Moral Judgments

If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?

psssst... he's arguing against state sanctioned morality.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I know that! I am asking him to state the source of morality as he sees and/or believes.

Hi Holmes, I do not see there is any argument at all, Tal is comparing apples and oranges.IMO. morality entails one make a stance on right or wrong. If there is no such thing as a objective morality (which I personally do not believe there is.) Then it is simply based on what the particular society deems is right or wrong. A position must be taken to even make a proposition based on morality. Once one does state a premise such as: "Homosexuality is no more morally wrong than pedophillia." Then Tal is basing this permise on the fact that there is no such thing as morality and therefore no such thing as right or wrong. I know this is not his position, I believe he is simply using a extreme /inflamable subject to make his point. But it is empty IMO because he is arguing on the bases that objective morality does not exist therefore anything goes. And we all know logically that makes sense, but realistically is idiotic. Just my opinion. Go ahead and rip me apart now.

But I've disagreed with that. The behavior isn't wrong because it doesn't cause harm. And I've already stipulated that I don't believe all relationships like this would be harmful.But I guarantee that the rape of a young girl in that culture would be just as harmful to her as it would be to a young girl in ours.I still don't see the cultural basis for harm in your argument.

quote:

---

If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?

---

Its monopoly on violence. But that is not in itself enough in that this capacity is usually limited and partial (in historical contexts), so some accomodation of local sentiment is usually required. That is the state seeks to procure legitimacy through consent, and in so doing establishes a code of conduct which is the basis of its "moral" judgements.I find it interesting that the Code of Hammurabi, reportedly the first legal code, is now thought not to have been a code at all but a list of precedents, advertising as it were prior judgements exercised by the court. The only operational moral principle is reciprocity, and it is from this that we get the lex talionis of "an eye for an eye" etc. So in this context its noit as if a great law-giver unilaterally establishes a legal and judicial system, but rather that those who have the de facto military power to pass and impose judgement seek the legitimacy of full disclosure and adherence to precedent.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 11:00 AM

holmes blathers:

quote:

---

I am not saying that he cannot be challenged on why he says A is wrong. I think I have suggested opening a new thread.

---

Since when is it necessary to start a new thread in order to challenge a goddamned assertion? Will you please quote the relevant forum guideline?

quote:

---

I am just saying that actually challenging him on that moral declaration is not relevant to this thread...

---

The hell it isn't. He made an assertion in this thread. I challenged his assertion in this thread. Can you please show me where in the forum guidelines it says that a challenged assertion does not have to be backed up simply because holmes says so?If I am off-topic for challenging his assertion, then wouldn't his assertion also be off-topic? In case you haven't been paying attention, I challenged his assertion after he made it (which is usually the way it works). So if you really think this is off-topic then it would seem that your issue is with Tal, not me.

quote:

---

I just said it was relatively recent, at EvC, and was NOT submitted by me.

---

And you cited it in this thread. So here I am going off-topic again (according to you) because I INSIST: show me the damned study and tell me precisely which harmful effects you see that it shows which go beyond socio-cultural concerns! It's not up to me to go find it when you are the one citing it.

quote:

---

Indeed Rrhain came in to make the defense which you are shooting down... that it must be seen in context of the socio-cultural environment.

---

I haven't had a chance to shoot anything down because neither you nor Tal will trouble yourselves to back up your assertions!I certainly don't want to speak for Rrhain - especially since I haven't seen what you're talking about - but I suspect that he meant that any study purporting to show harmful effects of homosexuality between consenting parties must be viewed in the light of its socio-cultural environment. When a child is raped by an adult there is clearly a victim, and the harmful effects go beyond socio-cultural concerns.

quote:

---

See, this is your problem. You are part of the modern witchhunt/commiekilling/fagbashing. At every turn you see a defense of something you hate, including words that I have not only not said, but within this thread have actually made a point of countering.

---

No, I see an assertion about consenting homosexual activity being compared morally to child rape. I took offense. Apparently the fact that I would dare to take offense at such a bigoted comparison is evidence to you that I'm hypersensitive. I've now reached the point where I really don't give a damn what you think.All of this is moot anyway, as Quetzal seemed to say, since Tal is obviously not going to back up his assertion.

quote:

---

All I did was point out that there is a socio-cultural component to harm, and this includes (to children that were not overtly raped or coerced) sex with minors.

---

So far, the comparison has been to first a seven-year-old then a four-year-old. Is there some scenario under which you would view sex between an adult and a seven-year-old or four-year-old as not overtly rape or coercion?Most everything you've said would make perfect sense if the comparison between consenting homosexual activity had been made to consenting sexual activity between an adult and an older teen, but it makes no sense when the activity is between an adult and a child of four or seven.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I KNOW you disagree with that. The behavior isn't wrong because it does no harm in that cultural context - and in fact is considered normative. However, remember waaay back when the kissing example came up? All it was was comparing two boys kissing with an older (male) kissing a young child. Everybody IMMEDIATELY stated that A was morally okay but that B was morally wrong - and indeed condemned it as harmful. The entire point of my example was to show that this position was untenable. There is no inherent harm in the act itself taken out of context. Considering that this is the first time rape has been mentioned, I'm not sure what this has to do with my example - or with refuting my statement. I have no way of knowing whether rape is condoned, but from what I remember of the exhibit, it's likely a bad thing. However, the tribe also practices a number of rituals that we consider abhorrent in our society, such as female circumcision, so the status and position of women in that society is questionable in the first place from our standpoint. Do you agree or disagree that, outside of the use of force or coercion, sexual contact between adult males and pre-pubescent females is (at least potentially) psychologically harmful in our society?

Quetzal remarks:

quote:

---

Everybody IMMEDIATELY stated that A was morally okay but that B was morally wrong - and indeed condemned it as harmful.

---

Indeed I was one of "everybody", but I think I took care to say that I was interpreting the kiss as romantic and intended to lead to sexual activity. I should have also stated that I inferred the two boys to have each been of about the same age.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Outside of coercion, why would it be? No, I don't agree.

I pretty much gathered that the folks who objected interpreted the kiss sexually, although that wasn't explicitly stated in the example given. The two boys being roughly the same age was also not explicitly stated in the example, although I admit the use of "boys" makes this a reasonable assumption. Which, of course, is why holmes was trying to avoid getting bogged down in specifics, I guess.

All right, let's drop this, eh? We're going to be talking permanently in circles if we keep this up. You disagree with my example, which was intended to cast doubt on the moral subjectivism being bandied about. Fine, I can live with that. OTOH, you haven't shown why this example doesn't apply - you just dismissed it. Fine, I can live with that, too. This is NOT a topic I'm all that interested in. I now regret bringing in what I thought would be an interesting example of a contrasting culture where our mores don't apply.

Your argument makes no sense to me. I agree that he did not describe what the source of his moral rules were to arrive at the equality, but we already know where he is getting his moral rules... his interpretation of what the Bible commands. He has said he is an absolutist and equating homosexuality with pedophilia can very well be consistent with that position.He may believe (may be arguing) that without absolute moral rules those must be seen as equal, but then he is wrong. In a subjective environment, while they both objectively be neutral moral entities there would be plenty of subjective moral vantage points which view them as seperate moral actions (some good and some bad).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

When it isn't pertinent to the thread. If I said in a thread on radiometric dating that it was as wrong as the homosexuals that use them, while it might be valid to question me about why homosexuality is wrong, it would drag that specific thread off topic.Why he thinks homosexuality is wrong is pretty well irrelevant to this thread, no?Even if I agree that it would be interesting, why does it have to be answered here?He certainly has no reason to have to answer it within this thread. But I am surprised you even need to ask, as you already know why he thinks homosexuality is wrong. Do you really need to hear him say he thinks the Bible says so before you'll believe that's why he thinks it's wrong? No, using your logic I would have an issue with schraf, she started it all by asking him.In any case this is all getting dragged way off the real topic. Remember I did not start by criticizing you for going off topic in asking him to explain his assertion. My reply to you was that your argument was logically incorrect. You are really getting annoying. I'll find it tomorrow and create a link to the thread just for you (if it interests you so much why don't you go look?). You can read the thread and respond to anything you dislike there and not here.And it appears from the above that you now want things not to include socio concerns? Does that mean you have changed your position? I certainly have. I just haven't bothered to continue turning this thread into the debate you want, rather than the one that it is supposed to be (and I am interested in). That's exactly what he meant, and similarly any harm from sex that a child has had (with or without an adult) must be viewed in the light of its socio-cultural environment. Obviously when an adult or child is raped there is a victim and harms which are not just socio-cultural. I believe I have now stated this three times in this thread. No, it is the fact that you cannot understand I was not taking a moral stand on the issue and only making a point in logic and seem desperate to argue the morality of A and B, dragging back in again and again, which makes me think you are hypersensitive.Oh yes, and the fact that you keep shoving words in my mouth in order to provoke me into that moral debate. See what I am talking about? Why are you so concerned with this subject that you must know what I think about it, especially within a thread that I have stated quite clearly I am only interested in discussing something else?I have still taken no moral position in this thread on any action. If you see one, it is projection. I don't want to debate my moral position here, only the problem of how a subjectivist can criticize other moral systems.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Fair enough. When it gets into these thorny subjects of morality and subjectivity, I really have a hard time getting my point across.It was an interesting example, though, and I thank you for presenting it.