The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[partinobodycular]

You don’t grasp that if morality can be anything then morality is nothing.

Nonsense.

Morality is the glue that makes society possible. It's not tangible. You can't hold it or touch it, but it's still an extremely powerful thing. Without it we wouldn't be here now, having a contentious yet cordial conversation. And it doesn't matter diddly whether it's objective or not. That's not where its power comes from. It comes from the fact that people believe that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad. And that belief changes the very way we live. Faith and belief are powerful things, they shape the very fabric of our lives, and of our society. Only something real can do that. Even if it's subjective, morality's existence isn't in question, only its nuances are.

Each of us believes that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad, and so long as that belief exists, anywhere, in anybody, then morality exists.

 

[o_mlly]

Even if it's subjective, morality's existence isn't in question, only its nuances are.

? If morality was subjective then there would be no disagreements on what is moral. If you peruse the topics under discussion in this forum, you'll see there is quite a bit of disagreement, even among atheists as to the existence of a right to life -- hardly a nuance.

However, you are entitled to your opinion. Go in peace.

 

[Moral Orel]

If morality was subjective then there would be not disagreements on what is moral

Why not? Just because no one is more right than anyone else doesn't mean I don't want other people to like (and therefore promote) the same things I do.

 

[o_mlly]

Why not? Just because no one is more right than anyone else doesn't mean I don't want other people to like (and therefore promote) the same things I do.

Moral debate assumes one position is true and the other is false, iff morality is objective.

Right and wrong are binary, not continuous. Either slavery is moral or it is immoral.

Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true. As such, moral subjectivism violates the principle of contradiction, ie, a claim cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time. In this thread, a poster claimed that the issue of slavery can be both moral and immoral, depending on one's viewpoint.

 

[Newwave]

Nonsense.

Morality is the glue that makes society possible. It's not tangible. You can't hold it or touch it, but it's still an extremely powerful thing. Without it we wouldn't be here now, having a contentious yet cordial conversation. And it doesn't matter diddly whether it's objective or not. That's not where its power comes from. It comes from the fact that people believe that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad. And that belief changes the very way we live. Faith and belief are powerful things, they shape the very fabric of our lives, and of our society. Only something real can do that. Even if it's subjective, morality's existence isn't in question, only its nuances are.

Each of us believes that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad, and so long as that belief exists, anywhere, in anybody, then morality exists.

I completely disagree. Morality is a social construct

 

[RDKirk]

partinobodycular said: ↑
Nonsense.

Morality is the glue that makes society possible. It's not tangible. You can't hold it or touch it, but it's still an extremely powerful thing. Without it we wouldn't be here now, having a contentious yet cordial conversation. And it doesn't matter diddly whether it's objective or not. That's not where its power comes from. It comes from the fact that people believe that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad. And that belief changes the very way we live. Faith and belief are powerful things, they shape the very fabric of our lives, and of our society. Only something real can do that. Even if it's subjective, morality's existence isn't in question, only its nuances are.

Each of us believes that there are things that are good, and there are things that are bad, and so long as that belief exists, anywhere, in anybody, then morality exists.

I completely disagree. Morality is a social construct

You don't disagree, or at least you don't seem to understand what you disagree with. That's what @partinobodycular said.

Being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Newwave]

You don't disagree, or at least you don't seem to understand what you disagree with. That's what @partinobodycular said.

Being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think you are the one who does not understand sir.

 

[Moral Orel]

Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true.

Not really. Moral subjectivism states that moral positions are neither true or false. It describes how people form morality, it doesn't prescribe morals.

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay I'm back, so let me clarify. Each and every one of us has a concept of good and bad, and that's morality. That's it, that's all morality is, a deep-seated sense of what's right and what's wrong. Taken individually your sense of morality is just as valid as my sense of morality, and therefore at a fundamental level it's just your opinion against mine.

However, we neither form nor hold our sense of morality in a vacuum. We develop it in concert with those around us, so it's very much a social construct. But developed in concert with, doesn't always mean developed in agreement with. Hence when it comes to things such as the trolley problem, morality's subjectivity inevitably reveals itself.

Morals are a reflection of their time and place. And we would do well to remember that, when using them to judge others.

Either slavery is moral or it is immoral.

We in our ignorance and arrogance tend to judge others much more harshly than we judge ourselves. And yet we, in some sense, have simply replaced one form of slavery with another, and sanctimoniously considered ourselves moral. Yet who controls whom, when the top 1% of our society owns more than the bottom 90% combined. You may argue that there's no comparison to the slavery of the past, but I didn't know that you thought morality was to be judged on a curve. If you are correct, and morality is objective, then judging the slavery of the past simply reveals the hypocrisy of the present. Things must always be judged within the context in which they occur.

 

[RDKirk]

We in our ignorance and arrogance tend to judge others much more harshly than we judge ourselves. And yet we, in some sense, have simply replaced one form of slavery with another, and sanctimoniously considered ourselves moral. Yet who controls whom, when the top 1% of our society owns more than the bottom 90% combined. You may argue that there's no comparison to the slavery of the past, but I didn't know that you thought morality was to be judged on a curve. If you are correct, and morality is objective, then judging the slavery of the past simply reveals the hypocrisy of the present. Things must always be judged within the context in which they occur.

Although...Christians even in the past judged slavery a sin.

 

[partinobodycular]

Although...Christians even in the past judged slavery a sin.

We always tend to look to those things which we have done well, and naively forget the things we haven't. Christianity certainly has its share of moral shortcomings, but I wouldn't presume to judge it for them. I wasn't there, and they weren't my choices to make. Perhaps we would all do well to remember that when judging others.

 

[Bradskii]

I look forward to participating in discussions on the “Christian Only” forums in future.

I think my wife left the back door open. There was a gentle breeze that just wafted by. Or maybe that was a collective sigh of relief. Who knows.

But I'm sure we all look forward to seeing everyone agree with you in the Christian section. There surely cannot be any disagreement that anyone will have regarding your moral positions. Might be a bit boring, but I'll call over to watch now and then.

 

[RDKirk]

We always tend to look to those things which we have done well, and naively forget the things we haven't. Christianity certainly has its share of moral shortcomings, but I wouldn't presume to judge it for them. I wasn't there, and they weren't my choices to make. Perhaps we would all do well to remember that when judging others.

My point was that the people of the past that you're declining to judge harshly because you weren't there...were judged harshly at the time by the people who were there. They were wrong even by the standards of their own time.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morals are a reflection of their time and place. And we would do well to remember that, when using them to judge others.

You sound more like a relativist than a subjectivist.

 

[o_mlly]

Not really. Moral subjectivism states that moral positions are neither true or false. It describes how people form morality, it doesn't prescribe morals.

The standard definitions of moral subjectivism do not describe it as just "in-process" (how people form morality) but as the process and its decision-making conclusions. Since these moral conclusions derive from that particular person's feelings or attitudes, he admits that others may have contradictory conclusions based on their feelings that are as valid as his own. Thus, slavery is both moral and immoral in the subjectivist world. The method is irrational, that is, it is based on feelings, not reason. One cannot argue against how another feels about morality.

 

[o_mlly]

I think my wife left the back door open. There was a gentle breeze that just wafted by. Or maybe that was a collective sigh of relief. Who knows.

Neither. She just saw that your weekly delivery of straw had arrived.

But I'm sure we all look forward to seeing everyone agree with you in the Christian section. There surely cannot be any disagreement that anyone will have regarding your moral positions. Might be a bit boring, but I'll call over to watch now and then.

Be sure and let us know which moniker you use in the Christian forums.

 

[Bradskii]

Be sure and let us know which moniker you use in the Christian forums.

I was going to say that you'd recognise me by my incorrigible attitude and razor sharp wit. But alas, it's read only for us wanderers in the moral wilderness.

You'll be safe there.

 

[o_mlly]

We in our ignorance and arrogance tend to judge others much more harshly than we judge ourselves. And yet we, in some sense, have simply replaced one form of slavery with another, and sanctimoniously considered ourselves moral. Yet who controls whom, when the top 1% of our society owns more than the bottom 90% combined. You may argue that there's no comparison to the slavery of the past, but I didn't know that you thought morality was to be judged on a curve. If you are correct, and morality is objective, then judging the slavery of the past simply reveals the hypocrisy of the present. Things must always be judged within the context in which they occur.

While I am not sympathetic to modernity's effort to continue to invent ways for a minority to oppress the majority, the present systems in western civilizations are not based on forced human bondage. Slavery, that is the condition of one person owning and having rights over the other as property, continues today, eg., sex-trafficking. The sex-traffickers as subjectivists feel they have a moral right to enslave. Others feel the do not. To the subjectivist, both viewpoints are valid. To the rationalist, only one viewpoint can be true as they are contradictory viewpoints.

 

[o_mlly]

You'll be safe there.

Yes, Rudyard and I prefer the company of honest men. No "knaves" allowed.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.

 

[partinobodycular]

While I am not sympathetic to modernity's effort to continue to invent ways for a minority to oppress the majority, the present systems in western civilizations are not based on forced human bondage.

Yet the question remains, is our modern system, of the minority asserting control over the majority, moral, or isn't it?

If morality is objective, then you can't equivocate, it either is or it isn't.