"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
From his standpoint, his viewpoint is reasonable.

His viewpoint is inconsistent, unless he is willing to either a. justify why his God is better than my god Snoggo, or b. unless he is willing to accept my justification that I can kill him because Snoggo has commanded it.

It think it is unreasonable because 1) I do not believe in God, 2) I don't think that a persons sexual orientation should have anything to do with their rights.

Whereas your viewpoing is consistent. I don't make the judgment I do just because I agree with you and disagree with Phelps or just because you're a fine upstanding gentleman while Phelps is a dummyhead. I make the judgment I do because your position is justified (it is complete and consistent) while his is not.

[OzzyKP]

Ah yes, the good ol' Categorical Imperitive.

I have a question about that.

Kant says if you can make a statement and imagine that everyone believed it, if it was consistent then it would be moral, correct?

So if a neo-nazi in theory believed that killing people was wrong except Jews, could that be universalized? And if the definition of "people" changed depending on who you asked would this exercise need to use the neo-nazi's definition? How would this work?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Exactly.

Bastard.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Which is why I introduced the abortion issue. There is certainly some split on this issue still. In my opinion those who support abortion are not much different than those who support killing gays, or jews, or blacks or anyone else. You support abortion. So there is certainly a difference of opinion.

If you can justify why my saying "an embryo is not a self-aware thinking being because it is a cluster of cells that doesn't even have a brain, so it cannot be self-aware," and why Hitler's saying "Jews are not human because I say so," are equivalent statements, then maybe your opinion here would be reasonable. As it stands you have offered no justification for your opinion while I have offered a justification for mine.

So logically you must agree with me that things are relitive, or you must agree with me that abortion is wrong. Either way I win

So logically I agree with you that there can be differences of opinion, and logically I still disagree with you that all opinions equally valid. Also, since some justifications are better than others, and since "a reasonable justification" is better than "no justification," I see no reason why I should change my opinion on abortion simply because you disagree with me.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
I make the judgment I do because your position is justified (it is complete and consistent) while his is not.

So it all comes down to being able to convince another of your reasons. So doesn't this all come down to opinion then?

If I lock you into a room for 3 weeks and do nothing but throw statistics, and figures, and research, and reasoned arguments at you that abortion is murder, and that embryos are people, and you walk away believing me. Does that mean that abortion is a universal evil and that you just didn't realize it before?

Or does it mean that I changed your opinion after a long, intense period of convincing you?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There are NO absolute morals, none.

I agree.

Morals are different in different cultures and to different people.

Sure thing.

Every moral precept is relative.

Nope. There is an objective standard by which we can judge our morality and other people's morality.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I bet a neo-Nazi would consider him to be reasonable and you not. Why are you right and not the neo-Nazi? What makes you better?

What's his justification for why Jews are subhuman? If it isn't a good justification (i.e. if his justification is "Because I said so") then he's wrong to persecute Jews.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think you muddle things by appealing to Habermas, when in fact, you are appealing to Kant's Catagorical Imperative.

How do you figure? I appeal to the presuppositions inherent in communication to show why morality is objective, not to some kind of Kantian "rationality proves that there is an absolute morality" argument. Besides, I never argued in favor of Kant's absolute morality, only Habermas's objective morality.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger

Quote:

There are NO absolute morals, none.

I agree.

Quote:

Every moral precept is relative.

Nope. There is an objective standard by which we can judge our morality and other people's morality.

ah-ha! Loin is being inconsistent! That means he is wrong!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
ah-ha! Loin is being inconsistent! That means he is wrong!

If you're going to be an ass then I'll ignore you. If you're going to be facetious then use an emoticon.

Absolute: Perfect in quality or nature; complete.

Objective: Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nope. There is an objective standard by which we can judge our morality and other people's morality.

First you say there are no absolute morals and then you say there are no relative morals... someone is being inconsistent.

That objective standard, btw... is a made up standard. I don't believe your communication/reciprocation argument one bit.

What's his justification for why Jews are subhuman? If it isn't a good justification (i.e. if his justification is "Because I said so") then he's wrong to persecute Jews.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion and ethnic differences, coupled with technology show that the Teutonic race is the most advanced race.

Btw, what is a good justification and a bad? Isn't that relative to what you say? There is no objective standard you can refer to .

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
What's his justification for why Jews are subhuman? If it isn't a good justification (i.e. if his justification is "Because I said so") then he's wrong to persecute Jews.

I honestly don't know all their reasons, and I don't feel like getting into a long debate arguing in favor of Jews being subhumans. But there were many reasons, Hitler never just got up in front of the country and said "well its Tuesday, and I figure Jews are subhuman, so lets kill them all." No, the Nazis had PROOF, scientific, moral, historical, you name it, that Jews were subhuman. They spread this proof out to the country and much of the country reasonably concluded that Jews were subhuman.

I disagree. But as things are relitive, thats just my opinion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
What is morality, but a set of assumptions upon which one's worldview is built? How can a set of assumptions be universally true?

Objective doesn't mean universal or absolute. It means that there's a way to judge whether somebody's morality is better or worse than somebody else's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by loinburger
If you're going to be an ass then I'll ignore you. If you're going to be facetious then use an emoticon.

Absolute: Perfect in quality or nature; complete.

Objective: Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

What he is saying is that you are making no sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by loinburger
Objective doesn't mean universal or absolute. It means that there's a way to judge whether somebody's morality is better or worse than somebody else's.

And what is that way? You still haven't shown me it. You've just said some nonsence about communication and reciprocity that doesn't impress me one iota.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Kant says if you can make a statement and imagine that everyone believed it, if it was consistent then it would be moral, correct?

Yup.

So if a neo-nazi in theory believed that killing people was wrong except Jews, could that be universalized? And if the definition of "people" changed depending on who you asked would this exercise need to use the neo-nazi's definition? How would this work?

That's why Habermas is an improvement upon Kant. Kant believes that we can come up with maxims in our own head, while Habermas says that this fails to take individual idiosyncrasies into account and that we must actually engage in moral argumentation in order to determine whose maxims are better. Using Habermas you wouldn't be able to arbitrary and/or idiosyncratically redefine your definitions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by loinburger
Objective: Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Morals and rights can never pass this test then, since they only exist in our minds.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So it all comes down to being able to convince another of your reasons. So doesn't this all come down to opinion then?

It comes down to opinion, and the fact that not all opinions are equal. Some justifications are more reasonable than others.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
First you say there are no absolute morals and then you say there are no relative morals... someone is being inconsistent.

Absolute and objective aren't the same thing.

That objective standard, btw... is a made up standard. I don't believe your communication/reciprocation argument one bit.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it would sure help me out if you could offer some justification for it. Otherwise it just sounds like hot air.

Btw, what is a good justification and a bad? Isn't that relative to what you say? There is no objective standard you can refer to .

An inconsistent and/or irrational justification is bad. An arbitrary justification is insufficient. For example, saying "I don't believe your argument" counts as an opinion, but it certainly doesn't count as a good justification for it.

[OzzyKP]

Well the Libertarian Party has just paid me 50 bucks to stuff 19 envelopes and argue against Natural Rights for a few hours. So I think its time I take off before I suck up too much money from the Party unnecessarily.

I may check in on this argument when I get home from work.

[Ramo]

Objective doesn't mean universal or absolute. It means that there's a way to judge whether somebody's morality is better or worse than somebody else's.

But you're saying that the method of judging morality is universal or absolute. What's the distinction?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by loinburger
It comes down to opinion, and the fact that not all opinions are equal. Some justifications are more reasonable than others.

Resonable to you. If a Nazi has scientific, historical, written evidence of the sub-humanity of Jews.... If a Southern plantation owner points to the horrible conditions in Africa and says black are sub-human. Why is there justification less reasonable thant that person who claims equality?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What he is saying is that you are making no sense.

Then he should have said that I'm making no sense, and he should have pointed out where in my argument I'm not making sense.

Saying "You're not making sense because you're being inconsistent, look, here you say that there are no absolute morals and here you say that there are objective morals" is a pretty rotten justification, seeing as how "objective" and "absolute" are not the same ****ing word.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger


Then he should have said that I'm making no sense, and he should have pointed out where in my argument I'm not making sense.

Saying "You're not making sense because you're being inconsistent, look, here you say that there are no absolute morals and here you say that there are objective morals" is a pretty rotten justification, seeing as how "objective" and "absolute" are not the same ****ing word.

Well I and many others it seems did not understand the distinction between absolute and objective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An inconsistent and/or irrational justification is bad.

The slave argument. Africa is a shithole... the civilizations suck. Therefore Africans are inferior. Someone arguing with him says, I don't believe that justification.

So is the slave owner the moral one?

seeing as how "objective" and "absolute" are not the same ****ing word.

There is no such thing as objective morality. That is basically saying the same thing as relative morality.

There is only absolute or relative morality.. there can't be anything else.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Morals and rights can never pass this test then, since they only exist in our minds.

Not only that, but saying "Such and such is wicked" is an emotive response. We say that something is wicked because it invokes an emotion in us, and without that emotion the term would be unnecessary. Morals have a "reality" in the words we use to denote them, but I agree, there is no way that morality itself could exist without emotions.

However, our justifications could conceivably pass the second part of this test.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
But you're saying that the method of judging morality is universal or absolute. What's the distinction?

The method wouldn't exist without communication, which is not universal or absolute. Only humans (as far as we know) communicate at the level necessary for objective morality to exist. If you don't have a word for "moral" then you don't have objective morality.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Resonable to you. If a Nazi has scientific, historical, written evidence of the sub-humanity of Jews.... If a Southern plantation owner points to the horrible conditions in Africa and says black are sub-human. Why is there justification less reasonable thant that person who claims equality?

Using the Southern plantation owner, when somebody else points to a Frederick Douglas and says "see, blacks have, at the very least, the potential for having the same level of intellectual and social development as whites," then the plantation owner would have to come up with a pretty damn good counterargument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, our justifications could conceivably pass the second part of this test.

WHY do justifications matter at all?

Someone slaughters their enemies, ripping them to shreads, saying they were plotting to overthrow the government. Someone says that is wrong.. just because it is.

Does that mean the slaughter is more moral because he has justification?

I don't think so.

The method wouldn't exist without communication, which is not universal or absolute. Only humans (as far as we know) communicate at the level necessary for objective morality to exist. If you don't have a word for "moral" then you don't have objective morality.

As was stated by Ozzy... you have to explain this objective morality more in depth. Because saying we communication, and therefore require justification in our arguments mean that justification is required for morality isn't a good system at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by loinburger
Using the Southern plantation owner, when somebody else points to a Frederick Douglas and says "see, blacks have, at the very least, the potential for having the same level of intellectual and social development as whites," then the plantation owner would have to come up with a pretty damn good counterargument.

*points to Africa*

Look at the states (or lack of them) that exist. That proves that blacks can't run governments efficiently if put in charge, and thus are sub-human.

That is a pretty damn good counterargument, isn't it?

And what about before Douglass... say in the 1750s... then what is your argument?