Square roots and Moral Relativism

[Elioenai26]

Is saying Rape is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Child molestation is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Murder is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is Not loving our neighbor as ourselves always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Who says that the proposition "rape is wrong objectively" needs to be proven? When we see someone being raped, do we not know that is never something anyone should ever do? In fact, I would say it is even more evident that rape is always wrong than the fact that √64 is 8 because one has to be taught how to do square roots to get the right answer. We do not have to be taught that rape is wrong, we know its wrong.And if someone gets their math wrong, does that mean that the √64 is not 8? Of course not! If someone says that rape is not always wrong, does that mean it is not always wrong? If we don't even know how to do square roots, does that mean √64 is not 8? Of course not.

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not. If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference. Some like it some don't. Subjective facts exist only with regards to personal preference. Objective facts are never not true.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

Or it is not a morally good or bad act, it's just an act that someone does, like doing math sums. Adding and subtracting is neither morally good or bad. Its just adding and subtracting.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you starting several threads on the same topic? You've opened no less than five threads on moral relativism.

Since the line of reasoning in this thread seems to be no different to previous threads, I'll just repeat what I've said earlier:

You seem to have missed the point. If morality is like mathematics, in the sense that you could objectively demonstrate that the √64 is 8 to someone who doesn't believe it, then surely you could objectively demonstrate the same for moral values? Instead what you are doing is insisting that they are objective, but not demonstrating that they are so. The statement "The √64 is 8" isn't true by virtue of your insistence, but by virtue of the logic of mathematics.

 

[quatona]

Is saying Rape is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Child molestation is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Murder is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is Not loving our neighbor as ourselves always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

No.

Who says that the proposition "rape is wrong objectively" needs to be proven?

I say that before you want me to pretend that an objective standard exists you better substantiate this idea. Else I will file it under "Elioenai´s subjective opinion".

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not.

Show me the objective standard - without appealing to subjective ideas.
Once you have done that we can talk about "objectively wrong".

If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference.

Yes, and in order to escape this we would need to have an objective standard.

Some like it some don't. Subjective facts exist only with regards to personal preference. Objective facts are never not true.

"Subjective facts" is an oxymoron.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

"Preference" is ok, "taste" tends to be misleading.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

Or both. The first is demonstrable, the basis for the latter has yet to be established.

Or it is not a morally good or bad act, it's just an act that someone does, like doing math sums. Adding and subtracting is neither morally good or bad. Its just adding and subtracting.

Which would mean that there is an objectively correct way of raping someone and an objectively incorrect way of doing it.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

The first is not only plausible but demonstrable.
The second would be attractive to me, but unfortunately is lacking substantiation.
The third doesn´t resemble any really existing meta-ethical idea that I am aware of.

 

[quatona]

Why are you starting several threads on the same topic? You've opened no less than five threads on moral relativism.

That´s obvious, isn´t it: He is unable to make his case for an "objective morality" existing - so he keeps us busy with poor arguments from consequence. .

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That´s obvious, isn´t it: He is unable to make his case for an "objective morality" existing - so he keeps us busy with poor arguments from consequence. .

It looks like a "divide and conquer" strategy. I can't keep up with five threads on the same topic. If the same is true of others, he will perhaps try to claim a glorious victory by default.

 

[Freodin]

So have stayed awaked long enough in school to know that the square root of 64 is 8. Laudable.

But the question remains - and it still remains and will remain as long as you stall and don't present your arguments: how do you know? Because someone told you? Because people agree?

Is it also objectively true that the cubic root of 19902510 is 271? Go around and ask people on the street for their opinion. Perhaps you will find not quite a few who tell you: "I'm not sure."

But it is self-evident! It is objective! It is either true or false! Or is it? Where do you go to find out if it is objectively true? What do you do?

Present your arguments! Present your math! Show them! Don't tell them it is self-evident, and don't attack them if them disagree with you.

SHOW THEM! That's the way to do it.

And that is for an indeed objective field like maths. (In case you missed it: I already stated that there are indeed existing objective truths. And there are existing subjective truths.)

Now let's do the same for a different field:

Is rape always wrong, just as Brussel Sprouts always taste bad?

Is child molestation always wrong, just as Chocolade Icecream is always better than Strawberry Icecream?

 

[KCfromNC]

Who says that the proposition "rape is wrong objectively" needs to be proven?

No one. None of us care about your opinion on the matter. Why keep bringing it up?

 

[essentialsaltes]

When we see someone being raped, do we not know that is never something anyone should ever do?

Serial rapists would disagree.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't.

That appears to be the case.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

As Freodin suggests, you should do the math and show your work. I know how to establish mathematical truths, or other objective truths about the world. Show us how you generate objective truths for 'ought' statements.

According to you, "do we not know that is never something anyone should ever do?"

So apparently it is something we just know, through intuition perhaps. This is fine, except that people have different moral intuitions (on abortion or premarital sex). This is evidence for subjective morality.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Can anyone conceive of a situation in which rape might be appropriate?

 

[keith99]

Can anyone conceive of a situation in which rape might be appropriate?

Yes,

Read the Science Fiction Short Story "Not with a Bang". Yuo should then be able to think of one.

Assuming you think the human race is worth keeping.

 

[Jade Margery]

Is saying Rape is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

No.

Is saying Child molestation is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Nope.

Is saying Murder is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Nay.

Is Not loving our neighbor as ourselves always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Non.

Who says that the proposition "rape is wrong objectively" needs to be proven?

Me, if you are actually claiming it to be an objective truth. You make a claim, you must support or prove it before it is accepted. Pretty standard stuff.

When we see someone being raped, do we not know that is never something anyone should ever do? In fact, I would say it is even more evident that rape is always wrong than the fact that √64 is 8 because one has to be taught how to do square roots to get the right answer. We do not have to be taught that rape is wrong, we know its wrong.And if someone gets their math wrong, does that mean that the √64 is not 8? Of course not! If someone says that rape is not always wrong, does that mean it is not always wrong? If we don't even know how to do square roots, does that mean √64 is not 8? Of course not.

There are many cultures where people are not taught that rape is wrong, and where they seem to lack the inherent realization of wrongness that you assume exists. So your argument that this claim is not something that is learned is only so much bovine excrement.

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not.

It's not.

However, it is subjectively wrong from the point of view of nearly all of the people it has been done to and most of the people who care about them, and all those who would not enjoy experiencing it themselves or having someone they care about experience it, so we have made laws against it based on these subjective opinions.

If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference. Some like it some don't. Subjective facts exist only with regards to personal preference. Objective facts are never not true.

Ice cream being good is an objective fact. People saying that ice cream is not good does not actually make it not good, because we all know that ice cream is good.

This is your argument. It is silly.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

Rapists prefer it. Rape victims don't. It IS up to a person's taste.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

There is no such thing as an objective moral wrong.

Or it is not a morally good or bad act, it's just an act that someone does, like doing math sums. Adding and subtracting is neither morally good or bad. Its just adding and subtracting.

In an uncaring, cosmic sense, this is probably closest to the truth. On a human level, the majority of us find it subjectively wrong.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

Yet another thread illustrating your inability to realize the difference between wide-spread popular opinion and actual facts. Yawn.

 

[Jade Margery]

It looks like a "divide and conquer" strategy. I can't keep up with five threads on the same topic. If the same is true of others, he will perhaps try to claim a glorious victory by default.

Perhaps each of us should stake a claim on one of them then. I mean, his arguments are so poor it's not like there needs to be more than one of us to take care of them. Like playing Whack-a-Mole with only one mole hole, it's pretty much the same motion over and over again and it doesn't require a team effort.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yes,

Read the Science Fiction Short Story "Not with a Bang". Yuo should then be able to think of one.

Assuming you think the human race is worth keeping.

So, rape is not an objective moral and may sometimes be justified?

 

[Elioenai26]

Show me the objective standard - without appealing to subjective ideas.

It seems to me you are saying there is only one way to know something is objectively true and that is to appeal to an objective idea. Is this what you are saying? If so, then I will answer your question. I just want to be clear before I do.

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are assuming since moral feelings exist in a metaphysically subjective way, there can still be no epistemological objectivity about them. This is what most people miss and it is due to an oversimplified view of what contexts and senses the terms "subjective" and "objective" can be used in.

"Subjective facts" is an oxymoron.

Not in philosophy quatona. A subjective fact is something that is true to the individual and is true in virtue of the preference of the subject. For example, if I were to say: "Ice cream tastes good to me." that proposition is a fact for me. In other words it is true for me.

"Preference" is ok, "taste" tends to be misleading.

Or both. The first is demonstrable, the basis for the latter has yet to be established.

The first is not only plausible but demonstrable.

So raping someone is a preference someone may have, like some who prefer to give people massages, or go jogging on a Sunday afternoon. The preferences differ from individual to individual. Some prefer raping women, others prefer to become engaged to them and marry them. Is this your view?

 

[Elioenai26]

Rapists prefer it. Rape victims don't. It IS up to a person's taste.

Why are rapists punished in every civilized society for rape then? If it is a person's taste?

Do we punish people for preferring to go to the movies over walks in the park?

 

[quatona]

It seems to me you are saying there is only one way to know something is objectively true and that is to appeal to an objective idea. Is this what you are saying?

No.

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are assuming since moral feelings exist in a metaphysically subjective way, there can still be no epistemological objectivity about them.

You are wrong.

Not in philosophy quatona. A subjective fact is something that is true to the individual and is true in virtue of the preference of the subject. For example, if I were to say: "Ice cream tastes good to me." that proposition is a fact for me. In other words it is true for me.

No. That ice-cream tastes good to me is an objective fact.

So raping someone is a preference someone may have, like some who prefer to give people massages, or go jogging on a Sunday afternoon. The preferences differ from individual to individual. Some prefer raping women, others prefer to become engaged to them and marry them. Is this your view?

No.
In countless posts I have put much effort in telling you what my view is. Yet, time and again you reword my statements, add different aspects, substract others from it and then either (in the better case) ask me if that´s what I am saying or mostly simply claim that this is what I am saying.

If I had a serious conversation partner who is actually interested in exchanging thoughts I would be willing to go to great length about the communalities and the differences between different sorts of preferences. But since you don´t listen anyway that would be a waste of time.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Perhaps each of us should stake a claim on one of them then. I mean, his arguments are so poor it's not like there needs to be more than one of us to take care of them.

Elioenai26, I apologize for the hijack, but I promise this will be the only one. I am trying to redirect this user to another thread.

Before beginning a new task, how about finishing one you have already started? I responded to your last post, and I have been eagerly waiting for your reply.

For your convenience, I have even provided a link to the post. I look forward to your next response.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718246-14/#post62303321

 

[Jade Margery]

Elioenai26, I apologize for the hijack, but I promise this will be the only one. I am trying to redirect this user to another thread.

Before beginning a new task, how about finishing one you have already started? I responded to your last post, and I have been eagerly waiting for your reply.

For your convenience, I have even provided a link to the post. I look forward to your next response.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718246-14/#post62303321

A single hi-jack post myself then. I am here primarily for my own amusement and distraction. You became boring. Your entire argument relied on a purposeful misunderstanding of a term commonly used in law, politics, and human rights discussions, and which when repeatedly presented with evidence of its actual definition you ignored it. I did my best, but it's really impossible to have a constructive conversation with someone that thick, and eventually I got bored with poking the same holes in the same arguments over and over again.

In truth, I feel pretty much the same way about most of Elio's arguments. It's clear that although I and many others have patiently explained things to him several times, he is incapable of understanding. I now mostly participate in these discussions for the 'bystander' effect--people will tend to read the first few pages of a thread, then perhaps skip to the end to add their own opinion. So I may respond to one of his threads at the very beginning, but if this was at, say, page 14 (as your last response to me in the linked thread was) then I'm not going to bother. I only post in long threads if there is someone who I would specifically like to debate or discuss something with, and you Cherry-boy, have simply become too dull for me to give a fart.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Is saying Rape is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Child molestation is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is saying Murder is always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

Is Not loving our neighbor as ourselves always wrong like saying √64 is always 8?

No. In each sentence the former claim is a moral claim and the latter is a mathematical statement. The difference between morality and mathematics should not require explanation.

Who says that the proposition "rape is wrong objectively" needs to be proven?

Anyone with half a brain. The moment you start saying that anything is wrong or right "objectively", you are implying the existence of objective morality. Such claims require evidence in any decent discussion or debate, otherwise it remains an empty claim.

We do not have to be taught that rape is wrong, we know its wrong.

Evidence? We have to teach children that hurting other people and stealing is wrong, what makes rape any different?

So which one is rape more plausibly?

The third option. Rape in itself is just an action - the moral implications of it are added on afterwards. Same is true for any other action.

Without any sign of an objective standard (which has yet to be provided, as you have made no attempt to do so), the idea that morality is objective is irrational, implausible and downright dangerous. Without any proven standard, someone could claim that rape is morally correct, and you would have nothing to stop that opinion with. Their "objective" morality would be equal to yours, and you yourself have said that objective morality is fact. Without proof to demonstrate that their objective morality is incorrect, in order to be a consistent objectivist, you would have to allow them to rape other people.

 

[Davian]

Elioenai26, I apologize for the hijack, but I promise this will be the only one. I am trying to redirect this user to another thread.

Before beginning a new task, how about finishing one you have already started? I responded to your last post, and I have been eagerly waiting for your reply.

For your convenience, I have even provided a link to the post. I look forward to your next response.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718246-14/#post62303321

A single hi-jack post myself then. I am here primarily for my own amusement and distraction. You became boring. Your entire argument relied on a purposeful misunderstanding of a term commonly used in law, politics, and human rights discussions, and which when repeatedly presented with evidence of its actual definition you ignored it. I did my best, but it's really impossible to have a constructive conversation with someone that thick, and eventually I got bored with poking the same holes in the same arguments over and over again.

In truth, I feel pretty much the same way about most of Elio's arguments. It's clear that although I and many others have patiently explained things to him several times, he is incapable of understanding. I now mostly participate in these discussions for the 'bystander' effect--people will tend to read the first few pages of a thread, then perhaps skip to the end to add their own opinion. So I may respond to one of his threads at the very beginning, but if this was at, say, page 14 (as your last response to me in the linked thread was) then I'm not going to bother. I only post in long threads if there is someone who I would specifically like to debate or discuss something with, and you Cherry-boy, have simply become too dull for me to give a fart.

I lol'd.

Well said.