Well there's a lot of you so I'm going to be brief.
Oh for for fuck's sake. I am saying they are wrong IN MY OPINION and that in the future, cultures will NOT see those things as morally good. Jesus fucking Christ dude.
Do you think raging profanity makes your points stronger or weaker?
Anyways, your post is another big contradiction. In one place, speaking of cultures of the future, you write:
their morality will differ from ours in many ways. And in that difference, they will feel the same smug superiority that we currently do when we look on in horror and disgust at cannibals and human sacrifices. The truth, however, is that it simply changes over time. There is no 'goal' for it. There is no objectivity to it.
That's different from what you wrote before, where you positivly couldn't wait for the culture of the future without it's problems with gays, women's rights, racism, and circumcision. Now there's no objectivity and it's all whatever, man.
Saying that though, you pivot directly into how awful I am for not thinking gay people should be able to get married. But equal rights for all is just your opinion, isn't it? It's all just a matter of taste, right? If you like apple pie that's great, but why should I have to like apple pie just because you do? Why do we all have to obey your insignificant tastes? Quit trying to shove your morality down my throat!
You also try to provide some cover by saying things like "I think" and "In my Opinion." That's cute. Here, watch me!
I THINK that the current standard model of physics with it's 92 particles is probably an inaccurate description of morality.
IT's MY OPINION that factoring the product of two prime numbers can not be solved in polynomial time.
I THINK that there are no odd perfect numbers.
IT's MY OPINION that traveling on a closed timelike curve on a Lorentzian manifold is impossible.
When you say:
On a personal note, I THINK [the prohibition of gay marriage] should changed because I THINK it's wrong.
You're I THINK (even though it's in all caps!) doesn't provide you as much cover as you think it does. The operative phrase in that sentence is still "it's wrong," proving you really do belive in objective morality.
Oh, and by the way: Sex Trafficking is not "incredibly rare." It is in fact tragically common - millions of girls every year are abducted, brutally beaten and gang-raped into submission, and forced into prostitution. This is a malignant cancer on our world, a brutal, ugly, demonic ugliness, a tragic brokenness that must itself be broken. Denying this is inherently evil
is as wrong as saying 2+2=5.Timo
This post is about objective morality. I brought up gay marriage because I knew Jeff would feel passionately about it and get him to betray his belief in objective morality. Your post demonstrates you too believe in objective morality:
But all that's neither here nor there. I think that, as a legal question, this isn't something that can be settled by a majority vote. It's a question of civil rights. In other words, my problem with denying same-sex partners the right to marry isn't that I think that doing so is immoral (though I have no problem saying that I think it is)
Exactly. Some things are wrong. You think denying same-sex partners the right to marry is one of them. I disagree with you, but at least we can agree on the fact that some things are right, and some things are wrong.Rustybeatz,
of course I think fairness is a virtue. I was pointing out that Jeff also think it's a virtue, and he has demonstrated multiple times that he think it's an objective virtue, and not a matter of taste.Add Homonym
, you only talk about gay marriage and how awful the bible is, not objective morality. See my comments to Timo above.
This thread is about objective morality. I get that you guys feel passionately about gay marriage, I'm trying to get you to see that this thing you feel passionately about betrays that you believe in objective morality, i.e., some things really are wrong. (And in your opinion, intolerant homophobic bigoted hatemongering behavior is one of them)
Oh, but you do say "based on the premise that we should be nice to people, for our society to flourish." Another example of objective morality.Anfauglir
Let me just say, you're a breath of fresh air.
That being said, I have to take issue with your point. You say,
Indeed, that would be the crux of any system of morality for me - that what's right for me is right for you, and what's wrong for you is wrong for me too.
This is exactly
what a subjective system of morality denies, and what an objective system of morality affirms!Screwtape,
If the statement "only beliefs that can be backed up by evidence are true" is true, that what evidence can you provide to back up your statement? Evidentialism is self-defeating.12 Monkeys
I disagree. Marks for the lack of profanity, next time provide some argumentation instead of bare assertionpiandodwarf
I'm not sure I follow, but if am following you correctly, I think
I agree with you. Are you in the objective camp or the subjective camp, as you define them?
And finally gonegolfing
Your post was fun. I think I'll just repeat it, pointing out (via bold letters) where you, too, clearly believe in objective morality:
There you go again MiC ! ... Red Herring....Prevailing Wisdom ? Can you get any more disingenuous ? You know right well that the vast majority of the bigotry shown by homophobes to gay individuals has a religious basis....Don't deny it !
What is this religious bigotry based on ? the faults and fallacies of ancient tribal "wisdom".
What's actually being said by the religious: "It is good here in the 21 century to show bigotry towards and deny basic human rights to law abiding citizens who don't cling to the ancient principles and antiquated moral codes that I do".....Nice !
The only culture that is speaking on religionists behalf on this issue is the ancient culture of the Hebrews/Jews. They have no culture but that of a 3000 year old relic of one--from a tribe of nomads.
They should be ashamed of themselves for having such antiquated and bigoted beliefs. Their behaviour and thinking on this important issue is in fact immoral behaviour. Why ? Because it's a simple fact that they have not one good and logical reason to hold their opinions other than their own selfish and bigoted ideas. That's why. They cannot provide one rational reason to deny gays equal rights under the law and therefore they expose themselves to be the immoral and bigoted individuals that they are.
They have an abhorrant view of what being gay is and what that individuals character consists of that is gay, and would be lying to say that they have any positive feelings about gays at all. Their instructed by their holy book, which is far from "holy", to despise and punish gays, and through the law that is exactly what is trying to be accomplished. MiC your smugness and arrogance is obvious in your posts and you gloat in the fact that on occasion pernicious religious beliefs win out over moral human rights. ....This is the sure sign of an individual who has willingly given up their sense of moral rightness and allowed their minds to be seduced by harmful religious doctrines that make religionists to be judgemental, controlling, morally weak, and instills in them a false sense of superiority over others.
Since there are no good reasons whatsoever to believe that a god exists external of the imagination, it is therefore then not a supposed god that despises gays, but religionists--the ones who have given their minds over to the reasoning's of ancient savages and nomads--the ones who have created god just the way they like it--the immoral ones, yes, they and their discrimination's and fears who despises gays and desires to deprive them of equal rights.
Religionists parade around as if its a judgement that is out of their hands and that they love people, and that they are only doing what the good book says to do, but the wiser know for a fact that it is they alone that despise gays and thus prove themselves to be bigoted and morally corrupt of their own making, and simply use the god-idea as a selfish means to violate and oppress those who think and act differently than they do.
Edit: clarify a point.