Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure.
Subjectively.
Yes. I suppose this is a moral claim.Should be is a moral claim.
Objective morality is not moral absolutism. The existence of exceptions is not only compatible with objective morality but such exceptions are arguably necessary for morality to be just.It's not obvious it should be...after all, whatever you hope to lay claim as moral and good or evil will be immediately abandoned under certain conditions.
I am indeed tying justice to objective morality.If you're tying justice directly to objective morality.
The idea is that we are subject to an objective reality. This underlying concept is present in our legal and financial systems regardless of whether one believes in the Christian God. It means there is an objective position outside of ourselves.Had that been in our founding...I might care.
It wasn't.
Your liberty shouldn't come at the expense of mine and mine shouldn't come at the expense of yours. Where do you get the idea that we "need not justify" moral goods and evils to those around us? We do it all the time. There's this thing called accountability, to others and to ourselves, that accompanies objectivity.We are unfortunately, a nation created to maximize individual freedom and liberty. Therein is the cause of such disagreement regarding morality. We act as if we need not account to justify the small or large moral goods and evils to those around us.
Agreed. At least ideally. The way I see it, a just system is linked to the objective whereas an unjust system is subjective. That's why crooked judges and kangaroo courts are a bad idea.Law is linked to the objective.
We each subjectively interact with the rules, but moral accountability extends beyond ourselves. The closer we get to moral objectivity, the more fair we can be about drafting such rules and enforcing them.We lay down very specific rules that we must, as a society, obey. But morality is something that we each determine.
Yes. I suppose this is a moral claim.
Objective morality is not moral absolutism.
The existence of exceptions is not only compatible with objective morality but such exceptions are arguably necessary for morality to be just.
I am indeed tying justice to objective morality.
The idea is that we are subject to an objective reality.
This underlying concept is present in our legal and financial systems regardless of whether one believes in the Christian God. It means there is an objective position outside of ourselves.
Your liberty shouldn't come at the expense of mine and mine shouldn't come at the expense of yours.
Where do you get the idea that we "need not justify" moral goods and evils to those around us? We do it all the time.
The thing is that if any of us claims to know in absolute terms that morality is socially constructed, then we need to realize from that claim that no one has to be expected to conform.
So, the next time a Marxist gets in my face and expects me to "conform," I can say that their implementation of Marxian terms and ideology is merely a social construct and NOT really an eschalating progress of democratic, collective equalities among people.
Somehow, though, most people I meet really DO think that all people and constructive relationships have inherent value of an objective nature. Even if they don't aver for the recognition of this value in an absolute way, then they usually do at least in a pragmatic way, worked out and negotiated as a civic principle.
I don't think I put it very well. What I was trying to say in too few words was that we decide, individually - or as a society in general, what constitutes behaviour that we consider to be harmful to that society. And which we try to dissuade people from doing by nominating a punishment. That behaviour isn't immoral. Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.Agreed. At least ideally. The way I see it, a just system is linked to the objective whereas an unjust system is subjective. That's why crooked judges and kangaroo courts are a bad idea.
Why not?That behaviour isn't immoral.
Your conclusion that the behavior isn't immoral cannot be logically drawn from these statements. What you require is an altogether different premise, "That which is illegal is not necessarily immoral."Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.
By what definition?But defining the laws is, by definition, subjective.
But the hypothetical, "If you commit X crime then you will suffer Y punishment" is not a fact. It often doesn't obtain at all.But the law itself then becomes an objective fact. If you do X then Y will happen
See my response to @essentialsaltes <here>. If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective. For example, we think 2+2=4 is objective because we think it is reasonable and persuasive. The very fact that we have so many uncontroversial laws is evidence that there are uncontroversial "touchstones." If there were no such touchstones then we wouldn't be able to agree on a secular law against murder, for example.But, as @essentialsaltes said (or at least I think he's implying something like it), any attempt to justify said touchstone to opponents becomes a game of infinite turtles.
The law doesn't deal with morals. Some acts are both illegal and immoral of course. But not illegal because they are immoral.Why not?
I'll go with that. Plus the other side of coin obtains: That which is immoral is not necessarily illegal. There's definitely an overlap.Your conclusion that the behavior isn't immoral cannot be logically drawn from these statements. What you require is an altogether different premise, "That which is illegal is not necessarily immoral."
We decide what the laws should be. For example...a crime of passion is treated in some states and countries much less severely than a cold blooded killing. The punishment is relative to the circumstances.By what definition?
Well, I'm assuming that you are caught. So 'If you blow more than 0.05 then you will be arrested'. That's an objective fact.But the hypothetical, "If you commit X crime then you will suffer Y punishment" is not a fact. It often doesn't obtain at all.
It must be. As you said, he thinks that his morality is the most reasonable. You might not. I might also disagree. What he thinks - literally his opinion, is not objectively true.See my response to @essentialsaltes. If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective.
That's not an argument. Why doesn't the law deal with morals? It seems pretty obvious it does (and I don't know of any respectable philosophers who disagree). For example, a law against sex trafficking is clearly a moral law.The law doesn't deal with morals. Some acts are both illegal and immoral of course. But not illegal because they are immoral.
Then try to provide an argument to defend it.I'll go with that.
Does it strike you as a giant coincidence that every nation on Earth decided on a law against murder?We decide what the laws should be.
But you're conflating an enforcement mechanism with a law. The law isn't against blowing. The law is against driving drunk. There are lots of ways to enforce laws, and the enforcement methods obviously need to be measurable. I'm not sure how that makes the law "objective." This goes back to your confusion about rules vs. consequences.Well, I'm assuming that you are caught. So 'If you blow more than 0.05 then you will be arrested'. That's an objective fact.
No, that's entirely wrong. Go to the example I gave: 2+2=4. I think that mathematical proposition is reasonable and persuasive. On your strange reasoning that means it is not objectively true.It must be. As you said, he thinks that his morality is the most reasonable. You might not. I might also disagree. What he thinks - literally his opinion, is not objectively true.
The law doesn't deal with morality because it's not its job to do so. It's only concerned with preventing harm (to individuals and society in general). Giving examples of laws that are there to prevent acts which are harmful which you might also consider to be immoral doesn't change that.That's not an argument. Why doesn't the law deal with morals? It seems pretty obvious it does (and I don't know of any respectable philosophers who disagree). For example, a law against sex trafficking is clearly a moral law.
I'm agreeing with you. You want me to defend your argument?Then try to provide an argument to defend it.
No, of course not. Some things that are harmful we also consider to be immoral as well.Does it strike you as a giant coincidence that every nation on Earth decided on a law against murder?
As I said, if you break the law - and are caught, then the punishment is defined. We don't leave it up to someone's opinion as to whether the law has been broken (assuming the act has been proven to have occurred). I'm not really interested in how you get caught. I'm not sure why you think that matters.But you're conflating an enforcement mechanism with a law. The law isn't against blowing. The law is against driving drunk. There are lots of ways to enforce laws, and the enforcement methods obviously need to be measurable. I'm not sure how that makes the law "objective." This goes back to your confusion about rules vs. consequences.
Surely not. Really..?In fact you haven't given any definitions of the terms you are relying upon, including, "Law," "Morality," "Objective," "Subjective," etc.
2+2 = 4 is a fact. It's not an opinion (I hope you don't need definitions for those as well). It's 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.No, that's entirely wrong. Go to the example I gave: 2+2=4. I think that mathematical proposition is reasonable and persuasive. On your strange reasoning that means it is not objectively true.
The thing is that if any of us claims to know in absolute terms that morality is socially constructed, then we need to realize from that claim that no one has to be expected to conform.
So, the next time a Marxist gets in my face and expects me to "conform,"
Somehow, though, most people I meet really DO think that all people and constructive relationships have inherent value of an objective nature.
I don't think I put it very well. What I was trying to say in too few words was that we decide, individually - or as a society in general, what constitutes behaviour that we consider to be harmful to that society.
And which we try to dissuade people from doing by nominating a punishment.
Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. I think that we all more or less have a common moral "minimum" built within us, whether we can articulate details about that "minimum" or not. I think this premise can be supported both from a secular angle and from a Biblical angle, even if each angle isn't exactly congruent with the other.Interesting. It'll take me time to chew on this before I can decide if I agree or disagree and to what extent. But it sounds promising. Briefly, are you saying people generally like to think there is a touchstone; we just can't agree on what it is?
God would seem the obvious touchstone for the religious, Nature possibly for the unbeliever. But, as @essentialsaltes said (or at least I think he's implying something like it), any attempt to justify said touchstone to opponents becomes a game of infinite turtles.
I agree. But by social construct, Liberals of all stripes tend to mean that social rules are negotiated as a composite idea from diverse streams and as such can be revised as needed. To small degree, there is some truth in this; it's just not the whole truth about Truth.Saying something is "socially constructed" almost a sign of mental handicap. What part of society isn't socially constructed in some way?
We don't need the phrase at all. It's entirely meaningless inside society....totally useless outside it.
Yes, exactly. I agree.They aren't doing that because of morals though....it's a power grab.
Christians ask you to act morally...and forgive you and allow you back into their group when you do so. Marxists demand you act as they tell you to....because their only moral praxis is purely a utilitarian power grab. It's not as if they have any clear set of moral values at all....but they will enforce whatever demands they make, however they can.
If you've never watched Alone....that TV wilderness survival show....yes, they do have an inherent value. You'd die otherwise.
As for an expectation of conformity....why wouldn't any group you were joining or born into expect you to conform to their moral standards of behavior if you want to stay in the group?
I think it is "nature" in both cases, just described through different ontological and diagnostic lenses.
The upshot here of course, and in the case of Christianity is one that is always the fly in the democratic ointment, is the idea that the "Real Rule" wasn't delivered by diverse amalgamation, but that it arrived to us through revelation and cannot simply be dismissed and countermanded by demagogues, radicals, socialists, or various Liberals, however much they muse that they think "better" about it all.
If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective.
The upshot here of course, and in the case of Christianity is one that is always the fly in the democratic ointment, is the idea that the "Real Rule" wasn't delivered by diverse amalgamation, but that it arrived to us through revelation and cannot simply be dismissed and countermanded by demagogues, radicals, socialists, or various Liberals, however much they muse that they think "better" about it all.
My taste for pineapple on pizza is most good, reasonable and persuasive ['Try it, you'll like it!'], but I do not consider it objective.There are ways of reasoning by which @essentialsaltes could think that, but I'm not going to speak for him. It doesn't mean he is right or that you agree with him, but it's a silly exercise for us to tell him what he thinks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?