky playbook for cultural marxist, nihilistic agit prop, which pivots on divisiveness, slander and accusation to poison and polarise then domineer, rather than to responsibly, rationally and civilly discuss and come to a reasonable conclusion. Where, also, the record will bear out that repeatedly the flash-point for doubling down, turnabout accusation and attempted triggering of a crocodile death roll in the swamp, has been that I have for many years identified a habitual pattern on the part of evolutionary materialist and fellow traveller activists of distraction, distortion and denigration which is intended to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion, frustrating sensible conclusions. I have spoken for record, and that record will speak for itself. Good night again, KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Inquisitor RE 144 KF may be a lot of things but dishonest he is not. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

KF RE 135 I, 103: >>By that logic, the Westborro Babtist church, the KKK, the Salem witch hunters, the conquistadors and KF best understand Christianity. Do you really want to go down that road?>> KF this was really aimed at me although you were mentioned, as you can see my response was not to take offense rather to challenge Inquisitor to " go for it" I would note also that one of the reasons I did not take offense was because I don't think Inq meant to be offensive. You and I agree that ideas have consequences and I recognize that you personally have had to live through the consequences and have encountered slurs against you for the stand you have taken. Probably more than I know and what I do know does not paint a pretty picture. You have been through a lot. However since it was my comments that precipitated Inq's response I feel it my duty to point out my own personal experience with Inq. There is not one time that Inq has called me a bigot, hater or besmirched my character in anyway and we have had some spirited discussions on very contentious issues. Now your experiences may be different so I cannot speak for you I can only speak for myself. The reason I told Inq "to go for it "is that if I am going to challenge others to take their worldview to their logical conclusion it is incumbent on me to apply that same standard to myself. I am more than willing to engage the KKK or Westborough, etc, etc, as it relates to my worldview. Both groups are repugnant and bring dishonor to the name of Christ. The KKK are anti Semitic , how incoherent is that? To espouse a savior that is Jewish and claim they are Christians. That's insane. Anyway I digress. KF you and I go way back to the ARN days. I hope you know that you have my utmost respect and admiration. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Hrun: "So I guess KF is not into joining our hug-fest. :)" I guess not. He is too busy playing the aggrieved martyr. But, maybe he will finally answer my question. No. Maybe not. That would require honesty.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Re #142: I guess that answers neither of my questions, but I cannot be sure.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

HR, I have spoken correctively here for record. You and your ilk are now accountable before the truth, and should consider carefully your ways. You know full well, also that it is after nearly 900 comments worth of responding step by step in a context of all sorts of unretracted accusations of bigotry, hate, cowardice, invidious comparison with the KKK and the like and a final move utterly beyond the pale that I said it is time to walk back some intemperate things. Only to be met with further abusive conduct that is of the order I just corrected for record that I said, enough is enough it is time to draw terminus and make it clear that there is a breach of civil discourse through constructive disengagement by illegitimate tactics of demonisation, coming from your ilk. The same scriptures that I has been implicitly seeking to undermine and suggest that his interlocutors do not understand say this: warn a divisive person once twice, three times and after than have nothing to do with him. Persistent demonisation, scapegoating, stereotyping, invidious comparison, refusal to heed reasonable response and the like are utterly divisive and uncivil tactics, HR, as you full well know. There is indeed a breach, but you need to think vary carefully about the constructive responsibility for that breach. Just ask yourself, would you go into someone's living room and speak to him in the presence of family and friends as has now become routine among your ilk? What would happen, and why would it be fully justified? Good night. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply